A Lutheran and a Baptist Discuss Baptismal Regeneration Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2024
- This is the second part of a discussion between Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund on the subject of baptismal regeneration, which follows a previous discussion on infant baptism.
I'd love a second round of conversations about real presence in the Eucharist :)
They both believe in real presence.
@@chadsteven9334 but differ in the physicality of the presence and if Christ is offered to the unbelievers
@@KainTF Yeah, that would be a good conversation!
One thing I like about Dr. Ortlund is that he is concerned about representing the opposing view accurately.
This was an incredible discussion. As someone who came out of the Campbellite movement, these discussions are exceedingly valuable to me and my walk with God. My position aligns with Dr. Ortlunds and I was excited to see that Dr. Cooper found himself agreeing more than disagreeing with his view.
I'm Orthodox and really enjoying this discussion.
Dr. Ortlund is an incredibly intelligent guy, and one of the most fair baptist scholars that i've heard address these issues.
That being said, I still sit firmly on the Lutheran side of this discussion.
Thank you both!
@@jameswillison1527 Same here. To borrow a phrase, in a sense if I could be a 4 point Lutheran then that’s what I’d be.
@@jameswillison1527
I may have had a harder time abandoning by Baptist views had I encountered him earlier, but I still think he's doing no more than looking for a few vague comments in the Father's, like the ones he quoted from both Martyr and Cyril, (who both explicitly associated baptism with regeneration) and then trying to build a case of doubt about something that is , seriously, almost unanimous in the Father's. I just find it weak, but far better than the usual arguments I hear on this.
I also think it odd that he used the fact that within the Catholic tradition they held to the fact that baptism only forgave sins *up to the point of baptism* as some type argument against holding to baptismal regeneration. Like if Lutherans can argue against that, then it lends merit to the idea that baptists can deny baptismal regeneration on historic grounds. I just don't see how that follows.
And lastly, I still have no idea what he means when he says baptism actually forgives sins. The way he qualifies it is vague.
@@ewene2656 4 out of how many points?
We don't have 5 points like Calvinism lol.
@@jameswillison1527
You're not quoting my assessment of Dr. Ortlund. I never used those words, and I wouldn't agree that I caricatured him in such a way.
I gave specific arguments that I didn't agree with him on. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't put words in my mouth, please.
And I'll let the other commenter speak for himself, since your first paragraph was inaccurate in speaking for me.
@@jameswillison1527
The majority of Lutherans would hold that regeneration prior to baptism is the exception. Not the rule.
If baptists were consistent and said that salvation is by grace through faith alone, including for infants, then I think pointing to inconsistencies may be a valid argument.
Yet baptists are not consistent on that point. They create a separate category of salvation.
And Lutherans hold that baptism is the primary means of regeneration. Scripture explicitly gives us examples that show that God *can* regenerate apart from baptism, and we thus allow for that exception (and don't really care if it's consistent since it's biblical), but our confessions do not say that all adults are converted by faith prior to baptism. Anywhere. And neither do most of our theologians. Ortlund quoted two that Cooper responded to by bringing up the contexts they were addressing and stating he may disagree with them on that.
The confessional position is that baptism saves. Both adults and infants.
I appreciate both of these men. Please do another two hours.
I could watch hours of this myself
I feel like Gavin was giving a master class in these interviews.
Thank you guys so much for investing your time in this discussion! This is so helpful! Love you all in Christ!
Again, just a world class conversation.
No it's a Christian vs Non-Christian conversation. Christian vs Non-Christian baptism.
@@AlphaOmega888 Where do you find anything non-Christian here. This is a discussion between brothers in Christ who disagree on some things.
Mark Horton No. What makes us brothers is our "one baptism". Over 90% of tue world practice 'catholic baptism' which is one baptism.
@@AlphaOmega888 I can't say i really find your comment helpful nor do i understand what youre saying. who are you suggesting isn't a christian?
@@fuhd9892 Anyone who follows another baptism (hence "Ana" + "baptist") is of *another spirit,* another baptism, etc. and are not Christian, but one can argue is much worse as they work to destroy the Church. These have Christian baptisms: Cath, Orth, Luth, Ang, 'Scandanavian' Ref (not 'Calvnism'), and all their *daughter churches* worldwide (aka 'mainline protestant' - Methodist, Presbyterian, etc etc)
-1 Cor 12:13 For by *ONE SPIRIT* we were ***ALL*** BAPTIZED into *ONE BODY* (this excludes the spirit of another baptism - see below)
-Eph 4:4-6 ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM; ONE GOD (implies other baptisms have ANOTHER Lord, God, faith, spirit etc..)
2 Cor 11:4 For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** -(ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν = 'another Jesus')
-(ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν = 'another Jesus' - ἄλλον = of *similar* kind, as distinguished from "ἕτερος" "other" of a different/distinct kind)
-2 Cor 11:4 "For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** .. or if you **RECEIVE A DIFFERENT SPIRIT** which you have *NOT* RECEIVED BY US.." -(see commentary next..)
-2 Cor 11:4 *Commentary:* "a SPIRIT *DIFFERENT FROM* Him whom you received *AT YOUR BAPTISM"* -Expositor's Greek Testament Commentary
-So then, we have *Another Jesus, Another Spirit..* umm.. Who does that sound like?
ON ANTICHRIST: “He will spurn and *REJECT BAPTISM* and the *GOSPEL.”* -St. Hildegard of Bingen (1150 AD)
-EVIL= Mat 27:25 [Jesus accusers] answered and said, “His BLOOD be on US **AND** on OUR CHILDREN!”
-GOOD = Acts 2:38-39 let every one of you be BAPTIZED.. This PROMISE is to YOU **AND** to YOUR CHILDREN
Thank you! Great, fruitful, and respectful discussion! Jordan Cooper's simple explanation of typology in video 1 was so helpful . . .
These 2 are 2 role models for us! Both make great points. And now it seems to me a believer's personal decision to whole heartedly/ bodily - mind/soul/spirit surrender to Christ, then publicly identify with the gospel of Christ (buried and rising with Him, forgiven in Him) through water Baptism IS a beautiful part of becoming a Christian and IS a normal and beautiful accompaniment to initial regenerative Baptism by the Holy Spirit. It shows faith that is working ... the ALIVE kind of faith. A gift to us from God! Designed also to be a demonstration for my brothers and sisters in fellowship to see what God has done in me. Unfortunately, if we have reason to strive to make it more continuous with Jewish tradition and at the same time elevate the church's authority to (or even over) the Holy Spirit's will, we then see development beyond the NT church ... (and the accretions dictate we force it upon our infants, toddlers, and grade schoolers as soon as humanly possible.) "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ". And it seems to me that faith which works in submission to and tandem with Christ's ordinances is a faith that is the kind that saves. (aka true Christians repent and get baptized, and the earliest church doesn't seem to normally plan baptisms for not-yet Christians.)
Hello there gentleman. I really enjoyed watching this programme today. Very thought provoking material. And very excellent discussion. 🛐✝️❤️🙏
Honestly what I’ve gotten from this is these two views are a lot more similar than I previously thought.
That’s what I was thinking.
Just like a believing spouse can bring grace upon their unbelieving spouse, but we don't advocate for Christians to marry unbelieving people as an act of evangelism, I think that can be a good analogy to why we don't just force baptizing people. We also don't go around breaking into people's homes to preach the gospel. That seems like it would be detrimental to their overall salvation. We respect the familial authority that God has laid out, and the parents can make decisions for their children that no one else can make, that's why the parents can decide to have their children baptized and no one else has the authority to make that decision. The way Dr. Ortlund talks about regeneration seems to imply he sees it as some sort of magic or incantation. He's been super gracious and charitable, and I don't want to seem disrespectful, that's just what I gathered from watching all the videos. Regeneration is just God's will and He as revealed baptism as a place where He will grant us that if we are willing to recieve
Yes because your religion is basically Pelagianism in violation of Mat 7:1 (the verse that no one wants to translate properly because they are guilty)
@@AlphaOmega888 Well, the Orthodox Church condemned Pelagian in the 5th council, so that would be difficult for us to condemn Pelagianism and also be Palegianists... And you'll have to clarify how we judge others, unless you have a the secret correct translation that I don't know about....
Thank you for this calm and respectful discussion which so often can lead into condemnation. Whether baptism is different for babies and adults and what exactly happened in the one being baptized, may not be the greatest point, we need to remember the omnipotence of God the Father. He above all knows the needs of the one being baptized and HE alone does the work and tailors that to the needs of the candidate. Those who were part of my confirmation class have not stepped foot in church since that day; their baptism is a 'good luck charm' and they are good to go. So sad! As we mature, the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to grow our faith, if we are open to Him and properly 'nourished'. What I don't understand is that if an adult is asking for baptism, but doesn't believe, why are they asking for baptism????
