Baptismal Regeneration in the Fathers: A Response to Gavin Ortlund
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is a response to Gavin Ortlund on the topic of baptism in the church fathers. I argue that baptismal regeneration is a unanimous teaching in the early church.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
When my son was baptized my wife and I renounced the devil and promised to raise him in the faith. Also the church stood up to hold him accountable in the future with his relationship with God. We are ACNA Anglican
Another ACNA Anglican reporting on 👍🏻
…and I grew up Southern Baptist so I can definitely appreciate both sides of the debate (though I’ve obviously arrived at holding the ‘baptismal regeneration’ view now)
@@doubtingthomas9117 I'm Anglican and former Southern Baptist and can relate
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
.
.
@@wesmorgan7729🦫
Disagreements aside, it’s refreshing to see members of a mainline Protestant denomination take an interest in the traditions of the early church.
Lutherans, true Lutherans, not modern fake woke Lutherans, are very much interested in not just the Bible but also tradition. We aren't reformed calvinists
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
how about the bible instead?
@@donhaddix3770 whose interpretation of the Bible?
Awesome video. God saves us through Baptism. This truth is central to every aspect of the Lutheran tradition, especially the assurance of the believer. Thanks so much :)
Every aspect of Christian Tradition from Great Commission, on. The Lutheran Church has been, by grace, in thst stream of Theology.
From mans standpoint, baptism only provides the message, which God can use to convict (Romans 6:3-5). The washing by the Spirit is still according to His mercy (Titus 3:5-7). The act of pouring water and stating the words of the trinity in and of itself does not regenerate (John 3:8). This would mean we are saved by works if that was the case.
@@urawesome4670 baptism isn’t the work of those being baptized.
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word.
Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
no, through only faith.,
This Roman Catholic likes both of you. I don’t find your and his arguments ultimately compelling in terms of Catholicism. But they are good faith arguments
I just realized that your intro music is A Mighty Fortress! How fitting for a Lutheran theologian😂
It was the intro for the old Davy and Goliath cartoons back in the day too. A slightly cheesier rendition though.
Thanks for pointing that out. I usually watch it sped up a bit which makes it harder to recognize.
Something tells me we are going to be seeing a gentlemanly discussion between Dr. Cooper and Dr. Ortlund in a short while. But, no alcohol since Dr. O is a Baptist ;)
He's a Reformed Baptist so he should be ok with a glass of whiskey(if he wants to drink that is)
Dr. Cooper does not imbibe so Dr.Ortland will be drinking alone.
I hope Dr. Ortlund sees this and replies. I think he'd be a collegial and thoughtful pastor and theologian for you to discuss these matters with.
Wait why does Gavin miss the liturgies for baptism that included infants? Hippolytus does mention children who cannot speak for themselves, the word in the Czech language for that is "nemluvňata" which means infant. That's the idea isn't it?
As someone who holds to Credobatism, and Baptismal Regeneration, this is a very interesting conversation. Glad to hear there is support for both in the early Church writings.
Same here. I'm a member of the restorationist Christian Churches and that's what we've always taught.
Hey your moving up! When I first started watching you, I think you had about 13k subscribers. Great job dr. Cooper in introducing people to our lutheran tradition.
I'm following this dialog after the fact and really enjoying it. Great stuff. Personally I went from Evangelical raised to New Calvinist to Provisionist to Orthodox. It's been a wild ride and I'm happy to watch you guys talk about pertinent stuff.
Instead of going from denomination to denomination, say "Jesus Is Lord" and confess your sins.
@Justin-ShalaJC that is a denominational view. Not everyone agrees with your understanding of that concept.
I love the approach both of you take. Even if I personally disagree with him, he is very humble and charitable so much so that I would love to have a conversation with him on it, because I know it won't get too heated.
Dr. Ortlund is really a good guy, it’s just that he’s dead wrong on everything!!!! /s
12:48 - Difference between Luther and Catholics on baptismal regeneration.
12:58 - According to Dr Cooper, “For Luther, baptism doesn’t just forgive past sins or doesn’t just wash away original sins, but baptism is a continual promise, baptism is something that continually washes away sins...”
But what does Luther mean when he says Baptism washes away sins? I've often thought that the difference between Catholics and Lutherans on Baptism is that Lutherans maintain that after Baptism man's sin remains, although they are no longer counted, hence he is outwardly just yet still inwardly sinful, i.e. Just and Sinner. While for Catholics Baptism washes away sins so that man is inwardly just. His “old sins” (2pet1:9) are no longer counted against him, not because he's been covered, but because he's been cleansed of them. I think this is the main difference between the two.
@@JesseDLCThis is a good question it is related to what Scripture teaches about:
- Original Sin
- Actual sins
And
- Our union with Christ
In Baptism our actual sins are washed away (Ezekiel 36:25; Acts 22:16)
But in Baptism we are united to Christ and thereby made literally partakers of his death in that by reason of the New birth and the Holy Spirit we are accounted dead. Hence our old nature is accounted dead (Romans 6:11, Colossians 3:1)
Moreover, we are raised in Christ in our union with him (Hosea 6:2; Romans 6:3-11).
This means that we are forgiven and made alive according to our new nature in Christ.
Nevertheless we carry about with us a body affected by original sin (Romans 7:24) and we depend upon the Holy Spirit and must not live after the flesh (Romans 8:13).
@@JesseDLCno, baptism, in the Lutheran view washes away sin because of God’s promise, and it’s even stronger than the Roman view since you can always return to your baptism if you have committed sin.
