A Response to Matt Slick on Baptismal Regeneration
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
Publishing: www.jspublishin...
This video is a response to recent comments from Matt Slick on the topic of baptismal regeneration. I defend the baptismal efficacy as taught in Scripture and the historic church.
I stopped paying attention to Mr. Slick when he told me that the church fathers rejected Baptismal Regeneration.
@@dave1370 regeneration is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Titus 3:5
[5]he saved us, [e]not because of works done by us in righteousness, but [f]according to his own mercy, by [g]the washing of regeneration and [h]renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Cross-references
[e]: Rom 3:27
[f]: Eph 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3
[g]: Jn 3:5; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 3:21
[h]: Rom 12:2
(ESV)
"hearing the Gospel is a work" Nonsense
Dr. Cooper, it seems to me that you misunderstood what Slick was trying to say when he mentioned a denial of original sin.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Church of Christ is credobaptist; and so, if at the same time it affirms that baptism regenerates us and cleanses us from sin, then it logically follows that children don't need to be regenerated and cleansed from sin (because, if they did, then they should be baptised).
From my point of view, this makes a whole lot of sense; but if you believe it to be a false assumption then I would appreciate if you could explain why.
Carlos S. You’re correct in your articulation of the Church of Christ logic.
Lutherans agree with the Church of Christ that baptism regenerates all who receive it (grace is attached to the rite itself) BUT we disagree with them and agree with the Reformed that all are born with Original Sin in a totally depraved fashion
Therefore, Lutherans baptize infants where the CoC do not. It’s a very consistent case of practice following doctrine.
@@vngelicath1580 I agree with the Lutherans that water baptism is appropriate for babies. I see adult water baptisms as infant baptisms of large old babies. This is likened to an enrollment into a reform school for sinners to promote later enlightenment and repentance. OTOH, I agree with the CoC that there is no such thing as a corruption passed on to mankind as a result of the original sin. We cannot blame our sinful acts on the bad decision of Adam any more than today's drunk driving accidents can be blamed on the original drunk drivers. The original drunk drivers oriented society to the dangers of drunk driving, and they left a stigma of prejudice against future drunk drivers. Likewise, the original sin left a legacy of sinfulness and death to Adam's posterity because he was originally made weak through the flesh. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represented the law of Moses, and Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how St. Paul sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression.
@28:54 through 33:06 It appears Matt Slick is referring to the beliefs of the "Church of Christ" who teach "Adult Believer's Baptism" and reject "Infant Baptism".
Dr Jordan B Cooper shatters anti-baptism heresy with Scripture
If a prisoner comes to faith in Christ, but couldn't be baptized IN WATER (in lieu of Spiritual Baptism, which takes place prior to water baptism) for two weeks, but just before he was able to be baptized IN WATER he died of a heart attack - was this person Not spiritually regenerated and thus will end up in the Lake of Fire?
There is no difference between spirit, baptism, and water baptism They are the same thing
@@greenstoner9351 SPIRITUAL baptism, that is, spiritual immersion, of the Holy Spirit, occurs BEFORE....water immersion. As shown in Acts 10. Please look it up.
If the thief on the cross was baptized or not, who cares? If he had gotten off the cross he would have wanted to get baptized. Christ said: “today you’ll be with me in paradise” that’s all we NEED to know.
He had to actually die and rise with Christ on the cross- what we do in baptism according to Romans 6.
@@an_nie_dyc1386 yes but he didn’t get the time to do that. Christ accepted him into His Kingdom by faith-alone. Baptism is one of God’s means by which He saves us. “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but whoever does not BELIEVE shall be condemned”. It doesn’t say if you’re not baptized you’re condemned. But you should be baptized if you can.
@@villarrealmarta6103 exactly how I view it!
@@an_nie_dyc1386 beautiful! 🙏
It’s so frustrating to me that this sort of talk comes from those who call themselves Reformed. The WCF says, “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, not withstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised (ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, etc.) is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
I don’t know what else it could mean that the Holy Spirit confers these things to those whom the grace belongs to in baptism other than baptismal regeneration. Yes, there’s a difference in that our confession limits the Spirit’s work to the elect, but it’s still baptismal regeneration of the elect. I can understand the Baptists who have recently come to believe in predestination and think that makes them Reformed, but I don’t understand the confessionally Reformed Christians who think baptismal regeneration is a dirty word when its concept is so clearly in their own confession and in the writings of the Westminster Divines who wrote it.
Calvin in the Geneva Catechism is even more clear
M: But do you attribute nothing more to the water than to be a mere symbol of ablution?
C: I think it to be such a symbol that reality is attached to it. For God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Hence both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered to us and received by us in Baptism.
M: Is grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?
C: Many by their wickedness preclude it's entry, and so render it empty for themselves. This it's fruit reaches the faithful only. But thereby nothing is lost to the sacrament.
This is literally what I'm saying. And since Calvinists presume their children are elect, it's called "presumptive regeneration". Which would mean regeneration would occur at baptism while personal conversion would happen later
Ify Nsoha Exactly. Presbyterians should be required to read Presumptive Regeneration or The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants by the Westminster Divine Cornelius Burges.
@@sssimplydave was it Peter Leithart 😂? That whole controversy man.
@@sssimplydave I would say tho that if you read what he writes on the Theopolis website he believes in baptismal regeneration 100%. His view is Lutheran (I think he said so)
Thank you for cutting a clear path through the thorns of heresy. More please. God's peace be with you.