I also have to point out that Dr. Ortlund kept trying to say we have two separate ways of salvation for infants and adults, but his tradition argues exactly that. They say they hold to Sola Fide, but deny that faith alone actually saves infants. They create another category of salvation, where they are saved by grace apart from faith. I don't see how the charge doesn't apply to him.
To clarify, I didn’t mention two different modes of salvation, but two different meanings of baptism.
@@TruthUnites
That's fair. I could have been more accurate there.
But your issue seemed to be with what baptism actually does when administered to an infant vs an adult, so I think my comment still stands in terms of pointing out that you also *seem* to have a separate means of salvation for infants and adults.
If you disagree, i'd love to hear why. And thank you so much for this dialogue. You've quickly become my favorite baptist. Especially with that video on "till we have faces".
@@TruthUnites How then do families suffering from a SIDS tragedy receive comfort?
@@Mygoalwogel how do you console a family who lost a baby to SIDS one day before baptism?
@@SerenityNow22 Jesus accepts the infants of anyone who wishes to bring them. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16
For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6.
“You have made me to trust 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.
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 babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16.
Since Jesus accepts any infant we bring to him exactly the way he accepts people who come on their own, and even credits them for real faith and righteousness, why may we not baptize them into Christ?
Dr. Ortlund is probably my favorite Baptist theologian. I think he's winsome, intelligent, and charitable in his approach. That said, I think many of his arguments are word salad. As Dr. Cooper suggests, just read the texts. They speak for themselves. Dr. Ortlund seems to be imposing ideas on these texts that are novel. Add to that the universal belief of the idea of baptismal regeneration by the early church (accepting that even if there is some diversity of thought, that range of diversity doesn't in any way contemplate the modern credobaptist view), and I think it's really a no-brainer. Ultimately, this comes down to authority. Does the Church have the authority to teach, or do we just trust some random guy (whether Luther, Ortlund, or anyone else) to come up with the correct theology, even where there's no evidence that anyone else taught it. Zwingli admitted his view on baptism was novel. I give him credit for that.
Specifically, with respect to Acts 9, which Dr. Ortlund mentioned, I think he's missed something important there. That passage describes Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. God speaks to Ananias and tells him to visit Saul. Ananias obeys the Lord and in verses 17-19, he tells Paul: “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. The order is important. Ananias says that he has been sent to Paul in order accomplish two things: (1) that Paul may have his sight restored and (2) that he may be filled with the Holy Spirit. The next verse says how these things happened: (1) Paul’s eyes were healed when scales fall from his eyes and (2) Paul was baptized. The parallel used by St. Luke is clear: being filled with the Holy Spirit in verse 17 is paralleled with being baptized in verse 18. Paul then recounts this connection in Acts 22: "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’" Paul’s speech here refers to the events already described in Acts 9, shedding further light on that passage. This passage also tracks with the language of Acts 2 and Joel 2, by tying “calling on his name” directly to baptism, which “wash[es] away your sins.” Again, since Acts 9 and 22 are talking about the same event, it is clear that receiving the Holy Spirit and cleansing (washing away of sins) are tied together in baptism.
Hello. Actually there is a reference in Scripture which about baptism as the means of the remission of the sins of all believers without exception. Before that it must be said that when we speak about regeneration, there must be clarified what we understand by regeneration. There is a difference between the purification of the heart and conscience by faith, and the remission of sins. The heart of both the Jewish and Gentile believers is purified by faith:,,So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.“ (Acts 15:8-9, Orthodox Study Bible).
The cleansing of the heart includes the cleansing of the conscience:,,Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. † 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.“ (Hebrews 10:19-23, Orthodox Study Bible). The cleansing of the conscience through faith here precedes the washing with pure water which refers to baptism in water. The believer’s conscience is cleansed by faith. The conscience is the part of our mind that makes us aware of our actions as being right or wrong. So one cannot repent without his conscience having been cleansed first because his repentance is dependent on his awareness of the fact that he has what to repent for. So the repentance is a consequence of the cleansing of the heart.
It is said that the Jewish believers in Acts 2:37-39 were cut to the heart before St.Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins:,,37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” † 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. † 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39, Orthodox Study Bible). As they were cut to the heart (2:37) before they asked Peter what they should do, therefore they became aware of what they had done to Jesus and so their conscience was cleansed because otherwise they would not become aware of the fact that what they had done was wrong. Therefore that they were cut to the heart (2:37) refers to the purification of faith (Acts 15:9) and the sprinkling from evil conscience through faith (Hebrews 10:22). And therefore they had come to believe before Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And as he told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, their sins had not yet been remitted, although they had come to believe.
Dr.Ortlund said that he does not deny that baptism is a means of grace of God and a means of giving forgiveness of sins by God’s grace working in baptism but what he denies is that baptism is the initial means of giving forgiveness of sins by God:,,What I am excluding when I deny baptismal regeneration is the initial act of being made alive to God is delivered through baptism. …All I am denying is that baptism is regenerative, that it makes you alive to God.“
But there is a refence in the Holy Scripture that baptism is not only the initial act of being made alive to God and that is regenerative in the sense . This is because baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity is referred to as the only means for giving the believers forgiveness of their former sins by God.
Acts 10:43-48 say:,,And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” The Gentile Pentecost 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. † 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. †“ (Acts 10:43-48, Orthodox Study Bible).
When the apostle says that whoever believes in Him, will receive remission of sins, he means the baptism in water in his Name because the Romans that he told it were baptized immediately after those words of the apostle. Yes, they received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking those words and before they got baptized in water in the name of the Lord. But still they were baptized in water in the name of the Lord immediately after Peter told them that whoever believes in Christ, will receive remission of sins through His name. That is in relation with Acts 2:38 where the Jews received remission of sins in the baptism in His Name. The reception of the Holy Spirit by the Romans was the first occasion when Gentiles received Him which to show the apostles that Gentiles could receive Him, too (10:44) which is why He was received by them before their baptism. After that occasion He continued to be received after baptism (Acts 19:6-7) like in the beginning (Acts 2:38, 8:14-17). There is a difference between the baptism for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit after the remission of sins.
The baptism is commanded by Jesus for all believers:,,Go therefore a and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, † 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.“ (Matthew 28:19-20, Orthodox Study Bible). Of course, the baptism which is in water (Acts 8:38, 10:48) and in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) refers to the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because when the Ephesians that had been baptized with the baptism of St. John, told apostle Paul that they had not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit, he asked them into what they were baptized, thus implying that the baptism is done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. After that he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus (Acts 19:6), i.e. in the name of the Holy Trinity.
In relation with Acts 10:43-48, 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, the cleansing of the Church, i.e. of all members of the Church, by Christ with the washing of water and the word (Ephesians 5:25) refers to the baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, wherefore the word here (5:25) refers to the name of the Holy Trinity which is pronounced in the baptism. Therefore all believers without exception receive remission of sins in the baptism in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. And the cleansing of the whole Church (5:25) of course includes the infants getting baptized (who are baptized for the original sin) because there were not two kinds of baptism - for the infants and for the adults. And the earliest fathers attested that the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition.
As I had written in a comment under Dr.Ortlund's video about baptismal regeneration, the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century. The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140). St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century.
It can be added that it is really only the former sins being remitted in baptism because sins that are comitted after baptism, are forgiven, for example in the unction of the sick:,,Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.'' (James 5:14-15, Orthodox Study Bible).
@YAJUN YUAN No, I'm not a Roman Catholic, so that's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that there are things that have been decided at councils and other things around which a consensus has built on all fronts. Baptismal regeneration is an example. You won't find, I don't think, anything approaching a differing view in the history of the Church. There's consensus on it. No single person speaks for the Church, but a consensus is meaningful.
The problem with your argument is that none of you lutherans get baptized in the Holy Ghost when you pour water on your head or on the heads of infants. There's absolutely no evidence of anything supernatural happening ever. So your appeal to acts 9 shipwrecks. Because in Acts there's evidence when the Holy Spirit comes on the scene, and that is not the case with baptismal regenerationists. One thing is certain, when any catholic, or Protestant pours water on a baby's head, absolutely nothing happens.
@@kingjames5527 First, I'm not Lutheran, I'm Anglican, and we share a view of baptism that the entire Church has held since the beginning. Second, you're right--if you ignore all of the clear baptismal passages in Scripture that say that the Holy Spirit is received in baptism, sins are forgiven, etc., then there is no evidence of that in Scripture.