@@Solideogloria00 I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Lutheran view is stronger. My only question is, according to the Lutheran view, does sin (concupiscence) remain in the baptized? If so then it would be the case that the Lutheran view is weaker since it does not believe sin is washed away.
@@JesseDLC As far asI understand, all sins are washed away in the Lutheran view. You are made new, declared righteous, in dwelled by the Spirit.
Right. The fact that we don't have as much as we would like to on infant baptism in the Early Church means, I think, that it just didn't have the amount of controversy it had post-Reformation. That doesn't mean it wasn't being practiced. - Justin+
As a rebuttal though, it was discussed in the 3rd centuries onwards so it's not as if it wasn't discussed until the 16th century
There are probably several potential conclusions that could be deduced from the lack of mention of infant baptism in the Early Church. One potential conclusion is that infant baptism was not practiced or rarely practiced and so not mentioned.
@Frances Right, it's implied. Paul's comparison of baptism with circumcision in Colossians 2 makes an even stronger case, I think. To make the point obvious - infants were circumcised. - J+
it was not by Christ or the apostles for salvation.
@@musicvideos3836or, it was being done because we don't see any writings about a significant change
No way!! I was thinking of starting a UA-cam channel just to address this very video. Much appreciated! If you plan on doing a paedobaptism one I can send you the bibliography I was building up
I'd still watch it if you did
I don't think Gavin's point was that he agreed or not with Tertullian's basis for not baptising infants, but he was merely pointing out that Tertullian (being a legalist) wouldn't dare go against the apostolic teaching of baptizing infants (if it was apostolic). Therefore Tertullian didn't think baptizing infants was apostolic.
He didn’t deny infant baptism itself forgives sins but better to delay lest mortal sins occur after baptism.
Remember for the same reason, he told unmarried people to delay as well in the same context in the same chapter in the same writing. His reasons were pragmatic.
Want to claim he denied unmarried people’s baptism as apostolic?
And this was early Tertullian. Later on in life, he advocated infant baptism because of original sin views. Without suggesting delays.
I have no basis on which to judge what claims Tertullian made nor didn't make, I have not read him. I was attempting to clarify a point that Gavin appeared to make... of which it seems you may disagree.
@@joefrescoln Tertullian wasn’t arguing infant baptism wasn’t apostolic though. Nor even opposed to it if infants were sick.
And especially later on in life; Tertullian even argued for infant baptism without delay to remit original sin:
Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; 1 Corinthians 7:14 and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). Else, says he, were the children unclean by birth: 1 Corinthians 7:14 as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity. Besides, he had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; John 3:5 in other words, he cannot be holy.
Chapter 40. The Body of Man Only Ancillary to the Soul in the Commission of Evil
Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; Romans 6:4 and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm
@@Tron4JC You should take that up with Gavin. I have no clue what Tertullian believed.
Good video. Tertullian also argues that not only should infants or children delay baptism, but also the unmarried and widows until marriage, so as not to sin after baptism and thus imperil their souls.
Re: fear of post-baptismal sin. It's easy for us to dismiss this concern as ridiculous, but I could see how Christians could come to that conclusion. Hebrews 10:22 is, in my opinion, likely a reference to baptism, and it’s followed shortly thereafter with verse 26 and following. I'm not saying Tertullian is right; I'm saying this helps to explain why there were Christians who postponed their baptisms in the early Church.
In essence, the postponing of baptism in the early Church was a proto Novationist movement, not a paedobaptistic one. Protestants who try to use this as justification are usually just suppressing the knowledge of the truth of the gospel.
EXACTLY. It wasn't credobaptism whatsoever at all. It was proto Novationaism
@@Iffmeister Ironically, that passage from Hebrews which inspires Novatianism doesn't make sense unless it's talking about baptismal regeneration. Hebrews 6:4-6 iirc.
@@thomascomerford9683 yep. In the end i think the Baptist case really falls apart when it comes to the scriptural and historical testimony. I've legit tried to see how it could work, but it *doesn't*.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on Cornelius Burgess’ view on baptismal regeneration of elect infants, he was a big contributor to the Westminster Confession of Faith who sought to maintain unity of thought from the patristics to Calvin and other Reformed theologians
Dr. Cooper, I'm Roman Catholic, and I hope you will be one day too, as unlikely as that is, but I am glad to see you take this on. You earned my following with your dialogue with Jimmy Akin. I think people get very tied to their intellectual traditions, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, and a lot of our arguments come down to pride and semantics. Thanks for your input.
I have seen more faith and belief in little children, than in adults who want to question everything!
Ignorance is bliss.
I love how you say that the book’s arguments “still hold a lot of water”, but don’t you think they just hold a little bit of water and sprinkle it?
I would also argue that Irenaeus in the second century almost certainly did believe in Infant Baptism as well, given some of his thoughts on baptism point in that direction.
His Against Heresies is our biggest proof of that
@@j.sethfrazer and Fragment 34
Thanks for this video. Especially the exegesis of Tertullian. Great work
There were zero church fathers who agree with modern Baptist theology on Baptism.
What are your thoughts on infants receiving Communion?
But the bible says baptism now save us. 1 Peter 3:21
Had you make videos on the Baptismal theology of the Campbell-Stone movement (Disciples, Churches of Christ)? They believe both in Baptismal Regeneratin and Believer's Baptism. Everett Ferguson books are very good.
I would also really like to see a video concerning the matter
Yes I commented on his channel on the false dichotomy between Baptist view and ex opere operato . There is the Lutheran view and
also not so sure that the Orthodox would speak
Precisely in terms of ex opere operato. Of course I see nothing wrong in that way of explaining it.