As a member of the Church of Christ tradition our understanding of baptismal regeneration is the same as the Lutherans. We are also equivalent in regard to falling away. Where we differ is on infant baptism. I very much enjoy your videos Dr. Cooper thanks for doing them. I am a subscriber :).
Unfortunately, you are totally wrong. Church of Christ don't have a theologically accurate baptismal perception as the lutherans have. Be a lutheran.
@@jordantsak7683 do you live to tell everyone in the comment section that they are wrong 😆😂
Are you sure it’s exactly the same? I’ve always been under the impression that the Church of Christ held more to the idea that baptism is a necessary law that you have to keep to be saved (hence only allowing baptism for adults who can choose it) and not so much that it regenerates.
@@vngelicath1580 There may be some on the CoC who believe that. But generally it is as Paul explains in Romans 6. That is baptism is where the old self dies and is thus set free from sin (vs 6) being baptized into his death and subsequently raised a new man to walk in new newness of life and that his how we become "in christ" vs 3. And yes it something we believe one does as a believing adult.
ric gatewood and so naturally it does come down to the distinction between whether you consider the “old man” a sinful nature received from Adam resulting in sinful thoughts and behaviors... or your own sinful nature accrued through a lifetime of sinfulness.
So it does sound like at least in someway we have the same understanding of baptism, the difference is our understanding of sin.
In someways, the Church of Christ understanding reminds me of Tertullian, who believed that baptism could only forgive “prior sins” and therefore should be reserved for the moment of death. This is different from the other church fathers who believed that baptism forgave sins outside of time; past, present and future - and therefore should be administered as early as possible (the position of the Lutheran Church).
Just got to the 1:02:00 mark. Thanks for mentioning that there are those in the Reformed tradition that do hold to a higher baptismal efficacy than this.
Unfortunately, you are totally wrong. Calvin was indeed a sacramentalist, but, unfortunately, the reformed part of christians don't at all have the same as Calvin's baptismal theology and as the lutherans have (different of Calvin's but essentially the same). You will find nowhere in the ''reformed'' world a baptism regeneration theology. Be a lutheran.
ιορδάνης τσακμαλής Yes, it’s unfortunate that many Reformed Christians don’t hold to the sacramentalism of Calvin and the Reformed Confessions. Many places (and especially the US) have a very Baptist atmosphere which effects a lot of people. This is only worsened by the majority of people calling themselves Reformed actually just being Baptists who believe in predestination. Calvinistic Baptists are now an ever present part of the conversation but eventually the Presbyterians and the Reformed will have to speak honestly about the sacraments even if it makes the Baptists who are always with them uncomfortable.
@@jordantsak7683 nah there definitely are Reformed who have Calvin's theology. Mike Horton is probably the best modern reformed theologian and he definitely does.
Donald Baker the Reformed/Presbyterian need to take back the word Calvinists from the Baptist’s. They think they can just take this term and apply it to themselves. It quite annoying bc they are just taking what they like and leaving what they dislike.
@@sssimplydave It's not even clear to me that confessional Reformed non-Baptists and confessional Lutherans differ at all. The Westminster Confession has a great line in 27.2: "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." And the Large Catechism in the Book of Concord says: "74] And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, 75] as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. 76] For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong."
It seems to me that the vast majority of the 'disagreement' between the Reformed and Lutherans are really just the two talking past each other as the Reformed speaks in terms of the 'thing signified' and the Lutheran speaks in term of 'the sign'.
approx 10:25 "The merit of Christ or the grace of God"
That's what our FAITH is in!
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I'd like to share some of my observations since leaving Christianity entirely. From Lutheran sources like Dr. Cooper, it seems as if the majority of time spent in teaching and preaching is on law/gospel, while Reformed Baptists/Presbyterians spend more time on sanctification and rules for Christian living. Would that be an accurate characterization of the general environment in their respective ministries?
I'd say that is generally correct.
That being said, I'd like to also say that Lutherans (good ones) don't ignore sanctification altogether. It's not that we don't discuss it at all; it's that we put it in its proper place. Our pastor, for example is very good at emphasizing the law in its second use (how we fall short) and its third use (how we are to strive to follow it). But the third use is ALWAYS cast in light of the gospel. In other words, we obey BECAUSE we are saved; we do not obey to be saved. And that is why we bring the gospel up again and again: it's because that, no matter how mature we become as Christians, we need to be reminded that our salvation is always by grace through faith, all in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross for us.
In evangelicalism (which I had spent many years in), most of the time the gospel was the "ticket to the show," in that it got you in, but you no longer needed to worry about it after that. From then on, it was often a heavy concentration upon the Law: do good works. Do them to know you are saved. Do them to make God more pleased with you. If you're not doing them, you might not be saved. If you're not doing what so-and-so is doing, you might have a spiritual problem (and this was a reason I didn't like church testimony time in the Baptist and Nazarene churches). The gospel's seen as being in the rearview mirror, only relevant for people who come to church and haven't "made a decision" for Jesus. Everybody else gets the law. And sadly, this really does breed either pride or despair in the hearts of the congregants.
Elijah, I don't know where you are now, but if you have a good Lutheran church near you, I'd invite you to show up one Sunday and see what it's all about. After all, what do you have to lose? (Obviously, wait until this whole Q-tine thing is over, but the invitation stands).
Protestant / Sacramentarian soteriology (among other doctrines) is decidedly gnostic.
They can’t imagine salvation utilizing the physical world because they’re antagonistically dualistic.
We can't imagine it because Paul clearly taught against it.
Karcharias Really? The same Paul that taught that the bread and wine is participation in the body and blood of Christ. The same Paul that taught that those who are baptized into Christ are buried and raised with him?