I was a baptist, read the Bible without adding the word “represents” for the sacraments I and was convicted of the Lutheran view. Read the fathers and they just confirm what Scriptures teaches.
I appreciate my baptist heritage, but I had to be honest to admit that baptist theology is not biblical or historical.
I agree. There’s simply no way to come to baptist conclusions by simply reading scripture without baptist presuppositions. Dr Ortlund is well read and articulate, but ultimately he is busy playing linguistic games trying to deny the most straight forward reading of the word of God.
The written Biblical narrative does reveal baptism in Jesus's name as a part of being saved. The written Biblical narrative does not reveal infant baptism. That is, as well, inferred and allegedly found only in between the lines of scripture.
Do you @@Rejoranthink church services should not be with music?
@@tomo5136, I see nothing wrong with music during church services. We use music often. Why?
I do not see where you read in the scriptures that prove infant baptism.
One other thing I think needs to be addressed. I believe that the major issue for Dr. Ortlund isn't baptism. It's perseverance of the saints. If one approaches baptism from the perspective that once one has been imparted the irresistible grace of God, he or she can never lose it, then it becomes a problem to claim that real grace is given in baptism, since it's so obvious that so many baptized people do not persevere. This, again, I think is an issue of not looking at the uniform testimony of the Church (which did all believe that salvation could be lost, including Augustine, who still was a predestinarian) and attempting to impose a novel system on texts that were never interpreted that way.
Is using terminology like “uniform testimony” and “which did ALL believe” accurate? This seems to be the popular thing. Claim all of church history is on “your” side, when in actuality, it is much more complicated.
@@SerenityNow22 some things are more complicated. Others aren’t. For instance, I don’t think you’ll find a church father who didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration or the episcopacy. You will find some who differ on the divine will of Christ. So it depends on the issue. But on the question of baptism and perseverance, I think it’s fair to say there was a consensus.
Dr. Ortlund, I would love to hear you expound on the thought that forgiveness of sins is something separate from regeneration.
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." Hebrews 9:22
starting at 38:30, Dr. Cooper hits it out of the ballpark with the simplest question and explanation of all: If Baptism is a "work", and we can all agree that it is, whose work is it? If you believe like the modern Evangelicals that Baptism is man's work as an act of obedience in reponse to their faith, then it does not save, and in fact it cannot save, because we are not saved by our works. If on the other hand you believe that Baptism is God's work, then of course it saves, as only God's work save us.
(1) if you locate regeneration in faith prior to Baptism, then the crowd in Acts 2 was *already* regenerate prior to Peter telling them to repent and get Baptized for the remission of sins, because they had already believed prior to that statement. If this was the case, then his statement is strange because they had already received forgiveness of sins.
(2) Re: post-baptismal sin. While Luther talks about Baptism being the means of mercy for post-baptismal sin, he nevertheless affirmed that post-baptismal sin caused a loss of salvation and that a return to grace could only occur through a return to repentance and confession (a sacrament he retained). Hence, the substance of Lutheran theology *on that point* doesn't actually depart from the patristic and Catholic teaching on post-baptismal sin.
(3) Gavin talks about affirmations of pre-baptismal regeneration by faith and the necessity of faith for baptism to be efficacious. Yet Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans, all affirm all of that, and always have.
(4) Gavin believes Baptism saves, gives grace, etc, in the same way he believes that any and every devotional aspect of the Christian life saves, gives grace, etc. Good works, prayers, reading Scripture, fasting, etc, Gavin would say that all of these things give forgiveness of sins, salvation, grace, etc, *in a sense.* Of course, Catholics and Orthodox will say the same thing. What Gavin denies is that Baptism is the *initial* thing that brings a person into salvific relationship with God. Well, the Scriptures show us people who had faith, even faith and conviction of sin, bit yet we're not as of that point regenerate. Cf Acts 2.
Taylor, while I have a different perspective on these points, I really appreciate you engaging my view with greater care than some have. Thanks. I'll just comment on one thing: I think it's reasonable to see the crowd in Acts as not yet having saving faith since they are enjoined to repent in response to the gospel. My perspective is that saving faith represents the point of response to the gospel. Their question "Brothers, what shall we do?" (verse 37) suggests that they have not yet responded to the gospel, and are asking how to do so. So I don't think you have to read Acts 2 as though the crowd already possesses saving faith while they are hearing Peter preach. Blessings.
@@TruthUnites depends on how we define saving faith (and whether our personal definition of saving faith is actually constituent of what is required for salvation) !
In Catholic theology, saving faith involves supernatural love for Christ.
A person can be moved by *actual* grace to faith and repentance in the Gospel, but lack supernatural love for Christ. This is where Sacraments come in.
@@TruthUnites Hello, Dr. Ortlund. When we speak about regeneration, there must be clarified what we understand by regeneration. There is a difference between the purification of the heart and conscience, and the remission of sins. The heart of both the Jewish and Gentile believers is purified by faith:,,So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.“ (Acts 15:8-9, Orthodox Study Bible).
The cleansing of the heart includes the cleansing of the conscience:,,Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. † 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.“ (Hebrews 10:19-23, Orthodox Study Bible). You mentioned that the cleansing of the conscience through faith here precedes the washing with pure water which refers to baptism in water. Yes, this is so. The believer’s conscience is cleansed by faith.
The conscience is the part of our mind that makes us aware of our actions as being right or wrong. So one cannot repent without his conscience having been cleansed first because his repentance is dependent on his awareness of the fact that he has what to repent for. So the repentance is a consequence of the cleansing of the heart.
It is said that the Jewish believers in Acts 2:37-39 were cut to the heart before St.Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins:,,37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” † 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. † 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39, Orthodox Study Bible). As they were cut to the heart (2:37) before they asked Peter what they should do, therefore they became aware of what they had done to Jesus and so their conscience was cleansed because otherwise they would not become aware of the fact that what they had done was wrong. Therefore that they were cut to the heart (2:37) refers to the purification of faith (Acts 15:9) and the sprinkling from evil conscience through faith (Hebrews 10:22). And therefore they had come to believe before Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And as he told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, their sins had not yet been remitted, although they had come to believe.
You did not deny that baptism is a means of grace of God and a means of giving forgiveness of sins by God’s grace working in baptism but what you deny if I am correct is that it is the initial means of giving forgiveness of sins by God:,,What I am excluding when I deny baptismal regeneration is the initial act of being made alive to God is delivered through baptism. …All I am denying is that baptism is regenerative, that it makes you alive to God.“
There is a refence in the Holy Scripture that baptism is the initial act of being made alive to God and that is regenerative. This is because baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity is refers to as the only means for giving the believers forgiveness of their former sins by God.
Acts 10:43-48 say:,,And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” The Gentile Pentecost 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. † 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. †“ (Acts 10:43-48, Orthodox Study Bible).
When the apostle says that whoever believes in Him, will receive remission of sins, he means the baptism in water in his Name because the Romans that he told it were baptized immediately after those words of the apostle. Yes, they received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking those words and before they got baptized in water in the name of the Lord. But still they were baptized in water in the name of the Lord immediately after Peter told them that whoever believes in Christ, will receive remission of sins through His name. That is in relation with Acts 2:38 where the Jews received remission of sins in the baptism in His Name. The reception of the Holy Spirit by the Romans was the first occasion when Gentiles received Him which to show the apostles that Gentiles could receive Him, too (10:44) which is why He was received by them before their baptism. After that occasion He continued to be received after baptism (Acts 19:6-7) like in the beginning (Acts 2:38, 8:14-17). There is a difference between the baptism for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit after the remission of sins.
The baptism is commanded by Jesus for all believers:,,Go therefore a and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, † 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.“ (Matthew 28:19-20, Orthodox Study Bible).
Of course, the baptism which is in water (Acts 8:38, 10:48) and in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) refers to the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because when the Ephesians that had been baptized with the baptism of St. John, told apostle Paul that they had not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit, he asked them into what they were baptized, thus implying that the baptism is done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. After that he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus (Acts 19:6), i.e. in the name of the Holy Trinity.
In relation with Acts 10:43-48, 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, the cleansing of the Church, i.e. of all members of the Church, by Christ with the washing of water and the word (Ephesians 5:25) refers to the baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, wherefore the word here (5:25) refers to the name of the Holy Trinity which is pronounced in the baptism. Therefore all believers without exception receive remission of sins in the baptism in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. And the cleansing of the whole Church (5:25) of course includes the infants getting baptized (who are baptized for the original sin) because there were not two kinds of baptism - for the infants and for the adults. And the earliest fathers attested that the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition.