We Orthodox would not speak in terms of ex opere operato either.
I’m EO. The Spirit pricks the breast. Acts 2:38.
By water baptism we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ, fulfilling the law through Christ.
And the Holy Spirit in dwells us.
Meaning the Holy Spirit, He guides and teaches us.
The Son, His work is the forgiveness of sins.
The Holy Spirit does not bring the forgiveness of sins.
The Son sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.
The problem isn’t a problem of sacraments.
The problem is the problem of a faulty theology.
If you don’t understand the theology, how can you get anything else right?
Therefore start with correct theology and you will understand baptism correctly.
The process is simple. Water signifies our death and resurrection participation in the work of Christ imputed to us in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The Spirit, He guides the Church and us through the church into all Truth, which is Christ.
No baptism - no salvation. Nothing further to discuss.
@Christos Kyrios no one in the apostolic churches has ever claimed that. We would say that they are under the mercy of divine judgement. Meaning scripture isn’t definitive on what happens, but knowing that Jesus says that the little ones should come to Him, we have confidence in saying that the Lord will save them even apart from the normative means revealed in scripture.
The east especially has always been the via media.
The theologian is the one who prays.
Not studies, as is common in the west.
I agree baptism is "participation" in what happened to Christ. "Baptized into Christ" means that wherever Jesus goes, I go beginning with burial. I would like repentance with Christ's death. I believe repentance closely followed by baptism are intended to be linked as one. Baptism solidifies our repentance and saves from slavery to sin as in Rom 6.
What’s kind of stupid about the argument of symbolic Credobaptism is simply the historical context of the New Testament. Baptists are always so quick to point out that there’s no explicit example of Paedobaptism in the Biblical text and therefore claim that infant Baptism is not Scriptural based on that. What they almost never acknowledge is the fact that, obviously, the FIRST hearers of the Jesus and the Apostles would have been predominantly consenting and cognitively believing individuals responding to the Gospel Word. So, it’s kind of an empty argument only good for those with a mountain of supposition to use.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
.
Relative how ???
I see nothing heretical or wrong with this prayer, and I'm not even Catholic. Mary DID dispense the gifts of God to the Earth through bearing God. Further, Mary would naturally be Christ's Queen, because starting with Solomen every king in the line of David made their mothers their queens. Mary is therefore queen while Christ is king, because Christ is the last king in the line of David. Thus, this prayer is expressing honor to Christ's queen, just as a child might tell his mother "you're the best mom in the world."
A response to the thumbnail question:
No, they were Orthodox, not baptists.
Very important - neither Lutherans nor EO nor Anglicans hold ex opera operato, and all draw from the fathers on baptism. Ergo, arguing against ex opera doesn't win the debate.
To be fair, Ortlund was pretty clear he was refuting the Catholic understanding since he had been engaging with Catholics on other issues
@@wesmorgan7729 yes, that is indeed fair.
Being raised Restorationist (Church of Christ) and seeing all the problems it has form my studies, one thing I do think we got right was the importance of baptism
@Dr. Jordan
Have you read the Scots confession? The earliest Presbyterians absolutely believe that baptism saves. We believe baptismal efficacy works outside of time, and that it is only efficacious for God’s elect, which is what Peter is talking about in 1 Peter 3:21: “baptism saves you”. The argument isn’t over what he means when he says “baptism saves”, it’s about WHO he means when he says “you”
Have you read Everett Ferguson's "Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries?
Not yet. It's been on my list.
@@DrJordanBCooper I definitely recommend it. It's the most in depth book on Baptism I've read
@@Aaryq i think Dr. Ferguson does a lot of good there but he misses a lot of the evidence for paedobaptism in the early church, especially considering how old it is and the prominence of its first proponents
@@Iffmeister What book would you recommend to really make that case?
@@Iffmeister Do you have any recommendations for a book that makes this case?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Great talk through the early church evidences for infant baptism. This thought occurred to me as I listened to you wade through some of the pertinent passages of the fathers on baptism-Is there a good intro to the theology of the church fathers, or should you plan to publish such an intro? Just a thought!
I actually once got into an argument with a Baptist about Tertullian, regarding John 3:5. He seriously tried to argue that Tertullian believed “water” refers to birth fluid and “Spirit” refers to faith and then claimed Tacitus also uses “water” to describe natural birth 🤷🏻♂️😅🤷🏻♂️
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order.
(ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation.
(GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
At around 40 min mark you said there have been times when the majority of the church fathers were wrong. When was that and how would you judge that?
Whenever his version of how he reads the Bible doenst match what the father’s world view had.
If faith is necessary to obtain the blessings of the baptism, on the contrary ex opere operato, why baptize infants that we don't know if they believe or not?
We can't know who truly believes
I think organizations like the Center of Baptist Renewal would say that early Baptist still had a “sacramental” view of baptism. Idk why(if they’re right about early Baptists) they would be credobaptist since BR would then strongly imply that one would baptize their Child too. Would love to see you interact with the CFBR and their leadership.
To be clear, their sacramental view is not BR. It does say that baptism is a means of grace, though that leaves the question of what efficacy it has.
@@RPGamer2020 agreed, tho do they reject the mere symbol view of baptism that most Baptists hold too?
@@akimoetam1282 Sacramental baptists do, yes. I’m not familiar with CBR. However, I know that Benjamin Keach assigned for promises to baptism, though he never said how. I can look real quick if you want to know what those are.
