Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon, and Baptism (Protestant Take)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2024
- Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures are a fascinating window into early Christianity. Here I offer a Protestant response to his views on the canon and baptism, in light of Protestant versus Roman Catholic theological differences.
Check out Cyril lectures here: www.newadvent....
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com...
We are so.glad that we.have an.evangelical who is deep in church history and yet upholds his evangelical orthodoxy.
Oh my goodness these are the same thoughts I am currently having as a Protestant studying regeneration by itself and then baptism by itself and how the two work together and learning the church fathers discussions on the topics along with scripture. Very helpful to see im not some rogue blasphemous weirdo having these thoughts that it seems like a process and what do we do with this seemingly in between state on repentance from sins and regeneration.
Same here. Absolutely.
What a wonderful student of the scriptures and the Lord
Your nuanced and scholarly yet pastoral approach to Church history continues to kindle my now more than 10 year journey in study the history of the Church. Still making my long way through Schaff but also other scholarly texts like Beckwith's and Kruger's works on Canon, Gonzalez' church history, and most recently a real new favorite "The Pope and the Professor" on the life of Johann Ignaz von Dollinger and his struggle against Pius IX over Papal Infallibility at Vatican I. I would really love to hear your thoughts on the Dollinger Affair (and if I can bribe you to do it by joining your Patreon, I just might throw a tip your way). Thanks for all your work, Dr. O!
So glad it is of use! Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Amazing video. I would love to continue seeing you cover the church fathers and your perspective on their understandings of scripture!
Thank you Pastor Ortlund for this very thoughtful reflection on your reading of St Cyril. You provided me with much to ponder, particularly re baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of persons.
So glad it was useful!
Huge thank you for this video and sharing your thoughts, Dr. Ortlund! Cyril was the first of the church fathers I dived into over 10 years ago to take seriously the challenge of Henry Newman that to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.
I also found Cyril to be full of warmth and one of the most pastoral voices I have come across outside of the Holy Scriptures.
Lastly, your observations on Cyril's take on the Canon and Baptism are right in line with what I found so striking, both shocking and refreshing, given what I was expecting, about him.
I really appreciate the tone, generosity, approach, and goal of your channel. Wish I had found you 10 years ago, but nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts. Please keep up the great and much needed work!
Cyril is also a church father that "thinks" in a sola scriptura way, as we can see in his work Catechetical Lectures of Cyril, lecture four, section 17. The following quote do not prove Sola Scriptura, but destroys the notion that was reformers that "invented" it in ~ 1500
“In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, *not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures* . Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, *unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce* . The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, *but from the Holy Scriptures* .” (emphasis mine)
I like very much your explanation of regeneration. It’s more in line with Scripture than any other explanation. Jesus Himself explains it the same way when He speaks of being “born again”. Regeneration is certainly necessary if one is to be saved simply because one could never enter Heaven without undergoing it. Regeneration is by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, and by the Holy Spirit.
I am SO grateful for your work on this. I have been wrestling with the very same question, and you're the only one so far that is giving my struggle a voice in a gracious and thorough manner.
I constantly pray that Christ would help me to understand the truth in matters of baptism and the Eucharist, especially.
After digging deep into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and currently Lutheranism, God seems to be answering my long awaited prayers through you.
I am really looking forward to your debate with Jordan B. Cooper that's coming up. I've watched a lot of his videos.
Hope you and your family enjoy a much earned vacation. Thank you for being a willing vessel of His grace and truth!
God bless!
Thank you so much! So glad my thoughts can be of use!
Hey Mish… me too! To the last detail.
Is it just me, or are there a lot of us in the same situation right now? :)
Read the Lutheran reformers. The word uses physical means of grace to convey itself to people. The word can be heard, when preached, the word can wash in baptism, and can be partaken in communion.
Cyril describes the Lutheran view beautifully. We are justified by faith and baptism saves, unites with Christ, etc.
The Lutheran fathers have always taught, Baptism confirms the grace of God upon adults who have already come to faith, and strengthens them in their faith, even as the Lord’s Supper does. For Lutherans adult regeneration is by the word but the saving benefits are confirmed sealed and strengthened at the piont of baptism . Thus baptism remains a miraculous event even in adults. In Lutheran terms regeneration can be more than one event so a baptised adult could be spoken of being regenerated both by the word and the sacrament
Great video! This makes me want to read some Cyril!
Regarding baptism birth and pregnancy might be helpful picture. Before a child is born, he has been sired and spends time in the womb. Nevertheless, for the child to have a proper human life he has to be born. Being sired is not enough. Being sired can be likened to a person who hears the gospel and wants to be baptized. And so, one who affirms that the baptism is truly a new birth does not have to rule out the Spirit working before baptism and drawing the person to baptism. New life has begun even if the birth has not yet taken place. In some cases, as we Lutherans would argue, these two events can be very close to each other or even simultaneous as in the case baptizing of babies. Thanks again for the thought stimulating video!
Great channel. The East maintains the early (ante-Nicene / post apostolic) church balance. Augustine changed.... a lot. When one "sees" this (not gets indoctrinated to believe this), a lot makes a lot of sense : )
One thing the East is unanimous about, is Augustine's novelties and Platonic, Neo Platonic overload and Manachein "influence".
Peace in Christ to all X
Great thoughts! Really enjoyed.
What surprised me about Cyril was his belief in cleansing of the soul being born again and a cleansing of the flesh by baptism.
I look forward to seeing what Dr. Cooper has to say about this experiential component.
Honestly, the passages regarding faith are consistent with the Catholic Church's teaching. He just isn't using scholastic language or some nuances developed by the scholastic theologians (even before Aquinas). I also think you may be hung up (and possibly confused) by what is meant by "cause" in scholastic terminology. But to cut to the chase (and somewhat oversimplify but hey this is a UA-cam comment), the quote from around the 19:45 mark speaks of "have need also of disposition". That squares very well with the Catholic teaching that the grace objectively "given" by the Sacraments (including baptism) is not irresistible. It can be resisted if one poses an obstacle - if one does not have the "proper disposition" (there's Cyril's word!). So the objective "giving" (think of the "giving" as "cause") of Grace truly gives it - but it is possible for it not to be "received". It is hard to imagine that in the normal situation of Adult Baptism that the Baptized would pose an obstacle of non-faith but I suppose anything is possible. If it is not resisted, the Baptism will bear fruit. We say that it does objectively "give/cause" the grace of regeneration. But if resisted, then that Grace objectively given will not be received, will not be fruitful. Also, we do believe that as the Church pondered these mysteries , that the Church's understanding of the Sacraments deepened and more precise distinctions developed. I love Cyril as much as you do - powerful, insightful, pastoral and poetic. But I do think as the Church continued to reflect, the doctrine developed in terms of more precise articulation (and not always as poetic). This also made sense of the language about being "sealed" Cyril also alludes to. But that's a whole nother essay - which I unfortunately rambled on about in comments on your prior video on baptism.