As I had written in a comment under your video about baptismal regeneration, the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century. The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140). St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century.
@@TruthUnites love your channel. Perhaps we Methodists have an adequate answer for you:
I think we would say that what you are seeing in your experience with pre-baptismal catechumens, as well as the people in Acts 2, Cornelius, and all of those instances that you see as showing pre-baptismal regeneration, are the fruit of prevenient grace working in those people. So rather than them being regenerated, they are simply showing the fruits of God drawing them to the culmination of prevenient grace, which would be the initiatory sacrament of Baptism. Then, they receive justifying grace (regeneration) through Baptism. However, I’m happy just saying that there is an intimate relationship between baptism and regeneration and leaving it at that.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
Yep. That's the deal breaker that forbids me exploring protestantism past Lutheran/Anglican churches.
Salvation with a work?...if your parents baptized as an infant, then isn't their faith for another?
@@maxstrange7606 They shared the gospel with me as an infant and I came to faith. That faith receives the blessings given in baptism that Scripture promises.
@@B27-o2c Newsflash: you DON'T get Faith through Baptism...PERIOD!
@@MygoalwogelIndependent Baptists are usually the only ones that deny that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians have a much more robust sacramentology.
Just a point on last time.. there was a collective baptism of the whole Church, in fact the particular baptisms are just a participation in the universal and original baptism of Israel/the Church IN CHRIST.
This debate is about Christian vs Non-Christian baptism. -(There is no word-smithing, or mis-understandings about that statement)
If baptism is normally required for forgiveness of sin then how do we understand Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel “?
@Michaelherbert5334 Paul in 1 Cor.1:17 was not negating the importance of baptism when he said, "Christ sent me not to baptize...".
Paul understood perfectly the essential need for baptism.
When Paul met Christ on the road, he was instructed by Jesus to "go into the city and there it will be told you what you MUST do."
Paul was commanded to "Arise and be baptized washing away your sins, calling on his name." "Calling on his name" is responding in obedience to Christ's instructions.
Notice how Jesus did not save Paul as He did the thief on the cross. But instead, stuck with his gospel plan of salvation, where it "pleased the Father by the foolishness of preaching to save them who are lost."
Can you deny Jesus had any intentions of Paul being baptized?
Paul was responding to a severe problem where some were dividing themselves according to "who" baptized them.
Paul baptized some in Corinth, as he baptized the 12 in Ephesus. When Paul was by himself he did the immersing, when he was accompanied by other disciples, they baptized while he preached.
So, the purpose for baptism was not issue with the Corinthians, but placing importance on the immnerser.
Paul was so glad he did not baptize these folks who were dividing themselves according to who baptized them, he had enough problems without rumors going around that he baptized in his own name.
Also, notice how news reached the pharisees that Jesus baptized more disciples than John (Jn.4:1-2). Though Jesus did not baptize, his disciples baptized.
Both John and Jesus were baptizing thousands "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk.1:4-5).
Does it appear to you that baptism was not essential to Jesus, simply because he did not personally baptize anyone?
I’m really enjoying watching this discussion. I would like to personally have a conversation with the local Lutheran pastor here before really coming to any conclusions. I come from a baptist perspective, but am thinking of going to a LCMS church. So much of it seems foreign, but also comforting and “right”, IDK. I think I need to go with my husband and see if he can take us through every scripture reference.
As an infant baptized and raised in the Lutheran church, I love these discussions!!! The Word of God and the Holy Spirit are essential after baptism at any point in one's life. Dr. Ortland, what do you say about persons who may have no intellectual capacity for understanding the Word nor confessing their faith? I keep being blessed even as an 80+ish Christian who has been the block a few times. The Lord's very best to you all❤❤❤
Excellent conversation
Awesome discussion! On the early church part, the reason why the Baptists go to far and the Lutherans not far enough is because the early Christians were essentially Catholics. So, for them, baptism was akin to circumcision (Col 2:11-12)-then entry point into the covenant-and there was no such idea as “infant faith”, rather, as in circumcision, the parents made a choice for the infant, a choice that infant would have to choose to make his own or not later in life. Thus, penance, and the idea that sins after baptism are not automatically forgiven make sense (since the circumcised Jews still has to abide by the norms of the covenant). As a catholic, this was very educational for me. Thanks!
@@Reformation1580 why did you waste such a magnificent quote on a reply? This should be a comment in its own right. But don't repost it or UA-cam will think you're spamming.
It really seems like a huge difficulty in the discussion is a difference on the meaning of regeneration. The Lutheran definition of regeneration seems much more fuzzy and almost has multiple meanings.
Forgiveness of sins=regeneration (Titus 3:5)
@@BBarn711 I don’t think Titus 3:5 tells us regeneration is forgiveness of sins. It seems more like it’s saying it’s a saving work of the Holy Spirit where He gives us new life by His mercy.
@@Qhaon
What's the difference between that and the forgiveness of subs
Sins?
That's what the holy spirit works in us. That's what we receive.
@@StBindo I’m not saying that regeneration doesn’t entail forgiveness of sins or that we don’t receive forgiveness of sins at regeneration, but normally, I would tie forgiveness of sins more with justification and the giving of new life (the beginning of sanctification) with regeneration. All I was saying was I don’t think Titus 3:5 tells us regeneration is exactly the same thing as forgiveness of sins; if it includes forgiveness of sins, it’s at least broader than that. If we’re asking the question, does baptism effect regeneration, we better be very clear on our definition of regeneration before answering the question.
@@Qhaon
Fair enough. I'd agree that it's associated more with justification than regeneration.
Martyr specifically addressed baptism in his first apology, and concerning baptism he states:
"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5).
I'm unsure why Dr. Ortlund tried to quote him elsewhere as if he didn't argue for baptismal regeneration.
He seems to clearly link the two.
Hello! I'd encourage you to go back and listen to what I said. To repeat, the issue turns on what he *means* by "regenerated" since he's just said they are already "made new in Christ" and later says they are "illumined" prior to the baptism ("he who is illumined is washed" - not "he who is washed is illumined"). Here is the passage leading up to to what you quoted:
"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them."
There is a lot of online debate about this, as well as the other passages in Justin I mentioned; you could dip into it a bit here: www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/17/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt1/
@@TruthUnites
Thank you, Dr. Maybe it just seemed more clear cut than i thought.
Thank you for the response.
@@StBindo most welcome, thanks for the many thoughtful comments.
Not sure if this helped me understand or if I am just more confused now
48:24 got me to chuckle pretty good “they might want to after you baptize them” lol
& to the answer that we don't have biblical precedent, isn't baptizing them a foundational piece of the great commission??? But fundamentally, my greatest concern is the outplaying of this connection of regeneration to baptism seems to be weakened beyond the biblical definition of regeneration.
Dr. Cooper, maybe your next video focus in on household baptisms.
Gavin was awesome in this segment
If I was to try and explain my view through an analogy, it would be that of giving birth.
When a person first believes, that is like the moment of conception. They are alive, just as a child in the womb is alive, but they have not yet been born again, just as the baby has not been born.
This initial moment of faith, I believe is sometimes mentioned in Scripture as being cut to the heart, or having the heart pricked, and it is generally followed by a great conviction of one's sins, that culminates in repentance. This can be likened to the child developing in the womb, leading up to the mother going into labour.
Then the child is born, just as the believer is born again through the waters.
And finally, just as the child takes their first breath, the believer receives the Holy Spirit. Now, this is not to say that the child was not alive prior to their first breath, or that the Holy Spirit was not at work in the life of the believer prior to Baptism, but that this is when the Believer is first filled with the Spirit, as a new creation, having their sins washed away. This is the first breath of their new life.
This of course raises the question of Cornelious, who received the Spirit and then was Baptised, but I think that the analogy of birth can fit this too, as there can be a great delay between a baby's head emerging, and the subsequent birthing of the shoulders and rest of the body. During which a baby can take its first breath and cry, etc. even though it has not yet been fully born. Likewise, under certain circumstances, the LORD may see fit to give the believer their first breath, before they are fully born, having the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to Baptism.
Likewise, there are plenty of other variations within when is the normal process of giving birth, such as c-sections, or breech births, etc. That can demonstrate that just because there is a normal modus operandi for the New Birth, doesn't mean that that is always how it happens.
I like this analogy a lot, thank you.
Fantastic analogy thank you for putting it in a way i could not. I was baptized in the Spirit before water like cornelius and it has been a source of confusion for me.