From “Studies in Baptist History and Thought: More than a Symbol,” it seems that there were a mix of sacramental and symbol to symbol, but then the British Baptists saw a ressourcement to a sacramental view in the 20th century. The 19th century Baptists responded to Tractarisnism, nearly wiping out the sacramental view.
@@RPGamer2020 this has got to be the biggest plot-twist in history lol
Definitely looking forward to dialogue between Ortlund and Cooper. As a Baptist, I really respect the Lutheran position, and if I was not a Baptist, I would be Lutheran. The Presbyterian and Roman Catholic positions really just seem inconsistent to me. I think if you come to Scripture, you will either come out with a Baptist or Lutheran understanding of baptism, depending on your presuppositions.
What do you think is the difference between Lutheran and Catholic views?
@@SammyJ.. it seems to me the difference is that the Lutheran view says baptism is a work of God granting faith and while it’s objective, it has a subjective element of receiving salvation through faith. The Catholic position to me seems to ignore the faith part and make it almost as if the water itself is regenerating you. I can see how the Lutheran approach stops one from mass baptisms of unwilling participants, but the Catholic position seems to not really give a good reason (at least consistently) why this wouldn’t work. At least, that’s my understanding.
@@Qhaon You should probably check out a Catholic source about baptism. The Church does not permit forced baptism of unwilling people above the age of reason (although it may have happened in practice at some points in history)
@@SammyJ.. I do understand that. That’s why I think it’s inconsistent because the ex opere operato position seems to lend itself to forced baptisms.
Why not a Presbyterian understanding of baptism?
Both of you are pastors; both of you are scholars; both of you are inteligent and interested in this subject. Above all, both of you are brothers in Christ.
So I think you should have a good and godly conversation about all the issues concerning baptism formulas.
And... very sincerely Dr. Cooper, we are a little bit tired of denominationalist approaches. I know that they are important and have their place in such discussions. However, we want something more catholic among our protestant faith, if you know what I mean.
God bless you!
Throughout the NT scriptures and apostolic fathers, baptism is mentioned in conjunction with faith and repentance. They don't speculate about the particulars, rather leave it up to the divine mystery of new life in Christ.
I haven't had the joy of reading the Church Fathers but after watching many of your videos and from others, I don't know how one learned in the Fathers can hold non-sacramental theological views. Learning this drew me towards a sacramental tradition. I'd love to see you have a dialogue with Dr. Ortlund. I disagree with him on this but agree with a lot of his other videos. I think you'll like his recent videos on the papacy.
In Indonesia, the evangelical churches are having a devastating impact on Islam and bringing millions of muslims to Jesus. The sacramental churches are having very little to no impact. That speaks volumes.
Dr. Cooper, please listen to Charles Spurgeon on baptismal regeneration. It is a heretical view to say that it literally washes away sins; I'm not saying it'll send one to hell who believes it, but it should be rejected strongly.
Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Become disciple = become regenerated.
Acts 22:16 Baptism washes away sins.
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.*
@@Mygoalwogel
I'm surprised you didn't list Acts 2:38
@@Mygoalwogelthey entombed people back then
Great thoughts as always. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
As a catholic, Gavin's argument where he sees al this practice of catechism like something pointing to believers baptism is silly. We believe in baptismal regeneration and still do all of those things.
As a Catholic, I found this very interesting. This rebuttal was much more articulate than the one I wrote in response to Dr Ortlund's video, but I found that he used much of the same evidence and arguments as I did. I was thrown off by how much he utilized the term Catholic though, with him being a Protestant. I understand the usage being intended strictly in the universal sense, but as a Catholic, I just felt it strange.
1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth
The apostles baptized, but they certainly did not preach the man made baptist theology.
They preached Jesus and him crucified.
Would you give a bibliography of the secondary scholarship you mentioned on Tertullian?
I agree with your objections to Ortlund, but I must say that you're mischaracterizing the Reformed/Presbyterian view....... All of our confessions affirm baptismal regeneration--it is only those that are unaware of what our tradition has always taught, that reject it........ The reformed view of the efficacy of baptism is that it is a sign and seal which grafts us into the covenant and for the elect brings regeneration and salvation; thus the non-elect, do indeed fall away from the faith as they are not saved--yet, even the non-elect receive the covenantal calling of God's promises (or as the second helvetic confession put it "Baptism, therefore, calls to mind and renews the great favour God has shown to the race of mortal men"). And the covenantal aspect of baptism is consistent with the church fathers as like how John Chysostom said "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members." Also, Zwingli is not truly Reformed (I'd say he's more of a proto-Anabaptist) because his sacramentology is inconsistent with the rest of the tradition and is straight up rejected by the Scots confession ("And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are ingrafted in Christ Jesus to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted...").
Infant baptism once established never morphs into anything else. Everyone is covered from newborn babes to octogenarian converts.
Baptism in the early church was CHANGING…all over the place! (Even today, credobaptism changes…into include infant dedication, for example.)
The early church is completely silent on infant baptism…even when it addresses baptism. (And even in an age of countless proselytes, there would be TONS of babies!!!)
The Didache:
“But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
No babies!
Because there was no controversy... the change was in the 1500's
@@bigtobacco1098. Based on what? We KNOW there was a change from relying on the OT (plus apostolic oral tradition)…to acknowledging the NT as Scripture, but there was never any controversy about it.