That Paul?
What exactly are you referring to as to indicate that he denied that the physical world is utilized by God as the means for our salvation?
@@vngelicath1580 Yes, really. ;) Because your interpretation of Paul here makes Paul contradict himself and that cannot be. However if we understand them as symbols then it makes sense and we are not making Paul into a self contradiction.
Karcharias How is he contradicting himself if the clear meaning of those texts (and that’s exactly what I’m arguing they are) states it as such - what exactly is it that you are referring to as what contradicts the sacramental interpretation?
Paul’s understanding of justification and faith alone? If you listened to the video you will understand that the Lutheran understanding does not pit those two ideas (Sola fide and Sacramentalism) against each other but lets scripture speak for itself in both areas. You’ll find that they’re actually quite complementary if you let them both stand for themselves.
By your logic and hermeneutical principle, we need to choose which set of texts ‘predominates’ (in your case the Sola fide texts) and force the sacramental texts to say something that is clearly not the intention in order to make them “harmonize” - because it doesn’t make sense “to you“ for those two principles to coexist, and therefore you’ve decided that it’s a contradiction.
Karcharias your approach to understanding the sacramental passages is very indicative of your tradition, the reformed and generally anti-sacramental protestant tradition.
The problem with your approach is that you get your doctrine of the sacraments from passages/texts that have nothing to do with the sacraments! You go to Paul and others who say that we are saved by faith alone and not by works and use this to establish your understanding of the sacraments. Lutherans are perfectly fine establishing our doctrine of justification from those passages, but our doctrine of baptism and the Eucharist should be drawn from passages that… Shocker, deal with baptism and the Eucharist.
So instead of just saying St. Paul can’t mean that literally because of what he says elsewhere.. how about you let what he says on one topic be the definitive stance on that topic.
This is the kind of logic that would lead to a whole bunch of antinomian problems in certain corners of liberal Christianity where they justify immorality by citing the passages about justification and freedom in Christ. We shouldn’t let the passages on justification and salvation dictate our doctrine of sanctification and Christian living, that’s just bad hermeneutics - in much the same way that you don’t let the passages about sanctification in James override Paul on justification. You deal with each one individually. You let both stand in their context.
And same with the sacraments.
Can you do many more in depth videos on this topic. They’re helping me
God does use MEANS so that WE MAY COME to believe and have faith.
Matt slick has a elementary school understanding of theology
Carolus Magnus what would you want me to say? The only other word I have in mind is dishonest. It’s either read passages at face value or interpretation them so deeply there’s no way to prove him wrong.
Carolus Magnus ?
It's great to see Dr. Cooper showing how Slick uses false dichotomies all the time. I'd call it eisegesis. They think infant baptism is wrong so they read it into Acts 2:38 while omitting Acts 2:39 and they will have to explain away Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21.
I think what is happening is the breaking up of the formula of baptism regeneration. Modern Christianity, typically separates the Spirt and water baptism into separate acts. Those is believe in sacramental baptism believe it all happens at the same time. So when reading the early church and the New Testament, I have not found a separation of understanding of baptism of water and Spirt in application. Now we do have an issue if church tradition separates water and spiritual baptism and also denies or downplays the spiritual act. Also some church fathers describe baptism as more than just water but the whole process of becoming a Christian.
" Spirt and water baptism into separate acts" - in Acts 10, SPIRITUAL immersion does in fact take place prior to Water immersion. Please read Acts 10.
Excellent point on the transition from the Old to the New Covenant. Even in Acts 19, you have group of people who believed yet had not received the Holy Spirit because they had the baptism of John. Clearly Acts is presented as a time of growth and transition into the New Covenant.
We are saved through works of obedience (repentance+baptism) and not by them. This satisfies Eph 2:8,9 which says we are not saved by our works. Eph 2:8,9 doesn't necessarily mean that you are not supposed to work. The Israelites were saved "through" their departure from Egypt and trek through the water but not "by" their effort even though effort was commanded. It was God's miracle that truly saved them for which he alone gets credit. The miracle of God in baptism is the new creation - a work man cannot do. This kind of reasoning diffuses any "works salvation" arguments.
Excellent Response. I have been watching your shorter videos for 3 years. Recently, I started watching your longer videos, since I'm out of work til October and trying to redeem the time. I ask watch the videos of ELDoNA pastor Josh Sullivan. I realize you and he would have a few differences of opinion, but you both are well studied. I had been looking at Reformed Theology for many years from a Traditional Anglican perspective, and relied quite a bit on Ligonier Ministries for in depth teaching. But, reading and rereading the Augsburg Confession and Catechisms, and watching confessional Lutheran RUclips videos really convinced me the Lutheran theology in the Book of Concord is the most biblical. I still have great respect for the Reformed Tradition, but would now pass the test of the Saxon Visitation Articles. (Smile)
If a prisoner comes to faith in Christ, but couldn't be baptized IN WATER (in lieu of Spiritual Baptism, which takes place prior to water baptism) for two weeks, but just before he was able to be baptized IN WATER he died of a heart attack - was this person Not spiritually regenerated and thus will end up in the Lake of Fire?
Baptised, or immersed, in Christ is water baptism?
Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with WATER, BUT you will be baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT not many days from now.”
You are suggesting that one need to perform a ritual to receive grace.
These concepts can not be known unless one starts in Genesis 1 and studies all of scripture exegetically. The scriptures unfolds and the truth becomes open to us this way. It does not unfold to us accurately by shredding the Gospel and jumping around in scripture in order to get head knowledge about God. Everything starts with God breathed into man’s nostrils and man became a living being. Grace starts there.