What is Dr. Ortlund's view of perseverance of the saints? I think this might be the main point of departure here if he accepts that doctrine.
Dr. Ortlund's main argument is that if regeneration (defined roughly as our initial conversion) happens before baptism for an adult convert, then there are two different kinds of baptism: regenerative and non-regenerative. But this only follows if you believe salvation is a one-time act which cannot be lost. In that case, a baptism that follows an adult conversion doesn't really do anything when it comes to salvation. But if you reject perseverance of the saints, like Luther, then saying an adult convert is regenerated before baptism doesn't mean that his baptism is different than an infant baptism. The exact same grace of God is necessary for both regeneration and perseverance, and it can be resisted by both the regenerate and unregenerate. Therefore, baptism gives the same grace to the regenerate and unregenerate, so there are not two different baptisms.
While it is true that an adult convert who is already regenerate is not re-regenerated in baptism, this is really just a terminological technicality on the Lutheran view, because God's grace is always necessary throughout the Christian life for conversion and perseverance, and baptism is a means through which that grace is given to us.
48:06-50:22, Dr Ortlunds argument here is so strong
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Everyone is included unless good exceptions are found. Jesus says that infants who are *brought* to him are actually *coming* to him, and we have examples of infant believers in the psalms and NT. We have no examples of believing unbelievers.
In my opinion the argument "should we just baptize everyone then??" Was kind of silly to begin with, I mean we don't give what is holy to the doigs (The Eucharist to unvbelievers) so why do the same with Baptism?
Wondering what Ortlund's answer in 33:48 is communicating. He seems inconsistent in saying that baptism can somehow forgive sins by placing our faith in it. How can you have a non-effectual grace that is ambiguous as to what exactly it does and depends on experience? That is not what the fathers taught. Additionally, (per 48:55 ) the reason we're not baptizing every infant is because we will be judged (at least in part) according to whether we've lived according to a regenerate or unregenerate state. To baptize an infant into the regenerate state would be a sort of violence done to that infant if the parents are not intending to raise them in the Christian life. Sadly, there are people who do this all the time when they treat Christianity as strictly cultural. With baptism must come the knowledge of how to get back to that baptismal state as well, namely, confession and repentance. Unfortunately both of them reject chrismation as something part and parcel with baptism as well even though it is hinted at even in the book of Acts (the Pentecostals at least recognize this a bit).
I sense that there are underlying principles being debated here between Dr. Jordan Cooper of the Lutheran denomination, and Dr. Gavin Ortlund of the Baptist denomination. These are as follows:
1. To the Lutherans, faith is an outcome of water baptism, while to Baptists, water baptism is the outcome of a person’s faith. Dr. Ortlund therefore looked to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II as an example of his principle, where she became acting queen first, and the coronation was a later symbolic result. For Lutherans, water baptism causes a type of enrollment into God’s disciplinary and redemptive program, which may or may not be preceded with various types and scopes of Christian faith. Hence for Lutherans, baptism is for people of all ages with the only limitations being against persons who do not want to get baptized.
2. To Lutherans, reception of the sacraments is kind of like receiving a manufactured Bible. That is why a person can legitimately receive grace apart from faith, but for the faith to be effective, faith from the recipient has to come into the picture. Similarly, a person (even an atheist) can receive and own a manufactured Bible, but the outcome of this is dependent upon the person’s free will to get faith as a result. To Baptists, the purchase of a Bible is seen as an outcome of previous faith, which makes the scope of Baptist faith to often be limited in scope, as though the purchase of the Bible is just an outward sign of the inward grace of deciding to purchase the Bible.
3. To Lutherans, the need for a water baptism after infant baptism as a result of the consciousness of thoughtful faith is kind of like believing that an infant recipient of a Bible needs to purchase a second Bible as a result of new and (dramatically changed for the better) Christian religious beliefs. Baptists think that faith and a decision is a necessary prerequisite for water baptism, but just how much depth and scope of faith is necessary for this prerequisite to be valid?
4. To Lutherans, water baptism is a sort of enrollment into God’s disciplinary program. Baptizing a baby (or someone much older) is therefore likened to enrollment in a school as a student. This means that the recipient of baptism always comes to God in a child-like manner. They may or may not have much faith, and the same lack thereof with a (child-like) need for repentance, knowledge of Christ crucified, and the need to study and understand the Bible is evident due to human weakness that precludes spiritual boasting. To Baptists, if a decision to get water baptized is the necessary prerequisite, this explains their common view that water baptism is to make a public statement of some sort. Is the purpose of obtaining a Bible to make a public statement of some sort, or the need to know God better? To Baptists, instead of enrollment in a school as a student, it is more like going to a University for consulting services. To both Lutherans and Baptists, faith in the knowledge of the teachers and professors is therefore important, just as a belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is important. The difference is that to the Lutherans, they view the relationship with the school or University as one of the discipline of a student who is under the government of the school. For Baptists, this relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit is one of asking for advice after their faith in the professors, and convincing one’s self that they have the right intellectual understanding of what Jesus and the Holy Spirit can do for them. To Baptists, this is according to what they come to Jesus and the Holy Spirit for as they view Jesus as someone to have a personal relationship with as a consultant offers help and advice to their clients.
5. Because Lutherans view water baptism is an enrollment into God’s reform school, a person who decides to get baptized may do so upon their humility of asking God for help even in their unbelief. To Lutherans, the concept of using water baptism to make a statement is kind of like thinking that a teenager’s enrollment into a reform school is done to make a statement. This would be an embarrassing statement, and is not conducive with spiritual pride. To Baptists who believe that water baptism is to make a public statement, this implies a kind of self righteousness that cannot be associated with salvation is this would lead to the concept that a form of self boasting is connected with salvation.
6. To the Lutherans, water baptism is more God’s work, while to Baptists, water baptism is more man’s work. I do not know why Dr. Cooper does not claim that Lutherans have faith in the supernatural effects of water baptism, much like how Lutherans (and also Baptists) have faith in the supernatural effects of the voicing of prayers. To Baptists, this water baptismal work of man is just an outcome of earlier faith, and has little or no supernatural effect. What matters to Baptists is the decision that leads up to the water baptism, so they view the saving grace as something that results in water baptism; and the water baptism is just a sign of this earlier bestowal of grace.
I could bring up Bible quotations that support the Lutheran views (above), so if anyone is curious as to what verses I am thinking of, please respond.
Each Anabaptist (a Gnostic type of Pelagianism) judges himself as 'saved' through his own human imagination. Their religion is prophesied in red letter Matthew 7:1. You will notice most translations purposely *inserts text* into that verse, *mistranslate* it, or *misinterpret* its meaning. But Good commentary explains what it says and means.
A better analogy would be that Elizabeth was born into the royal family, was raised and trained expecting to become queen one day, but was not actually queen until she accepted the role specifically (following her father’s death). She could have declined, and even after being crowned could have abdicated, as her uncle did previously. Infants who are baptized are brought into the family of God, and raised and taught the faith expecting that as they are older they will choose to follow Jesus specifically for themselves.
@@PenMom9 You typed, "Infants who are baptized are brought into the family of God, and raised and taught the faith expecting that as they are older they will choose to follow Jesus specifically for themselves." Does this apply to older persons as well, for when they allow themselves to get water baptized?
@@raykidder906 Same, save that the personal choice to follow Christ would potentially happen at or near the time of baptism. The need and the desire to continually learn is certainly there for adults, and the means of grace through baptism also there.
25:07 Cooper simply responded to Ortlund’s argument about the patristic views by challenging the audience to simply “go read the texts.”
This is perhaps my greatest frustration with Ortlund. His entire tactic is based upon muddying straight forward statements with his own biases and eisegetical readings of both the patristic and biblical texts. I do appreciate how calm and non-inflammatory he is in his approach, but he generally seems to be trying to fight by sowing confusion and laying smoke screens rather than prove his position.
That's not usually true. This is a debate so tactics matter. I'm happy to be Lutheran, but always found it puzzling why we generally shy away from John 6 as a proof text for the Lord's Supper. Dr. Ortlund, not Lutherans, got me to understand that both Augustine and Chrysostom make no more than passing remarks about the Supper in their sermons and letters about John 6. The DO hold consistently to a Sacramental Union view when preaching directly about the Lord's Supper. They just find too much other wealth in John 6 to get fixated on only one thing.
You both missed an amazing opportunity to use the example from Nacho Libre of forced baptism!
Or Ned's accidentally baptizing Homer.
pastor cooper chugging a col one to start with! haha blessings pastor cooper, nice job, clean clean!