On your question on the born again person who seems regenerative prior to Baptism. I know you said you weren't talking about baptism of desire, but I do think it applies. I think they are regenerate through baptism of desire (not just "saved"). Do they get something else upon baptism - yes they get its "seal" (indelible mark which implants at least an ongoing disposition towards continuing faith) and I suppose they also are getting the "fullness" of the Grace imparted by the Sacrament. My theology teacher(Dr. Lawrence Feingold) said this all much better than I can. if you want to slowly (over a year or so like me, or you could binge) watch his lecture series on the Sacramental Economy- they can be found on UA-cam. He then published the content in a book, "Touched by Christ", if you would rather read a tome.
Enjoy your videos and your entire approach. God bless. You're doing great work for the Body of Christ
Really good video on a very good Channel. Definitely recommend this to all my protestant buddies. You have a new subscriber all the way from South Africa. Stay safe.
thanks, glad to be connected to you!
I might be simple but for me this statement by Paul settles the issue:
Galatians 3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Forgetting the negative aspect of the question, the positive aspect is that the Galatians received the Spirit (were born again, regenerated, translated) upon believing what they heard. It seems to me that this the norm that Paul was putting forth.
Doesn't that rather assume that he is talking about initial salvation/justification and not Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
@@Phill0old not if you keep it within the context of Galatians. The entire letter was written to instruct them on what actually saves.
@@KB-gd6fc He was talking about what a saved experience of life is. Not just the entry into it but the process of it. We enter in and then we travel on.
@@Phill0old I don’t see that at all. It’s a letter of rebuke because they were turning away from the true Gospel and following false teachers.
@@KB-gd6fc There is a rebuke and correction in Galatians. It tells us how a person is saved and how they must continue. Basically "You started this way how do you imagine you should go on?". Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage for the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, kindness, temperance, faith against such there is no law.
I personally think This quote by Cyril of Jerusalem is the best argument for your view Gavin. It’s one I personally lean towards
4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, Unless a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and almsdeeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.
Thanks for posting this! I thought about citing this and talking about it, and it was in my mind when I talked about baptism and faith fitting like hand in glove. I’d be curious to know more of your thoughts about what makes it stand out to you.
@@TruthUnites well for me it directly deals with the Gentiles fully having the spirit prior to baptism which shows me they would have been saved through faith and profession.
Cyril affirms that in his finals lines. What’s interesting his in this view the water is more of a means of grace , especially with the flesh. Which makes sense in that many traditions have this idea of theosis , sanctification/ Glorification, view of the order of salvation.
I believe this view gives an alternative view of baptismal regeneration while not keeping safe that it faith that saves soul and water that gives grace.
I really like how he qualifies what happens to a non believers ( no spirit) who gets water baptized and likewise a believer who refuses to( I use that language because historically I think there is a difference in a once doesn’t get the chance to be baptized vs one who refuses … the latter seems almost an unthinkable idea in the early church ).
I believe that once professed believer is water baptized.. they are mysteriously linked in their water baptism to their “ born again” moment of confession through the Holy Spirit. And since water baptism is the visible entry into the church and also a seal …. We get baptismal regeneration, ie the the sign and seal and grace of water …along with the profession/ confession of faith in Christ … linked with the power of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve told this to my RC and EOC brothers and the issue they have is what about the time difference between confession and baptism … my reply respectfully is that God is not beholden to our view of time and space. As Paul says we a baptized with Christ in his death / burial / resurrection when we are baptized. Thus linear time is not a true factor…. Again mystery.
But I would love your thoughts on it. I agree that water baptism doesn’t save but also not a mere memorial symbolic gesture either.
Wow, absolutely love this quote!
@@bjw8806 Your second to last paragraph about God not being beholden to time really struck out to me. I never really thought about it in this context, but you're absolutely correct. I think, in the view of God, that the combination of profession of faith and water baptism is a singular moment of baptism (both of the spirit and water) even if in our temporal dimension it may be separated by time and space.
@@wesmorgan7729 once I understood the time meaning …everything else was easy to digest
Great video!
1) On the Canon
I currently attend an Anglican church with an interest in Orthodoxy. Yeah I think polemics make people over state cases. Even in Eastern thought, there is a tiered nature of the Scriptures where there are the Canonical (Protestant OT) and then the good for reading (Deuterocanon). Interestingly enough, I feel like in Eastern thought that Revelation is on somewhat of a second tier because it isn't read liturgically. Even in my own Anglican tradition, this principle is sorta recognized in the 39 Articles and the Deuterocanon was in early lectionary so there is room to merge the two views. I think you hit it spot on that people get overly polemical.
2)
The way I have heard it out in the East that salvation is a process of purification illumination and deification. When someone is converted and becomes a catechumen, they start the process of purification and at baptism they are illuminated with the Spirit. I think this is where the faith part of sacraments come into play. It is an visible sign of an invisible grace. The spirit is like the wind. We don't know where it comes from or where it goes but Scripture and Tradition tells us that the Spirit works in baptism even if the effect is blurry.
If we're trying to irenic and ecumenical, I don't think there is a ton that separates Baptismal Regeneration and your summit view. It could be like finding a winning lottery ticket and cashing it in for the money. Both your view and the baptismal regeneration view would say that cashing in the ticket (baptism) would be when you receive the fullness of the reward (regeneration). Obviously, I don't want to just smooth over differences like it's nothing but its nice to feel like we agree haha
Thanks for your thoughts again!
(Also I think I have been mean my previous comments and I want to apologize. My bad)
Thanks for the comment! I don’t remember any meanness so it must not have been that bad!
Revelation is read liturgically in Eastern Orthodoxy on a particular great feast, but I forget which.
I so appreciate your honest bewilderment. Any updates or part 2?
Yet another book you recommend that I have to buy lol.
Thanks for the amazing work Dr. Gavin!
Very helpful indeed - a careful, honest, sober, and edifying exposition. (Flattery will get me nowhere.) If I may venture to ask… What do you make of St Cyril’s saying that one is or can be “born again by faith”? It’s at the end of 3:4, on why Cornelius and his fellow converts needed to be baptized when they had already received the Spirit: “So that when their souls had already been born again by faith, their bodies might share in the grace by the water of baptism.” Just prior to this St Cyril is talking about “twofold purification” for the body and for the soul, identifying the baptismal water as the body-cleansing and the Spirit as the soul-cleansing (although he unites them and sees them as normally going together). The Cornelius reference, though - born again by faith - seems rather intriguing. I hope this makes sense.
Really interesting, thanks!
Can you please give me the reference of your citation?
@@aarongebreslasie7677 Lectures 3:4
The baptism is the welcoming into the church, by the members, and it is the sowing of the seed.
The infant doesn't need to repent. The grown ups welcome him.
Grown up obviously need some form of teaching to be welcomed fully, because they are grown ups. It's so obvious that I struggle to even explain why.