Good point. Notice that in Genesis 1:3, The Spirit of God hovered over the waters
@@joseortegabeede8233 yes! 👍🏻
Dr. Cooper, I have been saturating myself with your videos in the last two days, including this one, as well as having listened to the podcast on your response to Tim Challies/J.I. Packer on images in church.
Your thorough explanation on different biblical texts and the doctrine of the church has made me, who has been a Baptist for years, about 75 percent Lutheran.
So why not 100 percent?
Because although you do a great job explaining the texts that combine faith and baptism, you completely ignore all the passages that exclude baptism from salvation.
There are many scriptures where believing in Jesus Christ is enough and does not include baptism.
Many more so than the scriptures that do combine faith with baptism.
Doesn't it then stand to reason, if we are Sola Scriptura, that we need to reconsider the meaning of the few passages of faith and baptism in light of the many where it tells us that faith is enough?
This is a very crucial issue, and I sincerely hope you address it in the same detailed manner that you address other important doctrinal stances.
I am very sincere in what I said about the change in my beliefs, which puts me in an awkward state of limbo until I can get this last issue resolved.
Thanks so much!
He did address this concern. There's no contradiction between Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura where Baptism is concerned.
ruclips.net/video/1or_D91xEZo/видео.html
@@Mygoalwogel "no contradiction" if you're not using the Word of God...
@@johnhamilton286 What scripture drives a wedge between Sola Fide and baptism?
baptism is only effective when received through faith. faith is the means by which we receive salvation. the argument in the RCC is that baptism saves apart from faith/not dependent on faith but only on right performance of the rite. protestants believe that the sacraments are not effective in and of themselves but they are effective when received by faith. faith in god necessarily leads one to partake of the sacraments, faith in God's promises means that one will baptise ones children because of GOds promises, and because of ones faith the child is received into baptism and on account of the mercies of god is regenerated and infilled with the holy spirit. it is faith alone through and through.
I expect a phone call later this week from friend who's also the pastor's wife of our former Presbyterian (opc) church. I'm wondering what I could say succinctly about baptismal regeneration specifically, the Lord's presence in the supper and the use of the sacraments, more broadly. If we talk about our departure from the OPC I'd like to be able to answer her questions accurately. I dont know how to articulate the Lutheran positions well. I'm actually nervous about alienating a sister in the Lord.
Very interesting point re: Titus
What might be the best book on Baptismal Regeneration?
Context:
I, admittedly, tend toward a more Federal Vision/Post New Perspective approach (previously a staunch “Confessionally Reformed bro”), so I’m open to the idea. I cannot help but be attracted to the idea, personally (unrelated to FV, for the h8rs out there), but have my reservations.
Have you read the Baptized Body by Peter Leithart? And are you still FV?
@@ScottTheProtBlankenship - Lutheran with sympathies for FV types. and i have that book. best intro out there imho.
@@MatthewHendren that's interesting. I've been amazed with how similar the teaching seems to be between FV presbies, Lutherans, and Anglicans. When did you become a Lutheran and what compelled you to make the switch?
He is right that the Church of Christ is problematic because they do in fact pretty explicitly deny original sin from what I understand. They believe in baptismal regeneration in that an adult Christians (they do not baptize infants) must decide to be baptized and this washes away their sins. Infants do not need to worry because they have not committed any serious sins, but eventually they will end up doing that. From what I understand they think (or at least originally thought) themselves to be the one true church of Jesus Christ.
Nice work Pastor Cooper. This is a necessary discussion, since a lot of Protestants are unaware of the Lutheran, biblical view of baptismal regeneration. As a former Reformed Christian myself, I only thought there was the Roman view, the CoC, or other random cultish views of baptismal regeneration. All of them turn baptism into either a work we do, or something that needs to be checked off of a to-do list for salvation, and completely ignore that it is God's way of granting us the benefits of Christ's work on the cross to us. Thanks for this video!
Hmmm. As far as I know the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view of baptism is exactly the same as the Lutheran. Don't know about the CoC. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran and joined the Catholic Church as an adult (after spending about 7 years investigating both Catholic and E.O.)
Todd Voss I can’t speak for the EO view because I’m not as familiar with it. But from what I understand the similarity between the three groups is that they all affirm that baptism regenerates. But the Roman Catholic view (correct me if I’m wrong) is that baptism washes away only original sin. Everything that happens after that needs to be taken care of by a different means of grace. That’s what I meant by it being something to check off on the required list of things to do for salvation.Lutherans do not hold to this belief about baptism. We believe it’s a once for all thing, while also affirming the Lord’s supper and confession as means of grace as well. But we believe every day when we repent we “remember our baptism” because it objectively tells us who we are in Christ.
@@bethanyann1060 Thanks Bethany - hope you are well during this Covid crisis. Isn't Jordan's site a godsend while we are all cooped up? But back to the matter at hand. Actually, Catholics believe baptism washes away original sin and all personal sins. What it doesn't wash away is our fallen nature and our "inclination to sin". And then when we do sin after baptism, we must repent. Catholics do so in confession and outside confession. And you yourself just said Lutherans repent after they have been baptized(I'm fine with "remembering our baptism" as an essential part of that). And I have a number of Missouri Synod Lutheran friends who do confess personally to their pastor periodically or even on a regular basis. I don't know where you derive your "check off on the required list of things" idea other than from anti-Catholic memes that circulate among Protestants (sorry) or some sorry examples of Catholics you may know. And yes there are distinctions in how Catholics and Lutherans precisely understand those things but I don't view many (but not all) of those distinctions around baptism as making a substantive difference. Without minimizing our differences, lets not forget what we have in common. We can do that much for the body of Christ.