@@HannahClapham there was no controversy about infant baptism until the 1500's
My understanding is that in Lutheran theology concupiscence, which Luther regarded as sin, remains in the Baptized, and this is why one is said to be both Just and Sinner. My question is: if the Baptized are still sinners after Baptism what then do you mean when you say Baptism washes away sin?
I think he refers to original sin
Paul was baptized in a standing position in a house. This is confirmed in Acts 9 and Acts 22. The plain text rule stands in an historical narrative. A reasonable person would interpret this way. How Baptists believe all baptisms in the NT are immersions is befuddling to me.
But that baptist would say Paul got up or stood up to be dunked
The problem is that’s not what’s happening here when Ananias says, “get up and be baptized”. Saul wasn’t just hanging around in the middle of a stream or pool when Ananias came to him. It makes the most grammatical sense that Ananias was telling Paul to come with him to be baptized, just like Phillip and the Eunuch had to leave the carriage to find water for baptism.
Immersion is the best and most beautiful way as the Orthodox Church practices.
As I watched his video, I never got a sense of what me meant by "ex opere operato" and why he found it objectionable. It was as if he thought it meant, "By magic", or some such. Either way, it struck me as a buzzword which his Baptist audience knew they were supposed to react negatively toward.
Why is no one claiming "sola baptism"
John certainly was. Jesus, too. And his disciples. So am I.
My hangup is the idea that salvation comes from a possibly involuntary act of the individual through water. A salvation through OTHERS WORKS & without faith. Did Jewish salvation come from circumcision (what about girls?) or the atonement sacrifice of the High Priest.
Could you be in the covenant without the sign ??
No... it was this "discovery" that helped start me down the path to paedobaptism
You only discovering this now…… wow. You spend too much time hating charismatics is your problem. Try learning instead of gas lighting.
@@ntlearningoffer something meaningful
Dr. Cooper, did Mr. Ortlund ever managed to give a reply to this video?
John the Baptist's baptism was for "repentence" and it was by immersion. He could have baptized people by "sprinking" anywhere but needed the river for immersion. Babies are unable to "repent" or to have understanding "faith" in Jesus Christ. There is a direct connection between repentance and baptism in the NT. "Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38
People must repent of unbelief and their personal sins for salvation: "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15
The thief on the cross was saved by his faith (and was baptized with the Holy Ghost when he believed as are all new belivers) but he had no time for physical baptism. He was not "regenerated" by a baptism ceremony.
Millions of people have gone through baptism ceremonies who are not yet "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit and admit this later after they have become truly "born again" from "above" by the Spirit of God. Many preachers have testified they were not "born again" (regenerated) until after they had been "baptized" as a baby and adult, gone to seminary, and become preachers, which caused a dramatic and permanent change in their lives.
AND, not THEN...
Johns baptism wasn't Christian baptism
I doubt they immersed on the day of Pentecost given the arid location in Jerusalem where water is a rare and precious commodity.
No, they were patristic regenerative 'universalists'. Acts 3:21 "until the times of restitution of all things"
Closely related to the topic of baptismal regeneration is that of infant baptism. It is my understanding that the earliest explicit reference to infant baptism is Tertullian in about A.D. 200. Can anyone tell me if this is correct? Thanks.
In 180 AD:
34
And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm
For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm
@@Tron4JC Thanks for the info. From Dr. Cooper's video and the biblical evidence, I would say there is a strong case for baptismal regeneration for adults or those old enough to make a profession of faith, but not for infant baptism.
Some were and some were not.
I do see a lot of people calling it The Lutheran tradition. Please be aware that the Bible does tell us that we need to be careful to not be "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Repentance is necessary for regenerate baptism.
Repentance is merely faith that is genuine. Infants can have genuine faith according to Scripture.
@@Mygoalwogel that is a misunderstanding. Repentance means to turn away from your sins. Repentance is the understanding that we are sinful creatures and have offended a holy God and that is not faith. Faith in Christ is the understanding that he came to lay down his life for his friends... For those who would believe and who would follow him in obedience.
A parent has a child. Adopted or natural. The child does things wrong. The parent corrects him. The child either becomes hard-hearted and stiff neck and angry about the correction and then rebels where the child accepts the correction and discipline as a loving child wanting to be a good child and this is what Jesus is talking to us about...
Becoming a little children.
In order to repent you need to understand that you've done something wrong and babies are not able to repent. I only came to this very strong realization within the last 2 years of taking the Bible back down to its foundation of Christ and not following man's doctrine but following with the Bible says.
Religions spend a lot of time weaving scripture to support their "doctrines of men." Scripture does not support infant baptism. John the baptism taught repentance and then Christ taught repentance. Repent of your sins.
Be careful what version of the Bible you are reading. This is another thing for way down the road but too many people are reading Alexandria and Jesuit texts and you need to get back into an Antioch text.
Many of today's Bibles leave entire passages out and change passages which change doctrine.
@@soundimpact4633 Right and the only way to do that is by the genuine faith the Holy Spirit implants in you, which the Bible says infants can also have.
Error and wrong teaching began entering the church while the First Apostles were still alive.
Jesus says this would happen in Matt.24, 2 Peter Chapter 2 mentions this in detail, Paul warns about it on several issues, as does Jude.
"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:30.
This is very much the case today as churches regard the teachings of Luther, Calvin, and "traditions" created by men who lived centuries later more than the writers of the New Testament . Infant baptism, like many other "traditions" not found in the NT was introduced into the church after the First Apostles died. The issue is not whether baptism is by sprinkling or immersion. The biggest problem with infant baptism is that it causes people who have never repented and come to faith as adults, who are still selfish "enemies of God" in their hearts and "dead in trespasses and sins" by natural birth to imagine they are "saved" because they were baptized as babies.This is a deceptive snare which may have sent millions to eternal destruction.