To baptise infants is the best expression of free grace.
To be able to explain to grown people why they need some teaching to be welcomed and yet also be able to show them that had they been like infants, that would be unnecessary, is the best visible display of the gospel I can imagine, which also takes into account the reality of the church's needs. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone wanted to be members of your church, and there was no teaching for grown ups?
Grown ups need to make that sacrifice of not being immediately baptized, in order to allow room for infant baptism, such that grown ups can nurture the infants, which is the primary purpose.
Nothing is more beautiful than when my priest lifts up a baby and proclaims that he or she is now a part of the world wide church and a child of light, and then tells the congregation and especially parents to pray for and teach the child to pray and take part in the Lord's Supper. That is when I know I am in the church as well. It's such a terrible loss for a church to not have infant baptism.
Wow, another great video. Thank you Gavin. You bring out some very interesting points and things to consider.
I wonder if you have ever read or listened to David Pawson? He had a wonderful book titled The Normal Christian Birth. Please take a look into that. Maybe even possibly make a video on it? He discusses everything from repentance, faith, water baptism, and receiving the Spirit. I'm sure it'll be of great assistance to you in your videos. Thank you!
I think it may be helpful to reframe your question as follows: how do Catholics view prevenient grace? I think if you understand this view correctly, you can reconcile the apparently regenerate state of catechumens with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. I like to think of Catholic prevenient grace as a middle way between two extremes; Wesleyan Arminianism on the one, and Calvinist on the other. Wesleyans see prevenient grace as widely distributed but very weak; everyone gets it but all it does is free our will from sin so we can choose to follow God and upon that choice, true regenerating grace is given. On the other hand Calvinists view prevenient grace as very narrowly distributed and very powerful; only the elect get it and it irresistibly leads to regenerating grace in almost an instant. Calvinists would say God's prevenient grace grants us faith and by that faith we are granted regenerating grace. The Catholic view is in the middle: not everyone is given prevenient grace but its not only given to the elect. It does more than simply free our will, but it doesn't irresistibly lead us to instant regenerating grace.
The official Catholic view on this topic is outlined in chapters 5 and 6 of the 6th session of the council of Trent. I will try to summarize it (though I am not catholic and might mess it up). God gives some people prevenient grace of his own initiative and without regard to their merits. The recipient of that prevenient grace can choose to either reject it or cooperate with it. At this point, they are not yet truly regenerate, but are still being filled with grace, moved by the spirit and are given the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. This is why it appears that unbaptized adults are grace filled; because they are. However, like Wesleyans, Catholics believe regenerating grace comes well after prevenient grace. However, unlike Wesleyans, true regenerating grace isn't given upon a conversion experience, it is given upon baptism. Please let me know if this was helpful. Also Catholics, please let me know if I misrepresented you.
You may have misrepresented Calvinists. The way I understand it, God’s prevenient grace (although they wouldn’t call it that - probably the drawing of the Holy Spirit, per John 6:44) leads to God’s regenerating grace, which leads to faith, which leads to justification, etc.
@@TharMan9 thank you for the input. I’ve done some poking around and I think you are probably right. I may have messed up the order a bit. Regardless, I think the substance of my point stands. Calvinists still believe that prevenient grace (although they don’t call it that) is for only the elect and is irresistible and always leads to justification and glorification. Thank you for your help. I appreciate it.
@@bryanwalters9574 No problem! I liked what you said. It was just that I saw something I could shed some further light on because I have some background in that theology. The nuances of theology can get quite hair splitting and complicated at times ...
@@TharMan9 the embarrassing part is that I’m technically a Presbyterian and I should know better.
@@bryanwalters9574 Ha, ha! Presbyterianism is strong in my background, and I have quite a bit of Wesleyan-Arminian influence as well (not to mention Baptist). Now a family member has joined the Orthodox Church, so I found your analysis of the different streams to be insightful. That’s why I like to check out this channel. Gavin seems to fairly compare and contrast the different streams, while taking a stand similar to mine. Thanks for the chat.
Maybe faith being regenerative and baptism being regenerative aren’t mutually exclusive. From what I understand of Catholics and Orthodox they both seem to view salvation in far less static terms than most Protestants I’ve interacted with. I’ve heard language like, “I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.” When salvation and sanctification aren’t treated as two separate processes, it changes the dynamic a bit.
Ultimately only God knows that status of a soul. Salvation is a mystery and trying limit it to our understanding isn’t always beneficial.
@Joshua Miller
I actually think Catholics and Protestants view regeneration in very different ways. For Catholics (and the Orthodox) it is more mental and institutional whereas for Protestants it is more emotional and personal. For the former, transformation is slow and catechetical and not all that demonstrable, but for Protestants it’s swift and sweeping and inherently visible. St. Paul’s conversion and Augustine’s are viewed by Catholics as extraordinary and thus not normative. In general, they frown upon talk of a “born again” experience. (And most popular Catholic apologists treat such as pure Protestant innovation.)
As a result, Catholics tend to see Protestant faith as subjective and unstable while Protestants view Catholic faith as largely nominal and cultural.
Consequently, Protestants tend to translate “I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved” as roughly “I’m really not all that saved. But maybe one day, Lord willing, things will be different.”
"For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." Romans 10:10.
I always found this verse interesting. The forensic term (justification) linked to the process of new life (saved). For the new believer, baptism is the public confession of that inward faith, a confession in action and not just words. Part of the saving work of the Spirit is precisely to integrate thoughts, emotions, will, words, and actions into a whole, conforming the person to the image of Christ.
The early church fathers in their writings likewise link salvation, faith, repentance, the new life, and baptism in overlapping ways. It reminds me to be humble when approaching the spiritual mystery behind this miraculous work of grace.
Hi Gavin... One thing we can say, with absolute certainty, in the midst of our perplexity, which I happily admit myself, is that those converted *OUGHT* to be baptized. There's an implicit earnestness surrounding the sacrament in Scripture and within the debate itself. Both Paedobaptists and Credobaptists can unify at that point. Believers ought to be baptized. It's the right thing. As Cyril said, himself: "The Lord Christ sanctified baptism by being baptized, Himself (slight paraphrasing)."
As a Protestant, I'm getting a Catholic Bible because I don't think Luther should have taken out those books. I don't trust Luther on the Canon because he wanted to take books like James and Hebrews out of the New Testament, which I'm so thankful he was unsuccessful in doing.
But please make a more detailed video about a defense of the Protestant Old Testament. This is really the first good video I've seen from the Protestant view of the Canon.
I also don't have a problem including Enoch in the Canon because Jude quotes it as Scripture and the Ethiopian orthodox church has always considered it Canonical.
I don't think this should be an area of division in the Church. I almost wish Protestants would start using the Catholic canon so its not an area of tension. I'm so thankful the Catholic church preserved Scripture for us for the past 2,000 years.
thank you
I'm currently in the same place you were in 2 years ago making this video. Really struggling with this (as a baptist) and can't quite figure out what I am to make of this. Would love it if you made a new video on this topic after everything you've learned over the last 2 years.