Todd Voss I hope you and yours are faring well during this crisis as well. I do agree that we should celebrate what we have in common, and I thank you for not being like some trad Catholics who think only Roman Catholics are a member of His body. Or at least it seems that is what you meant. But it would be dishonest to say that we completely agree on baptism since it does have a hand in our different understandings of merits and forgiveness. And yes we should repent daily. Anyways, I’m not trying to fight, just comparing views.
@@bethanyann1060 We are faring well at least compared to some others. Four people stuck in a 2 bedroom apartment in NYC. Good news is I can quit self isolating by Sunday (I ran a very low fever for 8 days and was tired out). That will be a relief. Yes I have no problem with you comparing views. As for 'trads", I am sympathetic to many of their concerns , and agree on many things, but think they are wrong on a number of things. I accept the Church's teaching that Protestant's can be (imperfectly) joined to the Body of Christ which is not just a post Vatican 2 teaching (the Church rejected Feeneyism for example prior to V2). But I won't get into all the details of that - a bit off topic.
If a prisoner comes to faith in Christ, but couldn't be baptized IN WATER (in lieu of Spiritual Baptism, which takes place prior to water baptism) for two weeks, but just before he was able to be baptized IN WATER he died of a heart attack - was this person Not spiritually regenerated and thus will end up in the Lake of Fire?
Lutherans teach that Baptism is ordinarily needed for salvation, but not absolutely needed for salvation.
Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is saved irrespective of whether they're baptized or not.
Jesus loves you. Go to Christ because salvation is only through Him.
@@noelenliva2670 If you teach that then it is a redundant thing. When is that person saved exactly? D o you suggest that God saved him at the beginning of his faith knowing that He would want to be water baptised, or knowing that he will have a heart attack? But on other occasions God decides NOT to regenerate (save) someone prior to water baptism? Can't you see how silly this sounds?
Very good example. God is not bound by a ritual. Water baptism is a symbol of true baptismal regeneration, Baptism in Christ and His Spirit.
Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Water gets you wet, Holy Spirit regenerates by which you desire to be immersed as a symbol of that inner reality.
Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
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.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh.
Colossians 2:12 In baptism, God raised you with Christ through faith.
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Bible literally does not say that.
It is so strange how they always see baptism as water baptism. Water baptism is a symbol of Baptism in the Spirit and Christ.
Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with WATER, BUT you will be baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT not many days from now.”
The argument that the phrase "faith alone" does not appear by Paul is the same argument that the Roman church uses in its apologetic for its entire sacramental program. However, the concept of "faith alone" IS present and using the phrase is merely a descriptive term which is often used in theological systems. When Paul says we are justified by faith and not by works then what else is left? Nothing. If there is no work that can justify then Faith is the only thing left, it is alone. You could just as well use the phrase "faith only" and it would mean the same thing but that doesn't appear either. So if what is described by Paul is faith and no other thing that you can do then Paul is describing a faith that is alone.
I was surprised they never mention the
" baptism of the Holy Spirit"
Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
One must understand the "baptism of the Holy Spirit"
does save 😇😇😇😇
Water baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus said, "Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the *Holy Spirit,"* and why Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit."*
@@Mygoalwogel
There is a hidden truth of The Bible in today's times..
People today have to understand "WATER BAPTISM ENDED "after John the Baptist baptized Jesus.
The reason for water baptism, for John the Baptist was described in
John 1 :31- 34
John the Baptist was given instructions by God to look for a dove to a dentify the Son of God to fulfill is testemony.
Jesus himself separates water baptism from the Holy Spirit baptism. Acts 1:1-5
@@Johnpaul-bv4tg You said emphatically, "Water baptism ended after John baptized Jesus." That is simply not true. _Acts __8:36__ As they were traveling along the road, they came to some _*_water,_*_ and the eunuch said, “Look, here is _*_water._*_ What is there to prevent me from being baptized?"_
Second, the upper room disciples received a once-only gift that God gave them and no one else. They were able to speak every human language simultaneously, showing that they and no one else are the authoritative teachers of all the earth.
@@Mygoalwogel
I believe the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in the Holy Spirit, evidences NIV Bible has removed verse 8:37 "why"
And Philip disappears 8:39
The truth about Matthew 28:19 is that Jesus was speaking and Jesus was the only other person mentioned to baptize, so what if Jesus was telling the crowd what God had sent him to do baptized in the Holy Spirit in the name of the father son Holy Spirit.
The fact is Jesus never baptized anybody in water and had several opportunities and he never baptized John the Baptist why.
The reason Jesus refused to baptize John the Baptist was John the baptists had to see the DOVE to fulfill his testimonial about Jesus and is righteousness.
@@Johnpaul-bv4tg First things first. Some false teacher is feeding you lies and calling them "hidden truths" (your words) without teaching you basic truths, like what actually happened at Pentecost. If you continue to follow this teacher (s)he will put your salvation in jeopardy. (S)he may be very kind to you, but deep down these "hidden truths" just make her/him feel special. (S)he does not have at heart what is good for you.
I couldn't bear to listen to all of this. I have one (2) question(s) to ask all those who believe in baptismal regeneration - You say that we can believe, repent, confess Jesus as Lord and have enough faith to tell a mountain "Remove hence to yonder place" and it will move but we are still not regenerated (saved) until we are baptized, which means we are still damned at that stage with UNBELIEVERS - Now here's my question(s) - Why does the New Testament ALWAYS refer to saved or regenerated people as BELIEVERS and NEVER as the BAPTIZED? It makes absolutely no sense for the New Testament writers to do this if you're not saved (regenerated) until you're baptized. Along the same line why do the New Testament writers refer to UNBELIEVERS instead of UNBAPTIZED?