Matthew 16:18
Amazing video, thank you!
Restorationist here (Christian Churches and Churches of Christ). I love Dr. Copper and Dr. Ortlund and have learned a lot from both of them but I'm hearing their arguments and wanting to shout "hey I know we're over here in the theological backwaters but hello... We've got the best of both worlds here." Sacramental and creedal. Grace and peace to you all in our Lord Jesus.
Ironic that Restorationists are credo-Baptist, but are anti-creedal
@@not_milk yeah it really is. It's also weird because we can agree with some stuff in the creeds more honestly than some other Protestants. For example, can Baptists really agree with the Nicene Creed when it says "I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins"? Sort of, but they get squirrelly about it. Pretty easy for me.
@@joshuas1834 Did you grow up in Church of Christ, or are you a convert? I hear they are not doing very well in numbers these days
@@not_milk so I've actually never been to a Church of Christ. I go to a church that's part of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ movement which has a common origin with the Church of Christ but we have instruments in our worship and we tend to be a bit more chill. As a child I was in an Assembly of God for a few years, then a Nazarene Church. As a teenager I started going to the Christian church in my area but as an adult I actually worked as a youth minister for a couple different Baptist churches. Honestly I thought the Christian church I was going to was just a Baptist Church. I didn't know anything about the restoration movement. I only came back to the church I went to as a teenager and young adult after changing a bunch of my theology from Baptist to restorationist without knowing that the restorationists were even a thing that existed. I was very surprised to learn that the church had already spent years in was the one I was looking for.
@@not_milk oh, sorry I forgot to respond to the other part of what you said. To my knowledge churches of Christ are not doing great with their numbers in the US but as far as I can tell the branch of the movement I'm a part of is doing really well. I'm in Arizona and the biggest church in our state is Christ's Church of the valley and that's in the same tradition as the one I go to which has almost 800 people even though we're in a fairly small town.
Best Lutheran book on baptismal regeneration?
Acts 2:38-39
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. 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."
There is some possible revisionist perspective on Tertullian, as St Cyprian seems to look at him well, and St Cyprian's ecclesiology was perhaps stricter than most sedevacantists! That's when you know you're a rigorist.
So it's a pretty big deal when you boil down John 3 to, "you must be baptized again."
Nicodemus: how can I be baptized again?
Jesus: well... (Crickets)
Baptismal regeneration doesn't work because baptism is a continuance symbol, succeeding circumcision. Did circumcision save? No, so does water baptism save in the NT sense? No.
You must be born again of the spirit, because it is regeneration of the heart by God, through the holy spirit that saves, not the work of men's hand, circumcision, baptism.
And when it comes to church history, that is where you don’t have a case with church fathers. To the man, church fathers, who commented on the verse, affirmed baptismal regeneration view of the text.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that an infant must be baptized. I believe in mothers and fathers dedicating their children to the Lord after they're born by anointing them. But baptism, I believe is for believers, you don't see anybody being baptized in Scripture that wasn't a believer before. I'm about halfway through this video so I would definitely edit my comments as it goes on. When Jesus said to forbid them not to come on to me he did not say forbid them not to be baptized. He meant that these children should learn about him and understand what his life and the gospel is. Baptism is obviously very important to the Lutheran and the Church of Christ. But as I comment on other videos about the perpetual virginity argument of the Catholics and I say to them as I say with this thing about infant baptism if it was that important it would have been mentioned in scripture.
Nowhere in scripture are there any dedication
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
Eternal life in Christ is offered freely by God to the whole world and those who want that eternal life in Christ will come to know Him by obeying His commands.
So anyone that says they know Him, is the one that obeys His commandments.
1 John 2:2-4
2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him
“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.””
John 3:8 NASB1995 👀
“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
Romans 6:3-4 NASB1995
It makes more sense to me to put more weight on the scriptures than church fathers. It doesn’t appear to me the church fathers always had access to the scriptures. For example, Irenaeus thought Jesus was about 50 years old when He died on the cross. 🤦♂️
I wonder if some of these baptist will end up adopting a view of baptism more like that of the Restoration Movement/Stone-Campbell Movement i.e. salvific believers baptism.
In similar vein: Do you have an opinion on David Bercot?
Probably. There is a long history of that happening.....
I say this as one who comes from the Stone-Campbell movement.
@@joecoolmccall I thought so. It seems like the only direction to go for someone who takes seriously the patristic testimony on baptismal efficacy but still holds to believers baptism.
@@Jassaj1985 well I am no expert. I do think the fact that there aren't really codified confessions for the Movement can be off putting to someone who wants a very structured theological approach- even if it is a rich tradition to interact with. Theology was actually looked down upon in the early history of the movement, with Biblical studies being preferred.
However, those who prefer a more biblical theology approach are often comfortable with the transition.
I think the massive problem is that they'd have to believe John 3:5 is baptism, entrance into the kingdom through water and spirit.....but Jesus said infants belong in the kingdom in Luke 18:15-17, so that would be inconsistent
Maybe, but the restorationist seem to be willing to live with that inconsistency.
Why not others?
John the Baptist was blessed in the womb he jump hearing mary magnificent,hearing name of jesus. Jesus said " no man born of a woman was greater than he" also the man born blind gospel of john chapter 9 : 1-2. That destroys your traditions of men about original sin that we inherit from Adam.