One view you will find among Wesleyans and Anglicans is that God (generally) gives regenerating and justifying grace through the sacrament of baptism, but that this grace must be received and appropriated throughout life by faith. The Articles of Religion (shared by both Methodists and Anglicans) affirm both that God gives grace through the sacraments, but also that we receive God's grace by faith. The giving and reception/appropriation of the gift might happen at the same moment, or might be separated by a period of time (from our perspective, that is, since God exists outside of time). This could perhaps be analogous to a person giving a huge gift by writing a check, that still must be cashed in order to receive it.
This approach to the sacrament honors both the Biblical teaching that God is giving saving grace in baptism (as in Titus 3, Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6, 1 Pt. 3, John 3, and the various OT water images that pre-figure baptism) while also affirming that salvation is received only by faith (as in Gal. 3:2, Rom. 3-5, Eph. 2, John 3:16, etc.). We who hold this approach can affirm Baptismal regeneration (alongside the Early Fathers) and also salvation by faith (alongside other Evangelicals).
This Lutheran whose devotional booklets include readings from the deuterocanon loves your discussion of the levels of canon.
Gavin you bring interesting points! I love how charitable your approach is. I'm thinking there's an interplay between Psychology and Theology. I'm thinking of the placebo effect. Maybe it looks like unbaptized people are regenerate at initial conversion because their beliefs change and naturally we want to align our behavior with our beliefs so subjectively and outwardly, by all appearance, it looks like regeneration, but objectively it's not so. That initial conversion naturally leads one to get baptized. Faith is necessary to get baptized, yes. For infants to be baptized, they are at the mercy of parent's and godparent's faith. That's generally how the Catholic Church infant baptism. I believe infant is text book Gospel since "though we were dead in our sin, he came down to save us" I'm paraphrasing of course. It shows it's God's Work and not ours. in summary, initial conversion is subjective truth and really does impact our behavior and Baptism is independent of our subjective experience. In fact, the CCC says divine grace escapes the human experience and sometime human experience (i.e human will) gets in way of grace because God won't force His Grace upon us, He loves us too much to do that. Subjective truth wants to align with objective truth ultimately. I hope my thoughts are of some value for everyone who's gonna read this! God Bless You!
Here would be a view that aligns with John Davenant and other more covenantal, Reformed Anglicans:
In baptism, God objectively and visibly declaes “this one is mine” and that’s *true*.
If you’re a baby, that means that you either are in-dwelt by the Spirit or will be so long as you keep the covenant as you are able. If you’re an adult/an old enough child, it means the same thing. But you can lose the possession you have of the promises if you don’t subjectively receive the Spirit by faith (which persists in love). So Baptism *really* saves; it really makes someone an heir of eternal life, a covenant member, and thus justified (forgiven) before the Lord. But you can lose that forgiveness in the absence of receiving the Spirit via saving faith, which manifests as a persistence in sin/a lack of the pursuit of holiness.
So here’s how the framework would apply to this question. Baptism functions as God’s visible, watery word which says “you’re mine”. So the catechumen who believes is in dwelt by the Spirit and a new creation. Baptism is summarize expression of being a new covenant member, sure; but it is God’s word to the baptized that they are members-so that they have something objective to look back to. When they ask “but was I really saved when...before my baptism”, they should look at their baptism, because God’s watery word can be felt and experienced, and remembered. And since God, while he purchases forgiveness once for all, forgives us in time and mediates forgiveness through us through many means, Baptism is the most definitive, embodied means through which a catechumen can feel, experience, and know that they belong to God. Though they’ve been adopted by the Spirit, adoption (which has a future tense in Romans 8) is also mediated through Baptism-as God publicly adopts us as he has privately done so
This is why every Protestant should be Confessional Lutheran.
Just converted to lcms from non-denominational (baptist)
Lutherans ironically lack a complete reformation and embrace too many unbiblical ideas.
Gavin, what's your experience with people who appear regenerated but then later walk away from the faith? Is it possible to walk away from Christ after that experience? If it is possible to do so, then even if one has a regenerative experience before baptism, is it not still possible that baptism adds to the previous state of being? Does regeneration only occur once and for all or can grace be added to grace?
Matt 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
That distinction comes down to grace. God’s Grace is what initiates us to seek or turn towards God. The grace itself doesn’t necessarily regenerate but it prepares the mind and heart for regeneration through baptism.
If one has a “spiritual experience” or a realization of God which prompts them to turn towards Him, there’s not a guarantee that, as St. Cyril puts it, “vipers” don’t poison them on the path to baptism. So it’s God’s Grace which steers us to Him and His Church but that grace is only salvific by itself in certain circumstances (like martyrdom or in the event of death during catechesis).
Could we not say that yes, we must be baptized to be saved. But this salvific baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist said he baptized with water but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, referring to it as the superior baptism.
As someone who believes in Believer's/Credo Baptismal Regeneration I have the following thoughts. (I grew up in the ICOC, but not a member anymore)
I think the story of Acts 10 resolves the issue. First notice that Cornelius was an unregenerated gentile yet he was still "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually". His works of righteousness lead to an angel visiting him and telling him “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." (Acts 10:1-4)
So it is clear that this unregenerated Gentile was not Totally Depraved (TD). I think what trips up a lot of people is their hard/western (especially Augustinian) Original Sin (OS) perspective of humanity. Or the Reformed TD doctrine.
Second look at what Peter says about Cornelius, and this is said before Cornelius becomes filled with the Holy Spirit or regenerated or baptized:
Acts 10:34-35 NASB95 - Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and ¹does what is right¹ is welcome to Him.
NASB footnote: 1. Lit. "works righteousness"
The fact is that the unbaptized people you see who are repenting and moving towards God are not regenerated, but they are seeking God and thus repenting and even producing fruit, just as John the Baptist told the Pharisees to do before Christ started his ministry. Your unbaptized friends who are working righteousness do so just like Cornelius was before ever hearing of Jesus. He literally worked righteous and that was viewed favorable by God and God made him the first Gentiles to be saved from the Dominion of Darkness and saved into the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13).
I think Reformed/Calvinist doctrines like Total Depravity and Original Sin (especially the Western/Augustinian version) have many in the West messed up.
Lastly, Cornelius having the holy Spirit come on him and cause him to speak in other languages doesn't necessarily mean he was regenerated at that moment. Saul and some of his goons were filled with the HS and prophesied, yet they were evil and not regenerated (1 Samuel 19:19-24). Likewise Cornelius could have had the HS come on him to be a sign for Peter (and the other sceptical Jewish Christians with him) that God was welcoming the Gentiles into the kingdom, which was a very hard concept/development for Peter and the very early "Acts" Church to understand. The Holy Spirit coming on you is not the same thing as the HS indwelling. I think that before baptism Cornelius had the former and when baptized received the latter.