It's hilarious that when he talks about Federal Headship, he says "It's a biblical doctrine, I read a few articles on it" lol, so it's like somethign new for him but it's automatically used to paint of all our understanding of the Atonement???
I’ve seen Matt in other debates and he sounds like he really likes to hear himself talk 😂
Btw, maybe somebody answered this already, but yes, the Church of Christ basically believes that it is impossible to be saved without baptism.
I can’t believe Matt used the dictionary definition of ceremony to then call baptism an empty ceremony and thus unnecessary.
Perhaps maybe we should leave the magisterial use of reason on the side for a bit and see wha the Bible actually says about baptism?
Does the church of Christ believe in infant baptism? If not, his second argument maybe would make more sense.
Elias G. They don’t baptize infants, because they don’t believe that infants are guilty of sin until an age of accountability. Furthermore they believe that you are guiltless until such a time as you commit your first sin.
As such, they do believe that baptism regenerates and is necessary for salvation, I’m not sure if that’s in an absolute sense or in a qualified sense but either way…
But only for those people they actually think are sinners.
That baptism is a means of grace is a man made construct. The Scriptures are clear that only faith is a means of grace
Slick looks so ignorant here. He just wants to argue his theology and does not care to seriously understand the other side. It’s obnoxious.
The Resurrected Jesus. 3 clear last commands
1. Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.
2. Teach people to observe the law of Christ.
3. Baptize in the name of the Father/Son\Holy Ghost
Bookmarking 29:16 for myself.
They had the option to eat the fruit of life until they ate the fruit of knowledge, then God removed them from the garden. So I don't think they ever actually ate the fruit of life, right?
Church of Christ has distinctives that Lutherans don’t hold to
All roads lead to the theif on the cross😂
Do you believe that once one has faith, even before their baptism, they are justified? I take it that you do not. But feel free to correct! :) If not, define "faith," "by," and "alone." Please understand: I take the passages in favor of baptismal regeneration very seriously. I don't even want to deny the way you interpret them. Instead, I'm trying to figure out how these two doctrines go together, which I still do not. Thanks!
Hi! He talks about that here: ruclips.net/video/4XmwyrXCMls/видео.html
God works through means, but what happens if we are wrong about what God uses as a means?
Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
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.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh.
Colossians 2:12 In baptism, God raised you with Christ through faith.
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And yet another fine presentation. Keep them coming.
Sorry but he refuted the baptismal regeneration
No, he didn't.
@@Mygoalwogel he didn’t even mention how a person is justified. Slick did
@@JMateoLucas Not every video needs to fully expound every aspect of the entire Christian faith. He's made many videos on justification. Your original claim, "[Slick] refuted baptismal regeneration" is not supported in this reply.
@@Mygoalwogel ok so, do you think a person is regenerate after believing in Christ, or after his water baptism?
@@JMateoLucas
Radical protestant logic:
Major Premise: A person is justified by faith.
Minor Premise: I have faith.
Conclusion: I am justified and saved.
Lutheran logic:
Major Premise: Christ, himself, said to me, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Minor Premise: God only speaks the truth and is no liar.
Conclusion: Christ, himself, has claimed me as his own and saved me.
The radical protestant syllogism is faith in faith. I can be confident in my salvation only as long as I'm duly impressed with my own faith, sincerity, fidelity, etc.
The Lutheran syllogism just is faith. It relies only on the promise of God. When I begin to fear because of my sin or to doubt my salvation, I cannot reassure myself that I'm actually a good and faithful Christian. Instead I reassure myself that Christ has physically and definitely called me his own and put his name on me. My faith is in Him, alone. My faith does not rest on my own faith.
Very helpful, thank you!
"Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
The New Testament very clearly tells us how we are Baptized into Christ and there's not a drop off water in it l
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.
To hear and believe you don't have to lift a finger unlike water baptism so that is a work and is not what the apostle Paul taught is salvation.
Baptismal regeneration is not biblical, the Bible's teaching is clear that regeneration is the gift of God the Holy Spirit. Titus3:5-6 , Ezekiel36:25-27.
And Baptism is the way God gives us that gift.
@couriersix7326 what gift do you recieve at baptism?
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 regeneration.
baptism conveys regeneration either for infants or for adults. Regeneration is a sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit.
Now, baptism is a sign of regeneration, but that doesn’t mean the sign is conveyed automatically by the sacrament itself. Baptism is not automatic Salvation.
In the operation of baptism, God makes a promise to His people and to their seed. If they come to faith (and that would presume they were regenerate because they couldn’t be coming to faith unless they were regenerate), then they, along with all who believe, would enjoy all of the benefits that were wrought for us by Jesus Christ. We participate in His death and resurrection, are cleansed of our sin, and all the rest.
Baptism is a sign of all these benefits, but it doesn’t automatically convey salvation any more than circumcision automatically conveyed salvation in the Old Testament, as Paul labors in Romans (Rom. 2:28-29).
So, we can’t assume that just because somebody has been baptized that, therefore, they are regenerate.
To be rebourn, we need water and Spirit (John3). Throughout the Bible a holy covenant person would respond in love as we see in Matt 22:34-40.
@@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8 I would agree with that.