Dr. cooper summarised it well as the word and promise of God given and it becomes effective thru faith.
No one pointed out that "being effective" is actually how most think about "regeneration", so in that understanding baptism itself isn't "regenerative" though with faith it is.
The problem arises because the term "regeneration" is used only twice in scripture.
It's probably best to stop using the term "baptismal regeneration" and talking about it joining one to Christ.. participating in the new creation.... so what happened to him happened to us., .. salvation-historically.
Baptism is a one time sacrament precisely because the grace it gives is regenerative. You only get born (again) once. Other means of grace may give forgiveness of sin, but not new life.
Dr. Ortlund is so “charitable” throughout I actually don’t even know where he stands 🤷
Dr. Cooper has so much more patience than I would have, especially when he said baptism forgives sins but is not regenerative. I was ready to pull my hair out.
Help me understand why you find that frustrating. Do you not think the Eucharist forgives sins but is not regenerative? Or do you think forgiveness of sins is only a one-time event rather than ongoing?
He did us proud. I was impressed with Dr. Ortlund's oratory skill. Each time Dr. Cooper started with, "Yeah... You know... Er" I just thought, "Please don't be stumped!" But he never was. He always had a factual intelligent answer.
@@TruthUnites but the bible doesn't say that baptism does exactly what the Supper does.
Baptism is associated with being buried and raised with Christ.
Baptism is where we are said to put off the old man and put on the new.
Baptism is called the circumcision without hands.
Baptism is said to actually save.
Where does scripture associate the Supper with these things?
Two different functions. And it's frustrating to hear you equating them.
And I'm honestly still confused on how you believe that baptism actually delivers what it promises when you deny that new life (regeneration) is a product of it.
@@StBindo you wrote a number of different comments; let me just respond to one point here. The idea that regeneration = forgiveness is at odds with how regeneration was defined at the start of the discussion, as well as reiterated throughout, as well as common Christian usage of the term across traditions (e.g., the Roman Catholic catechism), as well as the meaning of the word in the Bible. Regeneration is the *initial* act of being made alive to God; forgiveness of sins is something we experience continually throughout the Christian life. I did not say the Eucharist and baptism are the same in their symbolism or meaning, but I referenced the Eucharist as an example of how something can be a means of grace, but not regenerative. You can disagree that something can be a non-regenerative means of grace, but I sincerely cannot understand why the concept is difficult to grasp, or why it would make anyone want to tear their hair out. Since Bethany did not respond, I don't know how to to help any further. Trying to be charitable, I would guess that there is some kind of terminological or conceptual impasse that is making it hard for people to understand the idea (hence my attempt to reference the Eucharist as another example of a non-regenerative means of grace). I'm not getting the impression that people are listening carefully to what I actually said, so I probably won't respond further unless there is something specific to clarify.
@@TruthUnites
If I've failed to listen to you carefully, I assure you that it hasn't been intentional.
I feel sorry for Christians 2000 years from now trying to decipher what we meant by what we said in the year 2020.
Dr. Ortland is saying, faith + baptism saves you. Dr. Cooper is saying the faith is provided by the baptism and therefore saves you. There is a pretty big difference here, but one does have to acknowledge that sometimes people are baptized as infants they are catechized and they are brought up in the fear and admiration of the Lord and they still live godless lives and later, they have a conversion experience and profess that they never knew the Lord. This is just a reality. We can formulate theology all we want, but how is that theology applied is another thing.
It’s very clear that the baptist view is not what the fathers taught. Even Dr. Orlund admits that the fathers connect baptism with salvation.
why do you think an association between baptism and salvation is at odds with a Baptist view?
@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortlund, I would love to hear you expound on the thought that forgiveness of sins is separate from regeneration.
@@TruthUnites i meant to say that even Dr. Orlund admits that baptism saves and that it is a means of grace, which no baptist church teaches in my experience.
How do you reconcile this? I am trying to study this and I don't understand.
Absolutely fantastic discussion! I would love to see more from both of you. I came away being surprised at the overlap actually. Would you be willing to do a discussion on Communion?
It seems that Gavin doesn’t hold a very typical Baptist position.
Justin identifies the conversion baptism as the time when one is made new (61.1). His preferred way of describing this experience of newness is shown by the repeated use of the words "regeneration" (rebirth) and "be regenerated" (born again). He draws the comparison of this new generation with physical generation inasmuch as both involve moisture (water of baptism and the moist seed of sexual union)...it is evident from Justin, Hermas and others that John 3:3-5 reflected language in widespread use in the early decades of the church as referring to baptism. (Evertt Ferguson Baptism In The Early Church, pp. 240, 241.
The problematic nature of their beliefs is the idea that these church "fathers" are on the same level with scripture. Even within the few years of Paul preaching, he was having to call out false teaching so ancient does not equate correct truth. Paul writes the following in 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Our western form of Christianity in large part has been robbed of its power often more about theological eloquence than transformative power in which the kingdom of God is evident." In Romans Paul often refers to the power of the gospel being about faith not anything else. If baptism regeneration was the message then all the writers of the New Testament would have consistently emphasis this idea. Only by holding up human tradition on the same level as the scriptural blueprint given by Christ and the apostles do these ideas today exist in our modern from of Christianity. Ancient does equate truth but ultimately was the original message preached. Are we pursuing human eloquence or the foolishness of the gospel?
Why did Paul get baptized so fast? Why didn’t he wait 3 days later? I mean it seems like there is a sense of urgency there and it doesn’t say he was baptized publicly
I think the Lutheran tradition has a slight departure from Luther on the nature of justification, and this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Luther has a very Augustinian view of justification, where by grace alone apart from works or any notion of free will, the sinner is made righteous by participating in Christ himself -- I think this is best understood in a Platonic sense (remember, Augustine was a Platonist, and Luther seems to affirm Platonism in his Heidelberg disputation). For Luther, justification is primarily being made righteous, not declared righteous, by God's grace alone (sola gratia). We come to participate in Christ (as all things participate in Forms for Plato) through the gift of faith, not our own works which are sinful and imperfect (sola fide). There is clearly a forensic aspect to justification in Luther, but it is basically residual: our being made righteous is only begun, not completed, in this life, so there is nothing we do that is untainted by sin. By participating in Christ, we also receive the forgiveness of sins, which covers our sin and allows us to be declared fully righteous, despite only being partially righteous in reality. And partial righteousness is good for nothing -- it means we are still sinners through and through; bound, dead, and in need of grace.
This view stands in contrast to the later Lutheran tradition, which speaks of justification almost exclusively as a forensic declaration. I think modern Lutherans misunderstand Luther's concept of alien righteousness by claiming that it is the imputed righteousness of Christ. For Luther, alien righteousness certainly is the righteousness of Christ, but the sinner receives it not by imputation but by participation. Thus, in his sermon on the two kinds of righteousness, Luther talks about growing in alien righteousness, which makes no sense if alien righteousness is the imputed righteousness of Christ (which never grows or shrinks).
How is this relevant to baptism? For Luther, justification is an ongoing process throughout the Christian life, in which "Christ daily drives out the old Adam more and more in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow. For alien righteousness is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death." Regarding an adult convert who is already regenerate, Luther would say that he has only the beginning of justification, and needs the Word and sacraments like baptism to participate more and more fully in Christ's righteousness (though he already has the full forgiveness of sins and eternal life were he to die right away). Thus, baptism of an adult convert really does something -- it pours grace on him, drives out the old Adam, and replaces it more and more with Christ.
For later Lutheran theology, I think Dr. Ortlund has a point about adult baptisms not really doing anything. If justification is basically an on/off switch, what does baptism do for someone already justified? It doesn't seem to do much of anything, though of course Dr. Cooper would dispute that.
The difference is subtle, but this Lutheran thinks Luther's view is more dynamic, more consistent with the Fathers, and more biblical. Honestly, I think the disagreement might come down to Luther's Platonism vs. later Lutherans' Aristotelianism, but that's just a hypothesis...
Fascinating. You might find Christopher Malloy's Engrafted into Christ worth reading. It is a catholic theologian's respectful but critical assessment of the Joint Declaration. It touches on some of the same themes from a Catholic perspective (and especially a close reading of Trent including the intra-Catholic debates). Here and there he has a few references to Matthias Scheeben, a great 19th century German Catholic theologian, who perhaps should have been more of a touchpoint. at least for those working on the Catholic side of the Joint Declaration - might have had a lens that was more true to Catholic distinctives but at the same time given an approach that might have been a better bridge of the divide. Still working my way through this dense book
So you would argue (and argue that historical Lutheranism would argue) that sanctification is really part of the justification process?