Now let's say that Cornelius was regenerated before being immersed in water this would still be a hyperexceptional situation because this is the first Gentile entering the kingdom. It is not the normative path. A little something extra was needed to help the leaders of the church get this paradigm shift.
I'll add this. You can be a slave of sin, in that it and Satan through it owns you, but you can rebel against your slave master. That's repentance for an unbaptized/unregenerated person. They could not escape without Christ paying their ransom, defeating the enemy, and purifying them.
For an unbaptized/unregenerated person the rebellion against the Dominion of Darkness (Col 1:13) starts when they hear the Gospel and believe in Jesus and repent, but the breakout/escape doesn't happen until they cross the Red Sea (i.e. get baptized, cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-14).
Ok one last important note.
In the NT the main or ground level way of understanding salvation is NOT about being saved from God, there is a sense in which we are saved form God's judgement on the world, but it's not the main focus, it's more of a byproduct of what Salvation is mainly/fundamentally about. Salvation is about being saved from:
Acts 2:40 New American Standard Bible (NASB) - And with many other words he [Peter] solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!”
Note: This is the first and most famous call to salvation in Christ by the church. Peter’s perspective is that Jesus saves us “from this perverse generation”. Peter is not focused on being saved “from God”, “from His wrath”, or “from going to hell”.
Acts 26:15-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB) - And I [Paul] said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’
Note: Paul is commissioned by Jesus to open the eyes of gentiles so that they turn “from the dominion of Satan to God”, not to be saved “from God” or even “His punishment / wrath”, this was not the main focus.
Galatians 1:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age [/world, NASB footnote], according to the will of our God and Father,
Note: Why did Jesus give himself for our sins? To be saved “from the Father casting us into hell”? No! He died to "rescue us from this present evil age” or world (per NASB footnote). Consider: "We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one". - 1 John 5:19 (ESV)
1 Peter 1:18-19 (ESV) - knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot
Hebrews 2:14-15 NASB95 - Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Colossians 1:13 NASB95 - For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
This re-orientation will cause you to have to re-evaluate your Atonement Model and reading Anselm of Canterbury will lead you into a hard "saved from God" perspective. Which will cause one to be unable to understand faith, repentance, and baptism correctly.
I can also provide many lengthy citations from the ANF to back the above argument.
Many might respond to these critics by saying “you’re saved from the wrath of God, not from God Himself”. This is a more accurate portrayal of salvation, but even then this focus is not the main focus that the Apostles had regarding salvation (as shown above). To be clear there is a wrath of God, but how we understand it should be informed by the Salvation that was taught by Jesus and His Apostles.
Let’s look at an example:
Romans 5:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Much more then, having now been justified by [or in, NASB footnote] His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him.
Note: This scripture appears to put the focus of salvation on escaping the wrath of God, but if we continue reading past verse 9 we see the larger context.
Romans 5:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Much more then, having now been justified by [/in, NASB footnote] His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by [/in, NASB footnote] His life.
Note: Paul does say that in the blood of Christ a person is saved from the wrath, but preceding this salvation from wrath was the following:
-Said person was an enemy of God
-And for this reason, said person needed to be reconciled to God by Jesus.
Only focusing on verse 9 ignores the enslavement of humanity to Satan and his kingdom.
Satan’s enslavement of humanity leads man to war against God, hence being an enemy of His.
For this reason, salvation from Satan and his kingdom is needed before there can be salvation from the wrath.
It’s also noteworthy that salvation from the wrath comes when one is **already** in the blood of Jesus and reconciled to God .
Is the final end of man eternity as a soul in heaven or life with a resurrected body in the life of the world to come?
Does matter play a role in the salvation of man who is both body and soul?
Gavin have you gone through Everett Ferguson's book on baptism? As a moderate Church of Christ from Australia really enjoying your work. Oddly enough i both thought that I was saved at baptism but didn't think i was unsaved after i committed to disciples of Jesus, which was about two weeks before baptism. I just didn't see them as seperate. They Exodus had the passover (faith commitment?) and the red sea crossing (baptism) as both leaving Egypt.
Interesting, thanks for sharing! I loved Ferguson's book. Referenced it a bit in my dialogue with Dr. Cooper on baptism.
Banger
Cyril of Jerusalem makes the most forthright and unambiguous statement that bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ - Catechetical Lecture 22.
I wouldn’t say “changed into” in that lecture he never describes a moment in which it is literally changed, but rather descriptions of what the bread and wine are and then being the body and blood. I would also point out the 4th line in that lecture referring to John 6:53 and Cyril says “they not having heard his saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that he was inviting them to eat flesh.” For me personally I don’t agree with transubstantiation and I’ve always seen it argued as metaphorical vs literal, but after reading this I think of it more as a spiritual vs literal.
@@Balsam20dt The "spiritual sense" of Jesus' words means the sense communicated by the Holy Spirit. The Church at Jerusalem has always held that breach and wine are changed by the power of God into the body and blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox don't usually use the term "transubatantiation" - they prefer the Greek "metaousiosis". But they certainly aren't Protestants, neither was Cyril.
@@Balsam20dt This link might help stpeterorthodoxchurch.com/new-to-orthodoxy/the-church-fathers-on-the-holy-eucharist/
@@MichaelPetek I can see what you’re saying regarding spiritual sense. And of course Cyril and Orthodox are not Protestant. I would still hold to though that Lecture 22 does not describe a moment in which the bread and wine are changed into. I agree there is something mysterious and spiritual that occurs when taking communion similar to the conclusion Gavin comes to about baptism. my complaint is more with Catholicism and how only priests have the ability to consecrate it which the “changes into” the literal body and blood. The idea of a literal man being between me and the literal Jesus goes against notions of priesthood of all believers, and again at least in Cyril’s lecture I don’t see support of a moment of change. Thanks for commenting about that lecture though I wouldn’t have thought through this so much if it wasn’t for your mention.
@@Balsam20dt The reason why only the bishop (episkopos/paqad) or the presbyter (presbyteros/zaqen) has the power to consecrate the Eucharist (eucharistia/qorban todah) is that he is the agent with power of attorney (apostolos/shaliach) of the High Priest (kohen gadol).
Only the High Priest may consecrate the Eucharist, and he does so either in person or through an agent. It was incumbent on every kohen to make a grain offering (mincha) on his first day in service. The High Priest had to do this every day, and it was normal for him to do it through a shaliach.
Great video Pastor Ortlund! You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m curious what your thoughts are about John the Baptist jumping in Elizabeth’s womb in Luke 1:41-44, and Christ’s command to let the little children come to Him in Matthew 19:14. Both seem to demonstrate to me that an infant is capable of the kind of faith Cyril believes to be required for an efficacious baptism, irrational as it may seem on the surface.
Thanks Gregory! I definitely believe in the possibility of infant regeneration. My only concern is with assuming that *all* of the infants of Christian parents are regenerate.