Whilst I believe in baptismal regeneration, I don’t accept that God regenerates all infants through their baptism. I believe that God regenerates through baptism only those He is pleased to regenerate as Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” (Tappert). This was also Luther's position in his Large Catechism where he wrote; “We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” which shows that Luther believed that baptismal regeneration wasn't automatic and universal but was dependent upon whether God willed the child to be regenerated. If Luther had believed that the Holy Spirit is always active through baptism and the Gospel, and that damnation is due to resisting the Holy Spirit, then rather than praying that God would grant the child faith, he would have prayed that the child wouldn't resist the Holy Spirit.
The above is compatible with the doctrine of double predestination found in The Bondage of the Will where Luther distinguishes between an outward drawing through the Gospel, and an inner drawing of the Father through the Holy Spirit which irresistibly regenerates people:
Now take the saying of Christ in John 6 [:44]: "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him." What does this leave to free choice? For he says that everyone needs to hear and learn from the Father himself, and that all must be taught by God. He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father himself speaks, teaches, and draws inwardly…. But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself. (p.285,286, Vol 33 Luther's Works)
What happens to one of God's "elect" if they refuse to get baptized?
God did not predestine his elect to refuse baptism forever.
@@Mygoalwogel
That would be equivalent to saying God predestined his elect to a lifetime of disobedience when, actually, surrender and submission to Christ is the very first step of faith in our walk of faith with Him:
24 Then Jesus told His disciples, “If ANYONE wants to COME AFTER ME, he must DENY HIMSELF and TAKE UP HIS CROSS and follow Me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever LOSES HIS LIFE for My sake WILL FIND IT [find LIFE]. 26 What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
(Matthew 16:25)
This EXCHANGE is what Baptism is all about - my life in exchange for His.
…3 Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.
(Romans 6:4)
The Reformers retained the tradition of infant baptism because they believed that removed "Original Sin" but such an idea does not come from scripture. It came from Augustine who, reading Romans 5:12 in corrupt Latin translations read Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as “in quo omnes peccaverunt” “IN WHOM [Adam] all sinned” In fact, the preposition ἐφ means BECAUSE OF. So all sinned, not IN ADAM but BECAUSE OF Adam. Thus the whole practice of infant baptism has no spiritual element to it but is equivalent to INFANT DEDICATION. If Augustine had persisted in his Greek studies rather than quit he would have known this.
@@JimiSurvivor No. If a person is elect/predestined, she will eventually attain faith. Those who have faith desire God's gifts. Those who are offered gifts from God but do not want them are the people who do not have faith and persevere in faithlessness are not elect/predestined.
@@Mygoalwogel
"No. If a person is elect/predestined, she will eventually attain faith."
Israel was God's chosen and they chose not to believe
28 Regarding the GOSPEL, they [the unbelieving Jews] are ENEMIES on your account; but regarding ELECTION, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29 For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.
(Romans 11:28-29)
Of what use is it to be chosen and called to fulfill a certain divine purpose if you cease to believe and become an ENEMY of the GOSPEL of Salvation. According to Paul, the same thing that happened to Israel can happen to New Covenant believers who do not continue in their faith.
22 Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, IF YOU CONTINUE in His kindness. Otherwise YOU WILL ALSO BE CUT OFF. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
(Romans 11:22-23)
The Apostle does not say those who have been chosen WILL continue to believe. The verse says we will experience God's kindness only if WE continue to believe. The verse says that WE have the ability to cease trusting in Christ and His gospel but that the consequences will be dire:
"Otherwise (if you do not continue) you shall BE CUT OFF." A branch cut off from the Vine has no life now and no hope of eternal life in the next World. This shows that the fact that we choose faith now does not mean we will continue to choose it.
In Jeremiah 18 God says He has power to shape the vessel into the form that He wills but the use He makes of them is based on whether they first obey or rebel against Him. God is willing to reverse prophesied blessings or judgments if the vessel changes its will. This comports with Paul's remark that even hardened Israel would be reconciled if they repented:
23 And if they [Israel] do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
(Romans 11:23)
@@JimiSurvivor Ah! You mean election in the actual biblical sense of ordination, then? That's a relief. I get so tired of Calvinists.
I guess I don't get the meaning of your OP, then.
Please post a video on Pastor Steven Anderson. He is wrong on many things. He’s also right on many things as well.
El Chapito Anderson is a crazy man, it’s best not to engage with people like him.
Akim Oetam How is he crazy?
El Chapito ruclips.net/video/VRp1wgaCjAg/видео.html
"Adam received his life and Eve received her life through the tree of life that God placed in three garden"
"Was it a work for Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life"
Dr Cooper needs to read the first few chapters of Genesis. Adam and Eve NEVER ate of the tree of life and were put out of the garden before they were able to eat of it and live for ever (have eternal life). It's hard to believe that a doctor could mess that up but then again he believes in baptismal regeneration.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND, AND TAKE ALSO OF THE TREE OF LIFE, AND EAT, AND LIVE FOR EVER:
AN EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM
{{ Baptism is the means of grace that incorporates a person into Christ's body,through this we are crucified,buried and risen with him (Rom. 6,Col.2:12,Gal.3:27) by this first we obtain the remission of sins (Acts 2:38,22:16,Ephesians 5:25-26) and eternal life/salvation (Mark 16:16,1 Pet. 3:21).}}
We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) faith is the receiving organ that apprehends the grace in baptism.