@@wesmorgan7729 My point is that the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification that develops pretty much immediately after Luther is really a product of theologians systematizing Luther's theology using Aristotelian categories, which is a bit different from Luther's Platonism.
Think of the following question: are we justified by Christ's alien righteousness or an "infused" righteousness within us?
1) For an Aristotelian, where only individual substances exist, this is an either/or question, and the Lutherans answered that justification is a purely forensic act where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Regeneration/renewal/sanctification must therefore be clearly separated from justification.
2) For a Platonist, the answer to the above question is "yes." For Plato, all physical, individual things are what they are by participating in a higher level of reality, and goodness is understood as participation as well. Basically, stronger participation is more goodness. So what does it mean to be made righteous for a Platonist? To participate more fully in a higher level of reality. What is that higher level of reality? Jesus Christ and his righteousness. We come to participate in that reality through faith.
Basically, for Platonism, we are justified by participating Christ's righteousness. So are we justified through faith by the alien righteousness of another? Yes. Are we made righteous through that same act of participation, as all things participate in Forms? Yes. Both can be true for Platonists, which is why you don't really see a justification/sanctification distinction in Luther, at least in as strict a way as it develops for, say, the Formula of Concord.
Jordans book Salvation as participation in Christ. I think this is a must read. But I think hes
An Aristotelian but im not sure
48:22 Imagine just spear tackling people into rivers and lakes, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... then running away screaming, "You'll thank me later!!"
😅 I just know this picture is going to pop into my head at the most random time now, lol.
I really appreciate this dialogue, but I think Ortlund's view of a means of grace sadly complicates the issue, and is a little clunky. Baptism is putting the self to death in the water and then raising the new self out of the water. But in Ortlund's model he splits it half: The means of grace is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins (going in the water) but not efficacious for new creation (rising out of the water). It sounds like he is advocating that baptism is half grace and half sign.
If regeneration is correct, shouldn't even adults be baptized immediately, to regenerate them, then give them catachetical instruction, as baptism would have made them able to receive the instruction?
Both the scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers linked faith, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the new birth by the Holy Spirit.
For the early church, baptism was a public confession of an inward faith and because they were converted as adults, that is when baptism took place. In the case of Cornelius, for example, faith arose and then the sign of the Holy Spirit's work preceded the actual baptism.
But was it possible that a person could be baptized out of a desire for peer or family acceptance, before they really understood the meaning of it, and their true faith came later?
What of the thief on the cross who found faith and confessed it with his mouth, but was never baptized at all?
What of those who assert that the new birth follows faith and does not precede it (the capacity for faith being a work of God's enabling grace for all people)?
What of those who surrender to the Lord on their death bed and are never baptized?
Whatever the chronological order of these matters that today's denominations assert, the entire process is ultimately a mystery of God's grace and a work of the Holy Spirit. On the believer's side, what matters is that faith in Christ and his finished work at Calvary and the act of baptism should go together, if at all possible.
Interesting conversation. One thing that didn't come up (and there is no reason why it would) was the anthropolgical reasoning behind both of your positions. Both of you, maybe to a differing extent, assume an Augustinian anthropology. How would a now Augustinian approach affect the beliefs? I say this knowing the Eastern Church baptizes infants as well, but I think for different reasons than the Latin church and derivative western/protestant positions.
I think they’re in more agreement than they allow. Both affirm that a person can be saved through simply believing the word, and both hold that baptism confers forgiveness of sins. The only difference, and I think this is minor, is that Dr. Cooper thinks that God ordinarily saves people through baptism, whereas Dr. Ortland thinks God gives forgiveness of sins again.
Faith receives what baptism gives
this is it
Does Cooper do anything other than appeal to authority?
Household baptism: Children were indeed apart of households as found in I Tim. 3:4 "A shepherd must be one who manages his own HOUSEHOLD well, keeping his CHILDREN under control with all dignity" & 3:12 "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their CHILDREN and their own HOUSEHOLDS." These passages at least allow for the possibility of children present in households and at the same time show the improbability that no children were present in households.
Most don't understand water baptism was only for John the Baptist to identify Jesus as the Son of God
john 1:31 to 34
I myself did not know him, BUT ...THE REASON. I CAME BAPTIZING WITH WATER WAS THAT HE MIGHT BE REVEALED TO ISRAEL.”
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
WATER BAPTISM is a stumbling block...
THE TRUTH IS JESUS NEVER BAPTISED ANYBODY IN WATER 🤔
ITS THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT SAVES US TODAY.......😇
Credobaptists affirm that children can be baptized. If they are old enough to understand the gospel and believe. But paedobaptists must read their theology into verses like that. And see “infant” whenever a passage talks about children.
There's a difference between infants and children (i.e. all infants are children but not all children are infants). Ortlund is stating that there's insufficient evidence to show that there were infants in these "households" who were subsequently baptized.
@@artistart55 how do you interpret John 3:22 in that case? (I know this is nine months after you posted so no worries if you don’t respond 😅)
@@randomdad1234
John 4:1-4
It was Jesus's disciples who were baptizing..not Jesus.
when jesus learned of this he had to go back to Galilee
John 3:29-30.
The bride belongs to the bridegroom.The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. THAT JOY IS MINE, AND IT IS NOW COMPLETE ( water baptism is over)
.He must become greater; I must become less.”
John 5:31-34.
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.
32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.
33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.
34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.
Galatians 3:26-27 By the grace of God and our faith in the gospel our baptism brings us into union with Jesus
You gotta read before and after a verse to get a clear understanding of the text, it's just good practice for reading comprehension. It's clearly speaking of spiritual baptism/union with Jesus.
24The law, then, was our guardian until Christ,a so that we could be justified by faith. 25But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for through faith you are all sons of God in Christ Jesus.
27For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.a 28There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free,a male and female;b since you are all onec in Christ Jesus.
I believe more on a Baptist side but I was saved because I took communion at a Lutheran Church and God revealed himself my daughter was baptized as a baby and she's a believer that 4 years old she can tell you the gospel so I don't know it's truly to Worship in spirit no one's 100% right only believe in Christ and you will be saved
penance was pretty universal from at least Nicea. the liturgical witness is unanimous. there's literally a category of laity called the penitents.
now, that is most probably not an apostolic tradition and could be viewed as an accretion, but still, it was there during the time of fathers throughout the whole empire, so to say that the idea of penance as a second plank was not universal seems a bit inaccurate
Dr. Ortlund, your view that baptism confers forgiveness of sins is very confusing.
I think he's saying it's like confession. it confers forgiveness of sins but it doesn't cause initial regeneration.
The Kingdom belongs to children not just baptised children.
I want to say a lot but I will try to be brief.
The Means of Grace. What are they and what does this phrase mean? It means, the ways that God’s Grace comes to us! How God delivers to us what He accomplished for us on the cross. Biblically speaking they are 1) the Word. 2) Holy Baptism. 3) the Lord’s Supper. 4) confession and Absolution.
These 4 Means of Grace (or ways) contain the Word. We learn from John 1 that the Word is Jesus. So these 4 Means of Grace contain Jesus (the Word). Now what does Romans 10:17 tell us? “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”
So…. Or consequently…. Since the Word is Jesus and and the Word is a part of all the Means of Grace, then faith is given in each of the 4 Means of Grace. Hearing… the Word… Jesus… everything is there for regeneration!
We are too often tempted to not stick to the Word alone and lean on our own reason to understand things. The Word is clear, let’s not add into it our own ideas and presuppositions.
First, just because Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me, indicates the the child can come. In other words, a child can come as long as he understands. There is a passage, I believe in the Didache, that says the child should be old enough to understand.
Like Peter says, " Baptism now saves us..."
Don’t be shy. Post the rest of the verse. Literally disproves baptismal regeneration. It says baptism is a like figure of what saves us. By the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because baptism is a figure of the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And what does Paul mention when he talks about the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15? The death burial and resurrection
@@MagvireMafia the figure was the flood. The language of by the resurrection is used in 1 Peter 1:3 also about "born again". Born again=baptism. Similar language in Colossians 2:12-13
The apostle said in baptism we are buried and resurrected with Christ, the old man dies in baptism, not a new man died and is resurrected again
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
No. They’re both figures. Baptism is the “like figure”. And this contradicts infant baptism as well. Infants can’t answer with a good conscience towards God.