@@TruthUnites This point ties well with your video on relics where relics can impart grace or miracles if God so chooses to use it, but not all necessarily do.
I think you made your question confusing by offering your own definition of regeneration. I've always lazily used the word regeneration as a summary of Luther's Catechetical explanation of baptism.
Was there any dissent within the Catholic Church over the Marian Dogmas (2-4)? If so, where can we find them? Thanks!
Remember that Cyril didn't believe in "once saved always saved" (I don't think anyone did in the 4th century). Salvation was (and still is) seen as a process (or journey) to catholics (east and west). So infants being baptized when faith had to be present in adults prior to baptism doesn't present a problem for Cyril. Baptized infants can later shipwreck their salvation as well as baptized adults. As far as your concern about regenerative evidence being exhibited by those catechumens before baptism, perhaps a good analogy would be a couple desiring to get married vs. actually being married. Just because they are pursuing marriage doesn't mean they are married. If you presume salvation is a process (as Cyril) formally beginning with baptism (cleansing of original sin), then the concerns you raised are unfounded. But if you presume when approaching baptism 1. Total inability (i.e. no free will) 2. unconditional election 3. particular redemption 4. irresistible grace, then I understand why Cyril would seem to be filled with inconsistencies and perhaps contradictions. Keep making videos. They're thoughtful, fair, and always charitable.
Just a comment on your point on infant baptism. You say that Cyril's language suggests credobaptism, and while that may be plausible, isn't it known that infant baptism was a well established practice by then? We have attestation of infant baptism up to, and over 100 years before Cyril. That includes Carthage where they declared that babies could be baptized before the 8th day. (It seems like it wasn't controversial that babies were to be baptized in the first place) Did Cyril not know of this practice despite it seemingly being quite popular? If he was aware of it and opposed it, then why didn't he state it if his statements on baptism are so clear? If anything, this seems to support the paedobaptist side IMO, but I guess that is the misunderstanding between the two sides. I have struggled with this myself, and I really do want to understand. I will change my mind if I am wrong. But the things that baptists say just seem so far out to me.
But anyways, I'm still a huge fan of your work. Thanks so much for everything you do Gavin. You are a true intellectual warior of the faith.
To answer Dr. Ortund’s question,
The Catholic Church teaches that all catechumens who are in the process of being catechized in order to receive the Sacrament of Baptism are in imperfect, informal, or extraordinary communion with Christ and His Church.
If a catechumen were to die while in this process - meaning he/she had the desire for baptism, though not having received the Sacrament - he/she would still be saved through an extraordinary grace of God due to the extraordinary circumstance of the catechumen.
All catechumens who do complete the catechesis process and receive the Sacrament of Baptism are given the free gift of salvation through the ordinary means prescribed by Christ.
So the distinction here is ordinary and extraordinary circumstances.
Also, I think a lot of people are surprised to find out that the Catholic Church does not baptize adults without first having said adults fulfill a required course of Catechesis so that they get taught the faith, understand the faith, and accept the full faith. This process of catechesis can be as short as 1 year, and as long as 3 years.
@Christos Kyrios it’s actually not on a person’s deathbed.
It’s necessarily in a situation where it would no longer be a possibility to receive water baptism, normally in the case of sudden death.
If a person is on his/her deathbed, there’s still a possibility of receiving water baptism, as long as there is water and another person to administer the rite.
@Christos Kyrios to answer your question, because all believers are bound by the commands and ordinances of Christ, and by extension His Church; and baptism is one of those ordinances.
Now, although we believers are bound by the sacraments, God, who is sovereign, is not bound by the sacraments. He can still save a believer by giving extraordinary grace.
So baptism is actually not an absolute necessity, it’s only an ordinary necessity. But in extraordinary circumstances, God can still save.
Same thing with Orthodoxy. Catechumens, if they die, receive an Orthodox burial, and are considered fully Orthodox if they do.
I came to this conclusion also. Our life in the spirit begins with faith, and when we believe we pass over from death into life and are thus born again. This is separate from water baptism as a symbol of what has already occurred. A random thought that popped into my head just now, I wonder whether, if rivers of living water are supposed to flow out of us, that is a continual form of washing as well as a bringing of life to those around us? The language is also tied in with what Paul says about obedience to the spirit bringing life, and following the sinful self bringing death...
Because I view baptism as being symbolic, I don't discount the infant baptism of those people who grow up and 'confirm' their faith later, but on its own I think it is meaningless for an infant. It deprives someone of the symbolic power of immersion as a sign of the choice to repent and put faith in Christ, of dying and being raised with him. I know Christians who for this reason, having been 'Christened' as an infant chose to have an immersion baptism after coming to faith, which I think is a good thing personally. Lots of scattered thoughts, sorry!
There is a misunderstanding of the Pouring out of the Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, that happened twice. Once to Jews, the other the Gentiles. John the Baptist prophesied this in Mat 3:11. That "baptism" is actually Pentacost , also prophecied by Joel. It also was poured out onto many in the days of the Apostles, whom by the laying on of hands could pass on. The Holy Spirit gift of reconciliation to God through the baptism into the death burial and ressurection of Christ of redemption is another aspect of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with us.
Anyone baptized into the Father, Son and Spirit, has the Spirit of Reconciliation to God and that evidenced by a person changed and being made in the likeness of Christ. Not tongues. Not healing the sick. Not raising the dead. Not giving sight to the blind. Those are all miraculous, physically evident gifts an Apostle could pass on. Once the Apostles went to be with the Lord, that ended. The greatest of all gifts we can pursue are given to us within. Faith. It comes from hearing the word of God. Hope. That comes from unwavering belief that God will fulfill his promises to us. Love. We deny ourselves and selflessly give as Christ did, and lay down our lives for our friends.
There are different measures of the Spirit of God. Some we, in this time, cannot posess.
Jesus is who had the Spirit in fullness. There was no limit to how much. His cup overflowed.
John 3:34
God bless you to the measure of faith you have been given!
What are your thoughts on Maximus the Confessor, and Ephrem the Syrian?
Perhaps you discussed this elsewhere, but what lead you to focus on St. Anselm and St. Cyril in your academic/theological studies?
Cyril was someone random, I believe I mentioned a little bit about what makes him intriguing in this video. I’m going to make a video in the future about why I love Anselm so much.
Maybe a different topic, but still, related to Cyril. Do you know when private confession appeared in the Church? I wonder if Cyril had that in his time? Aka having people come to him to be absolved of their sins via confession like in today's Roman-Catholic/Eastern-Orthodox Churches
It started with John the Baptist.
'You're not so sick that God cannot heal you.'
Should we regard the "church fathers" as our authority among side the holy bible or not?
The LXX version of Esdras 1 & 2 are not equivalent with what modern Protestant Bibles call Ezra and Nehemiah.
1 Esdras is its own unique work which contains some portions from what modern Protestants call Ezra, but has unique material, most notably Zerubbabel's Contest.