Baptism is a sacrament not a law/commandment (gospel not law) that one must obey,rather it is the application of the death burial and resurrection to the individual believer,it is the subjectification/individual reception of the universally redemptive act and resurrecction.Now,justification is by faith alone,after having believed one is justified however until the believer is baptised he isnt formally incorporated into the body of Christ when time comes for baptism and this believer rejects baptism,he is rejecting the application of sacrifical redemption and resurrection hence it is said rejection of baptism condemns,as inferred from Mark 16:16. The support we find for this in church fathers is universal there is not a single early Christian writer who had any other view on baptism,until Zwingli there existed no discordant view in the entire Chriestendom.
THE THIEF ON THE CROSS
The thief on the cross died prior to the initiation of the new testament era which has the baptism of Christ,application of the death burial and resurrection of Christ.Christian baptism did not exist prior to the resurrection.In evidence whereof we read the account of st.Paul baptizing followers of St.John the Baptist who were baptised with the baptism of John the Baptist.
Following verses illustrate that the New Testament Christian baptism is the application of the redemptive act on the cross (atonment) and the resurrection.
Collosians 2:12
Romans 6:1-5
Galatians 3:27
How do we know the application of Christ's death burial and resurrection produce remission of sins and grant eternal life?
Acts 2:38,Acts 22:16,Eph 5:26-27 -remission of sins
1 Peter 3:21,Mark 16 - eternal life
IS BAPTISM A LAW THAT WE MUST OBEY ?
No,it is a sacrament.There is no law precepts in the New Testament era.False shepherds who impously teach that baptism is a law that we must obey are failing to comprehend the very nature of New Testament salvation economy.
IS BAPTISM A WORK ?
A work is something that we do.you cant ''do'' baptism it is always received from someone else.You cant baptise yourself.Therefore it is not a work,properly called a sacrament.It is not a legalistic requirement.
THE CATHECUMENS
What about a cathecumen who dies prior to being baptised ?
It is affirmed that such a person goes to heaven being baptised by desire,in accord with the early church.
DOES FAITH SAVE OR DOES BAPTISM SAVE ?
The formula of salvation is found in Ephesians 2:8-9.
There are various causes in the completion of an event.The formal cause,the instrumental cause,meritorious cause,formal cause,efficient cause etc.
Now without delving into the complications,God is the efficient cause of salvation,faith is the instrumental cause,baptism is the application of the meritorious cause.
Consider this to better comprehend levels of causality ; Suppose that a man murders another by stabbing him in the heart.What is the "cause" of his death? the wound inflicted on the heart? , the knife ? excessive bleeding ? the murderer? It is not a contradiction to name all because each occupies a different place in the chain of causality.
The best anology for baptism is the signing of a marriage contract.Suppose that love between a man and a woman is the basis for marriage,once love is present (analogous to faith) the couple are in a bond which will be formalized by the signing of a marriage contract(analogous to baptism) now until this contract is signed they are not married,now suppose one of the two rejects signing this contract at the time of the signature ceremony,there would be no reason other than lack of love.This reflects the mechanism of how rejection of baptism condemns.No anology is perfect but it is useful to utilize them.
Verses : { Mark 16:16,John 3:5 , Acts 2:38,Acts 22:16 Romans 6:3-8,Collosians 2:12,Titus 3:5,Gal.3:27 Ephesians 5:25-26,1 Peter 3:21 }
Is God a deceiver that we find blunt statements like this in the bible yet it is merely a symbolic act ?
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21)
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ (Acts 22:16)
If that is just me misinterpreting the Bible then how do you explain the unifom view of the Church for over 1500 years and the vast majority today (about 80 percent) ?
I’m not sure about Matt Slick, but my case against automatic baptismal regeneration in baptism:
1 John tells us that those who are born of God overcome the world. It’s manifestly clear to all that a lot of baptized people are going to hell.
One of these two have to give.
A lot of baptized people go to hell because they don’t trust and believe in the promises God gave them in their baptism.
Regeneration does not necessarily equate to salvation
Regeneration doesn’t necessarily equal someone who is finally saved (election).
Regeneration is saving faith created by the Holy Spirit through grace distributed through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament) with God’s intended universal saving will.
Regeneration can be lost because Grace can be resisted.
Those who are saved are saved because of the very grace they received in baptism and therefore St. Peter is correct in saying that baptism now saves us, but salvation is also able to be resisted and shipwrecked, as Saint Paul warns. Therefore baptism saves, but some people who are baptized go to hell (of their own volition, rather than God’s).
@@eliasg.2427 boom!
@@eliasg.2427 hit the nail on the head fam
To assert that baptism confers regeneration in the life of an infant is an absurd notion. To preach from the same mouth that all of Christ’s elect are eternally secured cannot harmonize with this doctrine. We watch daily as those infants who were once baptized (saved) turn from their faith and die in their sins…
To assert that faith and a decision for Christ confers regeneration in the life of an adult is an absurd notion. To preach from the same mouth that all of Christ's elect are eternally secured cannot harmonize with this doctrine. We watch daily as those adults who were once faithful believers (saved) turn from their faith and die in their sins.
We have no scriptural proof the thief on the cross was or was not baptized and therefore cannot utilize an argument from silence to prove anything about baptismal regeneration. Many of my friends are more than willing to go beyond what the bible tells us in order to prove their unscriptural anti-baptismal regeneration tradition.
It's amazing how many coocoo beliefs are floating around in so-called Christian churches.
I had an argument with my in-laws
They were telling me that Titus 3:5 doesn't talk about Baptism
So I pointed them to Romans 6 and Colossians 2:11-12
And they tell me: That is talking about "Baptism into Christ, not water baptism"
Ugh
Matt Slick is so slippery and dishonest.
Mark 16:16
all hail CALVIN lol