“as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Romans 3:10, 23
Either there is a contradiction in the word of God or you use critical thinking skills and actually understand the bible in context.
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
Why do you believe men who lived centuries later more so than the First Apostles and Paul who knew Jesus personally and wrote the New Testament? No infants are baptized in the NT. "Baptism saves" only because people have understood and "believed" and baptism is the confession of their faith. Why do you care about "Catholic tradition" which has introduced many doctrines not found in the Bible like use of idolatrous images, praying to dead saints, and purgatory?
"Water" is also involved in the natural birth of a child when the mother's "water" breaks. Physical birth is first, and then spiritual birth from above is necessary. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." 1 Corinthians 15:46
Jesus was baptized by immersion: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway OUT OF THE WATER: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" (Matt. 3:16) He was NOT "standing up to his knees in a river" and NO "water was poured on his head." No Bible version in existence says what you said about Jesus' baptism.
Who do you worship? Who do you really "love"? Sinful, imperfect 'Church Fathers' whose traditions you desperately defend, or Jesus Christ as presented in the NT?
"Thy WORD is TRUTH"-Jesus.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
No (insert age here) are baptized in the new testament
Johns baptism wasn't Christian baptism
I'll take the teachings of the men who learned from the apostles over you
To me as a member of a priestly church, it is astounding how most of the Protestant denominations completely reject the gospel of salvation - that the merits of Christ are applied to us in baptism, regeneration, faith etc. I would hope Dr Cooper that in standing for the gospel, that you'd acknowledge that those Protestants who reject baptismal regeneration are in fact rejecting the gospel like the Judaizers and externally speaking, are not Christians.
BTW, Lutheranism is very interesting in light of our shared history with Michael the Deacon of the EOTC (from a member of the Coptic Church).
If you have a quick look at the Lutheran Confessional documents (Augsburg Confession in particular) you'll see how harshly lutherans condemn these other so-called 'protestants'. Sometimes they seem just a flipside to the 'Romanist/papist' coin, and another interest is Luther's comment on Zwingli 'they are of a different spirit'. (bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/article-ix/)
AlsoI agree, I wonder how Michael the deacon (an Abyssinian) turned up in Saxony; it's a wonder that he also apparently okayed the Augsburg Confession?
@@j.g.4942 The most unfortunate thing in Protestantism is that Luther didn't come into full communion with the Orthodox (miaphysite) churches. That would've likely ended all of the false religions and false ecclesiologies which sprouted up in light of the reformation.
@@thomascomerford9683 Lutheran Christology is not miaphysite.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I haven't read what Luther himself developed into his Christology, but I've heard the claim that it was "monophysite" so it was probably Orthodox. The Lutherans would have to renounce Chalcedon to come into the Church.
@@thomascomerford9683 Well, there are a whole bunch of Orthodox that would assert you need to affirm Chalcedon. And the Lutheran Confession is not monophysite. Neither was Luther's.
The CF were catholic, Ortlund still believes in the trail of blood.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
:)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
:)
It seems that many people are worshipping "church systems", "church fathers", and their "traditions" more than the God of the church. The very words of God should be the final authority for believers not the opinions of men who lived centuries later. It is the spiritual "baptism of the Holy Spirit" which happens at saving faith which regenerates the soul rather than baptism with water. If infants can be regenerated by baptism apart from understanding faith, why is this not clearly stated and practiced in the New Testament? It definitely is not. Baptism is like a seal of saving faith, is a command of Jesus Christ and very important.
I think people are worshipping "Catholicism", Luther and "Lutheranism", Calvin, Presbyterianism", Eastern Orthoxism", etc. more than the God of the Bible. Faith has been shifted to the "traditions" of the fathers" instead of the word of God, just like it happened with the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time.
Luther, Cavin, Origin, Jerome, Turtullian, Cyril, Origen, Pliny, "St. So-and-So", etc., etc. are believed and exalted more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul who knew Jesus personally, saw the resurrected Christ, and recorded his words for us. The "evidence" of those closest to Jesus in the NewTestament is disregarded for later writings and the opinions of imperfect men.
OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
I think you are worshipping innovators like the anabaptists
@@bigtobacco1098 No babies are baptized for salvation in the New Testament. Only adults who "believed" in Jesus and understood what it meant were baptized. Infant baptism is a "tradition" created by men in later centuries.
@@beaulin5628 give me the ages of the recipients of baptism, please
@@bigtobacco1098 This question is not relevant. There is no incident in the NT where parents bring a baby to the Apostles to be baptized. Throughout the NT the requirement for baptism is understanding FAITH in Jesus Christ for salvation. Infants are unable to do that. The only people who were baptized in the NT are those who made an intelligent profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Mark 16:16 "He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Philip explained to the Etiopian eunch that FAITH must preceed baptism for it to be effective:
Acts 8:36-38 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be BAPTIZED? And Philip said, If thou BELIEVEST with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. "
The unscriptural "tradition" of infant baptism is not harmless. It has caused many people who were never born again by the Spirit of God (as described by Jesus in John 3: 3-8) who remain unbelievers in their hearts and lives, to imagine they are "saved and will go to heaven" when they die because they were baptized as unthinking infants. It has also caused many adult believers to disobey the Lord Jesus Christ and NOT be baptized by immersion (as it was done it the NT) because they were "baptized" as unknowing infants.
"Christian" Churches have created many traditions over the centuries that are not taught in the New Testament just like the Jewish religious leaders in Jesus' time:
Mark 7:9 "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."
And also the false dichotomy of credo baptism vs regeneration as you said . Again see my comment on his channel. So you and I have same view where he is going wrong
Accidental pun 26:40ish
Tertullian isn't a saint because he apostatized from the Church and became a Montanist..
Yes I know. And the issues I mentioned were part of Montanism.
@@DrJordanBCooper Sure but the Montanists also believed that their leaders (Monanus and Priscilla) hypostatized the Holy Spirit and they would baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. In other words, they had bigger problems than those mentioned in your video.
Baptism is the new circumcision
Btw we do have evidence of the papacy early on. Read Against heresies book 3.
Nothing I have read in Iranaeous's book that supports the papacy. How about providing specific quotes ?
I literally gave the reference. But to be specific Against Heresies Book 3 Chap 3 Paragraph 2.
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church"
@@Coteincdr The entire quote is
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
His point wasn't that deference to Rome was to be some pepertual posture of all churches, only that doctrine that was found in the primitive church was to be maintained by all the faithful. Protestants maintain that the Roman Catholic church has NOT been faithful to apostolic tradition and therefore owe no deference to the Bishop of Rome
@@jeremybamgbade That is not the quote! The paragraph ends in "pre- eminent authority".
Then it goes on in the next paragraph on how the episcopate was given to Pope Linus.
What are you talking about? The whole section is about the Church in Rome!!
@@Coteincdr Look at the immediate historic context. The "preeminence" is a reference to its status as the earliest church in which Orthodox teaching was preserved -- being founded by the two preeminent apostles . Nothing in here implies the infallibility of the Roman Magisterium as Vatican 1 would understand it.
Moreover, he does mention the successor of bishops in Rome, but he says nothing about how
universal perpetual deference is owed to him.
The Church Fathers were Catholic. We are reading Ignatius of Antioch letters in Office of Readings. You have to be Catholic to accept all that he wrote.
Well, lutherans are catholic Christians.
@@fluklix Uh no. You do not recognize the sacraments such as confession and Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. You do not recognize the authority of the Pope.
@Empyreal My point to the Orthodox exactly. They aren't Catholic as they don't recognize the Primacy of Peter. They are Apostolic as they trace their lineage to the Apostles but they aren't Catholic.
As for Lutherans and others that split from the Roman Church, they don't recognize any of the Sacraments including the Priesthood. You have hold these teachings, you don't hold the teaching of the Apostles. You can't read large parts of Paul's letters that call for unity. Timothy and Titus have no meaning as they were written to Bishops. Even the letter to the Ephesians was written to the Bishops of Ephesus and meaning is lost.
Be Catholic, what's holding you back?
@@deaconken3752 it seems to me like you have no clue about the Lutheran church...
@@fluklix How so? Luther rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. There is a structure of Bishops, Priests and Deacons but the purpose isn't to offer sacrifice of the Eucharist and administer the Ministry of Reconciliation through Baptism and Confession. That's what was in the Beginning with the Pentecost.
And your teaching can change with synods.
None
Zero
Innovative
Very weak arguments for early infant baptism. No the term "christian" for children did not imply baptism. Please stop this nonsense and stop this unbiblical practice. You are trying to defend the practice of your church above the authority of the Bible
John, there are multiple ways of looking at scripture.
I think it is wise not to assume your position to be the authoritative biblical one.
Clearly Jordan B. Cooper has high esteem for the bible, and doesn't consider any church practice to be above or on equal level as scripture.
That said, here is some scripture to think about.
Acts 2: 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Repent and be baptized ... And you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit. The promise is for you and >> your children
@@sotem3608 you are inferring something that is not in the text. How can a baby "repent" and give consent to be "baptized"?
If your inference would be correct, then we should see babies speaking in tongues as it was evident when Peter wrote that verse.
@@EnHacore1 if you think I'm "inferring" something which is not in the text, then I'd say we're on equal footing.
You are inferring that since Peter states "repent and be baptised ..." the repent should apply to everyone regardless of their ability to do so.
For adult it's possible to repent and to be baptised, hence both should be done.
For children, only baptism is possible, thus it isn't required of them.
The speaking of tongues is also an inference.
We all try to read and interpret the text, and
I don't think it is helpful to approach each other with accusations of being unbiblical.
We be charitable towards each other, and open to the fact that there are multiple valid readings of the text.
God bless!
@@sotem3608 little babies cannot give consent to be baptised. Baptism is not valid if the person being baptized does not consent to it, otherwise we could baptize people in their sleep (or do like the Mormon church and baptize them after they are dead)
@@EnHacore1 nowhere does the text say that babies or children are required to give consent, if they aren't able to then it is up to those who are responsible for the child (the parents).
Look, the Orthodox are mostly right about most things...
The end.
Can we all go home now?
Lol (and I'm not even Orthodox)
😁😂
This is the sort of problem men create when they don't stick with the teaching of scripture. Clearly, only the believer can be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2: 36-38; Acts 8: 36-38). This rules out babies who are sinless anyways.
Looking for the word only in your verses
In fact, Mark 16:16 says "whoever does not believe will be condemned". Do you condemn infants?
Acts 2:39 says "For this promise is for you and for your children."
@@michaelharrington6698 Obviously you don't look for Christ's authority before you act. In Mark 16 who does Jesus authorize to be baptized? In Acts 2:38 who are the ones authorized to be baptized? In Matthew 28:18-20 who are the ones that can be baptized? When the scriptures specify who can be baptized that excludes everyone else.
@@michaelharrington6698 If you read my first comment properly, you wouldn't ask such silly questions.