2 Esdras is one book which contains what today is know as Ezra and Nehemiah.
All you need to do is look at the LXX and this is clear. Also Josephus in his Antiquities of Jews includes the Zerubabel Contest.
He is a Saint, sweetheart !
You ask, "what is going on with someone when they repent of their sins and convert? What is their spiritual status?" And how does this relate to baptism? What does baptism do?
Are these categories exhaustive: efficient causal mechanism (etiology) and outward, summative sign? To understand how A explains or "makes" B happen (rather than being merely correlated), I think we need more than these two kinds of causal categories. And I think the solution comes from some sort of recognition of other kinds of "reasons why something happens." It seems like you don't understand what it would even mean for baptism to "regenerate." I am having a hard time doing the same. But the solution might be that we need another kind of causation/causal link to analyze what it means to say "baptism itself regenerates."
I think God acts for aesthetic reasons. I think aesthetic reasons are irreducible. Aesthetic reasons and acts of God do not need to be mechanistic. I can give examples, but cannot define this clearly. I think ancient people had a sense of other kinds of reasons and explanatory relationships than we do, explaining why you don't find people struggling with these questions in the same way we are.
@Truth Unites I am a young protestant who is looking into Catholicism, not as much the bells and incense or aesthetic but the doctrine, and I have come to some shocking conclusions. Look at what Cyril of Jerusalem said: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).
I looked up the chapter and number and it seems to be in context.
Thoughts?
Have a look in to Lutheranism or Anglicanism before you leave the Reformation behind.
@@Mygoalwogel don't Anglican consider them themselves catholic?
@@nick-jh7jk Lutherans and Anglicans both "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." Neither is papist.
@@Mygoalwogel any book recommendations for Anglican theology?
@@nick-jh7jk Er... I'm Lutheran, not Anglican. I once borrowed a book on Baptism by an Anglican that I fully agreed with. I can't remember the title, but I'll ask my friend. I also know Anglicans confess the Nicene Creed and aren't papist, same with Lutherans.
Quick caveat: By Lutheran I mean Augsburg Confession type, not LGBTQ+ pastors abandoning the Bible. By Anglican, my friend calls himself classical Anglican. Not the hyper-liberal kind.
Forgive me but your avatar picture reminds me of the ouroboros symbol.
The reception of the Spirit and the sovereignty of God has to be the fulcrum. I’m uncomfortable with the term “baptismal regeneration” since for me it does not accurately describe the salvific role for baptism in the NT, since I am credo-Baptist. God gives his Spirit when he so desires based on our faith, but normally in Scripture the giving of the Spirit is closely associated with baptism (1 Cor 6:10-11; 12:13; Col 2:12; Tit 3:4-8). Just as Moses lead Israel out of bondage in his baptism (1 Cor 10:1-2) so Christ does so by water and Spirit (Jn 3:5-8; Rom 6:1-4; 1 Pet 3:21).
It is true that "the whole creation, whoever believes" should be baptized. (Mk 16:15-16) The fallacy of credo-Baptists is to fail to recognize that the Bible teaches that infants can believe.
I have been wrestling with baptism for a long time. And I'm still wrestling with it. But it does seem pretty universal until Zwingli that baptism is for/apart of/salvation. I know you are working with a "reformed" understanding of regeneration. And I'm wresting with that too. But it seems that the original purpose of baptism, from John's baptism, was to be ones acceptance of the message preached. Luke 1:77 John will give people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, Luke 3:3 he preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 3:16 He foretells of Jesus who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 after Jesus' death burial and resurrection we see that those who repent and are baptized will receive the Holy Spirit. This seems to be a completely logical progression in Luke's writings. but my thoughts on baptism being the original means of acceptance of the message comes from Luke 7:29-30 Those who were baptized acknowledged God's justice by being baptized, and the Pharisees rejected God's purpose for themselves by not being baptized. It seems in the modern baptist world that the "sinner's prayer" replaced the original purpose of baptism that we see in the New Testament. Sacrament a Sign and seal: When one takes on the sign they also take on what the sign represents. It's not the sign that saves but what the sign represents (1 Peter 3:21). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
How about this? How about when we repent and believe, we are justified, Romans, chapter 3, four and five. When we are baptized, we are regenerated, Romans six, Titus 3:5, Colossians 2:12, one Peter 3:21, etc. What if repentance, faith, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit are all salvific experiences? There is a book entitled “the normal Christian birth “by David, POSON. He was a Methodist minister that became Baptist because of his belief in immersion. He wrote the normal Christian birth, believing that acts 2:38 was the new birth. Not saying, I would agree with absolutely everything he says, but it is a good book, and very insightful, and I do believe that acts 2:38 is the full package, and should be experienced very closely together if possible. Not saying that everyone that doesn’t have that full experience is lost, but I do believe that it is ideal and like you, I believe baptism is much more than a symbol. I can go along with baptismal regeneration as long as we don’t see people that have not yet gone to the water as completely lost. I would go with justification before regeneration, but anyhow… Definitely been studying baptism quite a lot lately. I also believe that baptism should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, because of the preponderance of evidence and acts, Romans, Galatians, Colossians, etc. so that makes me a really strange bird. Lol
All Sacraments are useless without faith . You must to come Jesus and believe on him before receiving any of them. On Cornelius Peter saw that the Gentiles can receive Baptisim because they recieved the Spirit first so it was sign that Gentiles can recieve Salvation . However you had really good thoughts on this video it got me thinking .
The entire church was unanimous about baptismal regeneration.
What do you mean by “baptismal regeneration?”
1.Peter 3:21
»There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the *resurrection* of Jesus Christ.«
»In reality, believers are saved by what baptism symbolizes- *Christ’s death and resurrection.* The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality.« (NIV Bible Study Notes)
This is similar to the use of the eucharist in the early church. The elements of the Lord‘s Supper - bread and wine - are so closely related that the symbols were sometimes used to refer to the reality (which is Christ). That is a very logical and senseful explanation about why the Roman Catholic Church came to believe in Baptismal Regeneration and Transsubstantiation. They simply were misled by literalism, which is taking ambigious language literally.
Well according to Protestants seven books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent, and their 66-book effort is the real thing. Look around various UA-cam videos! Are you now saying otherwise?
It's interesting that you say that people "seem regenerated" so this makes you question. Let me ask you this, when people who "seem regenerate" walk away from the faith, do you question the common reformed teaching that those people were never really saved in the first place?
2nd question... Why does it seem like faith and baptism are always put against each other? Are you specifically challenging ex opere operato? I don't understand why it's faith OR baptism.
Serious questions, not trolling.
The Question is what are we baptized into? Is it Christ's Death Burial, and resurrection? As many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. As far as infant baptism, in baptism we are joined to the circumcision of Christ that was not made by hands. Just as circumcision was done to infants so is baptism. Baptism opens the covenant to all infants and they are raised into faith, go to an Orthodox Church and just witness the innocent child like faith the little ones have. If intellectual assent is required, do you believe those born without normal cognitive ability, are excluded from salvation? Or the second you loose your intellectual ability in an accident, God can no longer save you because you can't check a list of true or falses?