Your argument largely rests on KJV onlyism. Translations that might imply this are KJV influenced or derived
@@MagvireMafia if you have been following the videos you would know both sides acknowledge infant faith exists
Baptism IS the bath of regeneration (Titus 3:5). Here's what Paul wrote to Titus with some expansions, "He [God] saved us [sinners], not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness [whether works of law, or traditions, or other charitable works, etc, apart from Christ], but according to His mercy [compassion and forgiveness], by the washing [in the laver, a bath of water, our baptism] of regeneration [the new birth, new life, new creation] and the renewing of the Holy Spirit [who came to indwell us] through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that being justified by His grace [judicially acquitted of all transgressions and guilt by His grace] we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
@Yvonne
Hi, Yvonne.
There were a number of baptisms in the New Testament, but by the time Paul wrote to the Ephesian letter in 63 A.D., he said that there was only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Here's what he said in context:
_There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; _*_one Lord, one faith, one baptism,_*_ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all._
That means today there is *only one baptism.*
Question:- What baptism do you think that is, and why? Remember, Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are two different baptisms,... so which one is it?
In Matthew 3:11 John said to them,
_“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."_
Question:- In this passage of Scripture did John tell them *specifically who* Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and *who specifically* He would baptize with fire? Or do we have to go somewhere else to find out? If so, where?
That baptism can create faith is not an innovation. Look at Augustine's Confessions, where his Manichean friend was in a coma. The family baptized the youth assuming he would die. But he recovered. The Manichean Augustine made fun of him for getting baptized by Christians in his sleep. But... The boy told him to shut up! He was a Christian now. (Not recommending baptizing comatose atheists, however.)
I struggle with the fact that Jordan quotes Luther over and over again. We all know Luther was fallible. He was also swimming in RC tradition.
I struggle with it because I too can be a quote box of other thinkers instead of the word... so probably just projecting. Appreciate the dialogue. Just heard Jordan say "he wasn't trusting in his baptism" at 42:45... yikes.
I keep coming back to this video and especially at 32:30 - i have not, nor probably ever will, hear a Baptist say that baptism forgives sins.
Just bluntly... How is Dr. Ortlund a Baptist?!? His answer just screams against every single doctrine ive seen from that Baptist tradition (including my time as one)
Modern Baptists have, for the most part, become very divorced from their historic roots in the Reformed Congregationalist tradition. The Reformed have no issue with saying baptism forgives sins. As a Reformed Baptist, Ortlund is perfectly happy with affirming this. Unfortunately, the American Evengelical culture has a terrible sacramentology and a theology of baptism which views it as exclusively a public profession of faith and also as a personal act of obedience rather than a sign from God.
Do all Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration?
By definition, yes.
All confessional Lutherans. There are probably “Lutherans” out there who have no idea what Lutheranism is.
I have watched many a Dr. Ortlund video, and I must say, he seems unsure if literally everything, but so confident in the assurance of salvation. Kinda weird
If the fathers were unanimous on this teaching (infant baptism + regeneration) and I can still dismiss it as a baptist, I sure can dismiss anything else that I see fit if I think scriptures says otherwise, which means, the unanimous concensus of the fathers means nothing because they have been mistaken at the end of the day
The Father's did make mistakes and were part of their culture as we are of ours. There is what we call the consensus of the Father's but what about the consensus of scripture? There is inspired consensus and consensus that could be from tradition. There are volumes of writings from the Father's over centuries and could take a whole lifetime to fully understand them. God inspired scripture which is enough for faith and practice thankfully not volumes that could fill a whole bookshelf and would need patristic scholars to interpret a consensus for us.
@@jotink1 I am only talking about the consensus
@VDMA LCMS it isn't crystal clear because there are passages which state we are saved by grace through faith or believing in the Lord. These don't link salvation with baptism. Baptism is vital and I can't stress that enough because of its importance for all Christians which is why ALL traditions believe in baptising in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.
Why do parents name their kids or choose their gender without the kids’ permission? Why can’t parents just leave their kids alone and wait until they’re 30 when they’re finally ready to decide important things?
If one is saved at the point of faith, then why did Nicodemus still need to be born again?
Nicodemus clearly "believed on the Lord Jesus," "We know (positively know) that you come from God, for no man can do these things you do unless God is with him."
Though Nicodemus had sufficient faith, he was warned to be born again.
Jesus knew Nicodemus "rejected the counsel of God not being baptized of John" (Lk.7.30).
But for those who submitted to John's baptism, Jesus promised would "go" into the kingdom" (Mt.21:31-32)
Those who refused baptism, rejected salvation. But for those who submitted, were granted entrance into the kingdom.
Therefore there is no reason to give 'water' in Jn.3:5 a foreign meaning.
If Nicodemus heeded Jesus warning and was baptized that night or the following day, he was born again.
Many believe one is baptized with the Holy Spirit upon faith, resulting in salvation.
When Paul met Jesus on the road, he clearly "believed on the Lord Jesus." Yet, the Holy Spirit did not fall upon Paul when he believed, and Jesus did not save Paul as He did the thief on the cross, when he believed.
So what happened to "faith alone and Christ alone?"
Instead of saving Paul there and then as he saved the thief. Jesus instructed Paul to go into the city and there it will be told you what you MUST do.
"For it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them who are lost."
Jesus did not appear unto Paul to preach to him the terms of salvation, but what was needed to convince Paul.
When Ananias arrived finding Paul on his knees praying, Paul was waiting for instructions on he needed to do that was a must. "Arise and be baptized washing away your sins, calling on his name." It was time for Paul to be born again, calling on his name is responding in obedience to the authority of Jesus.
The Gospel works faith. Baptism is the Gospel. In Baptism God works faith and life into the dead sinner.
The one claim that prevents me from being a Christian is regeneration. It is on examination quite falsifiable because Scripture says it ought to manifest in the believer in terms of behaviour and desire. That simply does not happen except by deliberate performance by a believer who is trying to prove it to himself and others. The standards of holiness demanded by Jesus are nothing that are humanly practicable and hardly desirable.
"Falsifiable"? Plenty of older Christians in my church and family I've watch grow into kinder, gentler, more helpful and selfless people over the years. Lots of times I point that our to one of them, they are always surprised and even a little embarrassed. Either you've had a lot of bad experiences with christians or you are misusing the term "falsifiable." It has a very specific definition.
@Yvonne You are describing self testing in your life. But your self conscious need to prove your holiness is not regeneration. Too much preoccupation on yourself. It has a name in the Lutheran tradition. Pietism.
John 9:31 God does not hear sinners. But, 1 Peter 3, does mention God hears you answer with a good conscience through baptism.
One baptism saves baptism of the holy spirit, just what I think .
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 7:30 Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.
Acts 2:38 Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit.
Acts 10:47-48 Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.
Romans 6:3-5 Water Baptism (Spirit baptism does _not_ bury) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ.
Ephesians 5:26 Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.
Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.*
1 Peter 3:21 "In like manner" means Peter is talking about water baptism. This water baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.
I appreciate both men. But Dr.Ortland’s view of what baptism delivers is confusing. I was shocked when he responded “yes” to the question does baptism deliver forgiveness.
baptism comes after receiving the holy spirit.
many were saved with no associated baptism, such as the thief.
Baptism forgives all sins, after Baptism, the sacrament of penance forgives your sins.
Faith alone doctrine, messes this definition of Baptism, hence, there are multiple beliefs in baptism and the rejection of the other sacraments.
No uniqueness. There is 0 evidence for that. Also, Dr. Ortlund gave you that “excuse” on part 1
Make no mistake, this debate is really about Christian baptism vs Non-Christian baptism.
Romans 9:18 says, God saves whom HE wishes.
So we can we can just go around baptizing random peoples babies? God's work huh?
Matthew 28:19. Jesus said to be baptized. So, obey Jesus our Lord and be baptized.
47:55 Ortlund lost some credibility bringing this up. Silly man.
blah blah blah
Another case of having to believe something for which to there is NO EVIDENCE. I.e. regeneration. If you take claims as true simply because they are stated in a book that is literally blind faith. And not falsifiable.
Just like historical (by definition written) knowledge, did Plato exist? The only records we have are 'stated in a book' or a plaque and believed. And not falsifiable.
Read Jurgen Habermas (Atheists) about Ontological realms. Your objection would be fitting in an Atheist vs Christian discussion. But this one is intermural. Both parties agree to a "Shared Subjective" assumption.
@@j.g.4942 There is a lot of independently corroborating evidence for Plato . Not just in a book. I'm not objecting to the existence of anybody. Just the abstract claims that have zero evidence. Not the same kind of thing as an historical event or person.
@@Mygoalwogel So?
@@mysticmouse7261 Sorry. I thought you were an adult atheist. Write whatever you want, kid.