Is the answer to your question not "baptism by desire"? I am confused by the fact you mention your understanding of baptism by desire and then don't consider it as the answer to your question. Here is how I understand it: Once there has been an authentic conversion, then one desires to participate in the faith by entering the sacramental system. If death happens prior to the sacraments being administered, the "baptism by desire" is in play. Do you understand baptism by desire differently?
Hi Brian! The baptism of desire, it seems to me, explains salvation for some who are not yet baptized. However, my interest is in regeneration, and specifically, when does regeneration occur?
@@TruthUnites Got it - thanks for clarifying. Good question! If baptism by desire is salvific at the time of death, maybe it can also be simultaneously regenerative?? Could these two effects (regeneration/salvation) be parts of the same baptism by desire? Not sure about this, simply thinking out loud... As always, I respect your efforts to pursue truth on these matters.
@@brianback6136 the idea that you are regenerated at the moment of baptism of desire is pretty close to my view. I think you are regenerated at faith, normally. It seems to me the problem is thinking it happens later, at baptism with water.
👍🏼
How about consider these states like engagement and wedding?
An engagement is exciting and full of emotion and truly life-changing… but no vows have been exchanged. A preliminary promise has been to given at engagement, but nothing else. The woman doesn’t take the man’s name until later at the wedding. She doesn’t in reality belong to him nor he belong to her until the wedding.
Upon coming to faith in Christ, a person grasps His Promise and might have an emotional moment. But, this is like the engagement, not the actual wedding. It’s not until Baptism that the Name is given in reality to the person.
Baptism is the “moment of Promise” when God personally and physically puts His Name on the person. It doesn’t happen anywhere else.
Baptism is performed in His Name and by His command. It’s God doing the work. His Name and His Promise of forgiveness, which are given at that time, are not void of power, but actually generate that which is promised, through the faith which grasps the Promise and believes in His Name there.
A wedding is not a mere formality, but leads to a new reality. It’s not just a symbol or seal of what happened at the moment of engagement.
ok I typed too much…
@Christos Kyrios
The catechumens are justified by faith and then sanctified by the washing of water by the Word and the Name of
God in Baptism.
When the father of the prodigal son came to his son, he embraced and kissed him. The son was justified because of his humble faith.
Then, the father had the best robe put on him and shoes on his feet and a ring on his finger. This is Baptism. By this, the son was sanctified. He was recognized as a true son and his past forgotten.
Baptism is a Word from God declaring your sins forgiven and recognizing you as a child of God.
So yes, the catechumens have sins to wash away, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t justified by the faith they have. The person himself is accepted, and then the mud is washed away.
You are surprised no one is taking a look at why it seems people are made regenerate and then submit to baptism?
I think perhaps you are surprised because you have an evangelical background that is accustomed to seeing and dealing with “converts” who have been made new by the Spirit for the first time, (ie people who have not been baptized in the past by any Christian Church).
It’s been my experience that “conversion” is one of those terms that is defined differently by various traditions. Regeneration is too.
Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I haven’t seen too many people “convert” in an evangelical sense to Roman Catholicism. People “convert” but it is generally a mental assent and submission to the church post baptism. They are almost always already baptized in some other Christian Church. I read a study that said 75% of converts to Roman Catholicism stem from an interfaith marriage where one partner is Protestant prior to marriage.
Perhaps it is only my experience, but that, the fact that most people who convert to Roman Catholicism are ex-Protestants who are already baptized, and the fact that Roman Catholics baptize infants who would/will later be regenerate in the sense that you are defining it, would explain why no one from the Roman Catholic tradition is interested in your phenomenon.
Almost all Baptists believe regeneration is separate from baptism, so that leaves it up to the Lutherans, but they baptize their babies too, and I would bet most of their coverts are from traditions that do so also.
I do love "Truth" more than my own edification...but where does all Truth reside? We live in a world where "grasping at the knowledge of good and evil" is the standard set by Adam & Eve - this is a grasping at our own divinity. The devil said that by "grasping" we would be made equal to God. How do we break away from that standard if we do not recognize an absolute truth present in the world? If you say there is an absolute truth in the world and it is the Bible - then, who has the authority to interpret all the "complexities" of which you speak? If you, Gavin, have the absolute truth, then please say so, so the whole world can follow you. Or, please identify who has the interpretive authority necessary to lead us out of our prideful nature - a nature that grasps at (a personally defined) divinity.
Sadly you going by church fathers of the eastern church and its nothing to do with our salvation. We don't realise how we shift from the gospel to traditions of men.
Maybe we could stop splitting the hair and baptize immediately upon conversion as the examples of Acts show us. And so what Jesus said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19 I don’t understand why anyone comes to faith and puts off being baptized. Why must we know the why or how of what God clearly commands? Just do it.
Lutherans baptize pretty quickly but require instruction before communion, because of Paul's words concerning discerning in 1 Corinthians.
May 14, 1948 until September 11, 2021
Is 66 years 66 months 666 days.
So?
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”(A)
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.(B) 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.(C) 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d](D)
🤦♂️
Do those of the anabaptist tradition assume infants can't have faith based on common sense alone? The scriptures seem to have no problem with infant faith in my reading.
*John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.*
_And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41
*A psalmist had faith from birth.*
_For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_
_You are my trust from my youth._
*_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_*
_You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6
*David had faith from birth.*
_[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._
_I have relied on you since birth;_
_from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God._ Psalm 22:9
*Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy.*
_From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy message._ 2 Timothy 3:15
*David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith.*
_And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16
"Wash away your sins, be baptized ", ( Acts 22:16), for baptism now saves you, ( 1 Peter 3:21). Circumcision was replaced by baptism, for the promise of baptism was made to you AND your CHILDREN.
Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Indeed, as "baptism now saves you", ( 1 Peter 3:21), as the promise of baptism was made to you AND your CHILDREN! ( Acts 2). Have you not read Holy Scripture? For unless one is born BOTH of water and Spirit, one can not enter the kingdom. ( John 3:5). You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Yes, have you, as the promise of baptism was made to you AND your CHILDREN!! As Baptist NOW SAVES YOU! ( Acts 2, 1 Peter 3), as circumcision was replaced by baptism! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios So, according to you, John 3:5 was only talking to people prior to The Death of Jesus? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior ,He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Thankfully, God shall have the final say on who is ignorant of context and Holy Scripture!
Again, circumcision was replaced by baptism which now saves you, ( 1 Peter 3:21), as the promise of baptism was made to you AND your CHILDREN! ( Acts 2). Paul Teaches we have baptized into His death,, which brings Eternal life. You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Excellent, you are making progress! And in order for that rabbi or anyone to enter into the Kingdom, one must be born of both water and Spirit! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink