Here’s one thing you can say about Dr. O: he is definitely not here to shirk from the tough questions on his side of the apologetics debates, and he’s not here to cut down straw men!
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. However, I wanted to get baptized during that time. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
@@bradentutt6642 I believe all believers will be led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized. But it is not water baptism that gives us the Holy Spirit-it is the spiritual baptism we get when saved. You should become a member at a biblical Church and get baptized to proclaim your faith in Christ.
Hey Gavin Thanks for a respectful and honest look at baptism! I'm a Lutheran who's pretty hooked at baptismal regeneration (I think the last Cyril quote pretty much sums up my view). I learned a lot! I admittedly thought the Baptist view was more of a "just a symbol"-view. Glad to have that nuanced.
@@TruthUnites Which baptism is related to salvation? The Word “Baptize”: Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
He clearly didnt read the entirety of Cyril's lecture... "*If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation;* except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. "
I have diligently studied baptism, it is amazing how so many have it wrong. Baptism has to do with the conscience. Baptism or submission into the name of Jesus. If one does not even know who Jesus is, that person can not by any biblical standard be considered baptized. The act in and of itself does not possess any kind of power whatsoever.
Agreed!! The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why, only that I should do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Awesome video. The language of metonymy - I love that. Feels true to the text, in contrast to some well-intentioned “workarounds” that satisfy no one. Well-researched and thought out. Helpful to me. Thanks Gavin!
Thanks for this!! Re your last point, I’m struck by Gregory of Nyssa’s warning: The baptismal water may be applied to the body, but if the soul hasn’t cleansed itself from the filth of its sinful passions, and your life after baptism is no different to your life before baptism, your baptism in water was a mere experience of water and nothing else. A bold thing to say, but I won’t flinch from saying it! If this is the nature of your baptismal birth, the gift of the Holy Spirit in no way appears. How have you been changed, if your life is still distorted by anger or inflamed by greed, and the divine image in you is warped by uncontrolled and tasteless thoughts, by self-importance, resentment, arrogance? What if you still hold onto the fruits of dishonesty, and carry on committing adultery? If such vices still cling to you, I can’t see how you have been changed at all; I see the same person I saw before you were baptised. Someone may have been washed in the bath of baptism, but what good is that, if the people he treated badly, accused wrongly, and stole from, see no difference in him? …A baptised person who is morally unchanged, and yet jabbers nonsensically about the blessing he has received from baptism, needs to hear Paul: “If a man thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal.6:3). If you haven’t become a thing, you are not that thing. “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become God’s sons” (Jn.1:12). Thus the Gospel speaks of the new birth. A child through its birth has the same nature as its parent. If, then, you have received God, and become a child of God, show by your attitudes that God dwells in you; exhibit in yourself the One who begot you! The Great Catechism, ch.40
“If a man claims to be converted, and continues to be just as mean, spiteful and snobbish as he was before, we may rightly suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary.” CS Lewis
Your taking that letters out of context, in fact prior to that texts, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly mentioned that Baptism is a spiritual birth[or regeneration], here's the quote that you did not include: "Baptism is a spiritual birth, but he who is born by spiritual birth must recognize by whom he is born and what kind of creature he must become. In physical birth, those who are born owe their life and existence to the impulse of their parents, but the spiritual birth is in control of the one who is being born. It is the only birth where we can choose and determine what kind of beings we are to become. Now it is evident to everyone that we must receive the saving birth of baptism for the purpose of growth and renewal and changing in our nature …" Take note that he called it[Baptism] as 1.) Spiritual birth. 2.) Saving birth. Don't take the letters out of context.
In addition with, St. Gregory of Nyssa mentioned again on his writings titled "ON THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST" "...Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration..." This is evidently clear that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't support the Baptist doctrine of Baptism.
The words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a Catholic Bishop, are very Catholic. If one is baptized yet continues in mortal sin, the gift of baptism - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace is lost. There is no blessing as the blessing (gift) was lost. The physical act of baptism without the conversion of heart does nothing.
Thankful for your work on this. As a baptist from pretty much birth, I really appreciate how you have introduced me to nuance on different positions and the way to properly discuss and advocate for a view. Your method gives great weight to the message you give.
Hi Gavin, this was so helpful. It came along at the right time for me. Thanks for the nuanced arguments. There is a lot of confusion in my corner of the world about this.
As a baptist minister I find your videos really helpful. I see baptism as a part of theosis (I tend to lean to the East on a few subjects). If you get a chance you should read Mark the Monk’s Counsels on the Spiritual Life from the popular patristics series. In the introduction Tim Vivian writes about the different views that some of the fathers had. They certainly weren’t all in agreement.
@@Momof15plusDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@Momof15plusAdult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
Atleast some folks seem to get wet and yet continue unchanged in carnal lives with no distinct observable difference...in those cases how would one conclude to affirm fool proof baptismal regeneration?
I'm not wrestling with it. I know that baptismal regeneration is biblically sound. This all stems from the need to defend a false doctrine based on misreading Ephesians 2:8-9. Alone, alone, alone is the false doctrine. Even the name of the false doctrine you attempt to combat with your own false doctrine is falsely named. The false doctrine you guys attempt to combat you call it works-based salvation... when it should be called Merit-based salvation. You guys excoriate people who through obedience by faith seek regeneration from God. That's what 1 Peter 3 is all about how we are seeking regeneration from God through baptism by faith. Notice how that water baptism is directed toward God all the while you knuckleheads say it is an outward show (toward people). It is an appeal to God in 1 Peter 3 and it is calling out to God (calling on his name) in Acts 22. For we believe that if we are buried with him by baptism into death we shall also be raised by he who raised Jesus from the dead. It is by God's grace that we are saved through our obedience by faith. Neither grace nor faith are alone. So stop saying 'alone, alone, alone'. That is a bait-and-switch tactic. You don't know what you are talking about.
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why (at that time), only that I should do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Adult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism. - Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise = Mark 16:16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 16:31-33 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 2:41 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those - Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual) - second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant) - third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife. And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart. And also circumcision was not give to girls. - in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@mynameis......23 I agree. I received the Holy Spirit the moment I accepted Jesus as my Savior. That is who impelled me to be subsequently water baptized. The water didn't cleanse or save me; repentance from sin and faith in Christ did. Believers are baptized ONCE into the body of Christ, but there are many fillings throughout his/her life.
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. I wanted to get baptized though. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
For anyone interested, in his Large Catechism, Luther addresses the Anabaptist objection as it relates to Sola Fide and the Lutheran Confession concerning Holy Baptism. He affirms Sola Fide, but recognizes, quite rightly, that Faith must have an object to which it clings. Ultimately, that object is the Person and Work of Christ, but He is grasped as He is given through the Means of Grace. There is no contradiction between Sola Fide and Baptismal Regeneration. I realize, Dr. Ortlund, that you were charitable on this point, but for any who are interested in how Luther addresses the matter, look into his Large Catechism.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I say it because I used to believe both without question, but when actually reading the Bible and challenged to support it then it became impossible. Neither are taught anywhere in the Bible, which tells us that only the one who does what is righteous is righteous, just as Jesus *is* righteous by doing what is righteous (1 John 3:7). You won’t find a single verse that says a Christian was imputed the righteous acts Jesus performed 2000 years ago as if the Christian performed them. Not a single verse. Also, James is clear we are justified by works (James 2:24). Paul is also clear we are justified by works when the Holy Spirit works through our works (Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 6:7-10). Paul on “faith apart from works” would be interpreted correctly if Luther had simply accepted the rational position that every church writer understood before him including Augustine: the works which Paul says do not save are works done apart from the Holy Spirit.
@@IAmisMaster St. Paul actually asserts that God justifies the ungodly, apart from works (Rom. 4). How is it, then, that you can assert that only those who are righteous are the justward moving people? In addition, it would be tautological for St. Paul to mean "works done apart from the Holy Spirit" when referring to the ungodly being justified apart from works. So, the Apostle is better understood in consideration of Titus 3 when, very clearly, he asserts that God saved us, not because of works done by us *in righteousness*. What are your further thoughts on this?
Or this from Cyril: "Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John's was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ."
I do disagree with your conclusions, but I respect so much your candor, respect, and thoughtfulness of complexities. I appreciate you thinking things through and not just repeating the same arguments that get passed around. You gave this our own thoughts, and at least consider and acknowledge how those who don't think as you may come to their conclusions, and you explain their positions well. Of those who don't believe baptism in water in Jesus's name is involved n being saved, yours is by far the best presentation I've seen.
“A larger spiritual category of language of cleansing water that baptism participates in and fulfills and points to baptism but baptism does not exhaust it.”
I don't know why Protestants have such a hard time arguing about the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity for salvation. The Scriptures are very clear on this subject. Baptism is God's most beautiful gift. It is not a "work" that some Christians say. Baptism is called the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit" for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God ( Titus 3: 5. John 3:5 ) How much clearer do you want ? By Baptism all sins are forgiven, the stain of original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God , neither Adam's sin, not personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is eternal separation from God. Born with a fallen human nature, and tainted by original sin, children also have need of rhe new birth of Baptism to be freed from the power of the darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all of us are called (Col 1: 12-15 ) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christ said: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you."(*John 15:5); the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (*Titus 3:5) is not synonymous with water Baptism, although full immersion water Baptism IS commanded of ALL believers, AFTER they have believed (*Mark 16:16 & Acts 8:36-37) The Apostle Paul also seems to use a different phrase in Ephesians to describe the same process "washing of regeneration" mentioned in Titus; Ephesians 5:26 refers to that process as: "...the washing of water by the word". Consider the repentant thief next to Christ's cross; he was assured entry into paradise without ever being baptised. Be careful that you aren't teaching that a Baptism WITHOUT authentic faith saves (*real faith that saves is itself a gift of God and does not have a human origin, a faith that saves "is the substance of things hoped for" and is not mere mental agreement with certain doctrines), and Baptism WITHOUT real faith saves no one. "Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved."- Luke 8:11-12 (*note- Christ's words in the above verse clearly indicate that the person would be saved by believing the Word that the Sower has sown in their heart, which is specifically what the devil prevents in this particular context that Christ describes). "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."- Acts 2:41 (*note- that only those who received his word, that is specifically the Word of God, spoken through Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit, were baptised; those who received his word were the same ones who authentically believed it at first, prior to baptism, also see Acts 2:44) "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."- James 1:18 "For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."- 1 Peter 1:23 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast."- Ephesians 2:8-9 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17
Abraham, Issac and Jacob and all the Old Testament Prophets will all be in the Kingdom of God, according to Christ (*Luke 13:28), and they were not water baptised; consider the context of John 3:5; Nicodemus had just asked Christ about if he had to go back into his mother's womb to be born a second time, and then, in that context, Christ answers "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Therefore in this context, Christ may be referring to the waters of natural birth (* first, "born of water") and then a spiritual second birth afterward ("born of the Spirit").
Also, in the Old Testament, David's son who died was not baptised, and he died before being circumcised (*which some people think is an OT type of baptism), but David had the assurance that he would see his son again (*in Heaven and/or in Abraham's bosom, the place of safety that was in Sheol, prior to Christ's death) : "I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”- 2 Samuel 12:23
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I definitely do not believe that infants who die go to hell. Neither do I believe that anyone goes to hell who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, but the cause of a tragedy, or whatever the case was not able to get to the water. Compare Romans, four versus 11 and following with Colossians two versus 11 and Follow. However, I am definitely a baptismal effectual list. I believe that the Lord can work in someone before baptism into Jesus Christ, but even if regeneration happens through the word, there is a further work done in baptism, and it certainly has to do with remission/forgiveness of sins, act 2:38, 22:16, and I do not believe it is merely symbolic, but if appropriated through repentance and faith, Mark 16:16, act 2:38, 8-37:39, 16-31:33, Brings about change/deliverance/freedom/forgiveness/cleansing of conscience/spiritual, circumcision, etc. Act 2:38 is the whole package and everyone needs it. Certainly the Lord can give the Holy Spirit before baptism, act 10-404:48, but that does not eliminate the necessity of baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus For those who have understanding and opportunity.
Hey Dr Ortlund I’ve enjoyed your channel, keep it up. A few suggestions in regards to baptism. 1) faith and baptism in Acts seem to be closely correlated in terms or time. That’s to say no long spans of time between believing and being baptized (Ethiopian Eunuch and Jailer- Acts 8 & 16. Almost an urgency in being baptized upon faith- eunuch on the side of the road and jailer/ family in the middle of the night. 2) I hope this makes sense but Biblically I would correlate faith and baptism with the covenant rather than regeneration. Regeneration being an inner work of the Spirit whereas the language of counted righteous and signs/sealing are I believe clearly covenantal actions. 3) Abraham is justified by faith but circumcision is a necessity to remain in covenant. To refuse circumcision is to be cut off from the covenant people. 4) Paul seems to say in Ro 6, Gal 3 and Phil 2 that baptism unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection particularly. Blessings to you.
Paul said; don't, "be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3, for water baptism does not save, as Peter noted in 1 Peter 3:21, that it is, “..the answer of a good conscience toward God,”. How do we know this experientially? It is shown by the saving of Cornelus and his house, Acts 10:43-47; “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins, or salvation). And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” These got the water baptism (giving an answer of a good conscience), after being saved. For these were now Christ, as “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9. Again, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3, which they most certainly did have and were saved! Again, when the Eunuch said to Philip; “See, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If you ‘believe’ with all your heart (Romans 10:9,10), you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:36,37. Philip was making sure it was, "Not by works of righteousness (even baptism) which we (or this Eunuch) have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5.
Hello, Gavin! I Absolutely love your videos. All of your videos are a part of my education as a current college student, I make sure I don't miss one. I really appreciate the ministry you do. I was curious if you could tell me what you take speaking in tongues to be. You mentioned it a couple of times this video. Is it glossolalia or xenolalia? Or is it both at different times? I'm attending a Christian Charismatic college that heavily emphasizes the practice of speaking in tongues in the glossolalic sense, but I'm unsure if that's even Scriptural. Perhaps you would need to devote a later video to this topic to cover it or maybe you have an existing one I don't know of. Regradless, I'd love to know what you think of the matter. Thanks (:
Thanks, Dr Ortlund, for another great video. As a lifelong Baptist, I have never found the arguments for infant or regenerative baptism compelling, but I confess I have sometimes wondered what the point of the whole thing is. Why be commanded to do something that doesn't actually achieve anything? And yet the thought of it achieving anything goes so strongly against our understanding of sola fide that I can't quite stomach it. I am longing for a more complete and nuanced understanding, and working through your videos is enormously helpful. I'd love some time to hear more about the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance (growing up Baptist, I just never heard the word 'sacrament'), and also Catholic/Protestant understandings of grace. What does it mean for something to be a 'means of grace', as you say in your video? Is grace something that's doled out piecemeal, or applied to us wholesale and you're either in it or you're not? You now, just in case you don't have four or five dozen ideas queued up for your next videos already ;)
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster The texts you’ve provided do not refute sola fide, you’ve misunderstood them. I would be happy to discuss them all with you on Discord. Let me know!
Why does nobody look at the story of Zacchaeus in talks of Baptism? Jesus told him “today, salvation has come to this house.” He didn’t say to hurry up and get in the water. He didn’t say Salvation came when you got baptized. He said “today”.
Dr. Ortlund, I respect your work and your call to get Baptists to stop watering down Baptism with mere symbolism. Still, you keep saying Baptism isn’t “causative” of regeneration. That the rite isn’t in and of itself regenerative, which is the more Roman Catholic view of Ex Opere Operato…which is entirely contingent on their view of Holy Orders. If that were the view you were disputing with here[, which I would argue isn’t really Baptismal Regeneration,] I think you’d be correct. However, I get the vibe that you reject the causative aspect of Baptism under the impression that Baptism is just a rite of mere water being applied. That’s not what [Lutheran] Baptismal Regeneration posits. I draw your attention to Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms: “What is Baptism? -Answer: Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word. Which is that word of God? -Answer: Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” “For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?… …In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold. Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. To what else do they refer than to Baptism, that is, to the water comprehended in God’s ordinance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith, and Christ, who directs us thither and binds us to Baptism.” The Word of Christ is the “causative” operative power in Baptism that makes it regenerative, not the mere rite of water itself or application thereof. If it’s Christ’s Word, it’s Christ’s work. There is absolutely no contradiction with this and Johann Gerhard’s statement that you included here. This is why I see little reason to look at texts like Ephesians 5:26 and get all hung up on “linguistic complexities” and not draw Baptism from it.
A heart-felt thanks to you brother Gavin, for being an honest searcher. Your thoughts echo that which has also been written by George R. Beasley-Murray's book "Baptism in The New Testament"
Rewatched this - super helpful, thanks again. Had trouble getting my 4 year old to agree to a nap (she’s sick), starting playing this video and she was snoring in minutes! Haha so you helped us both
Early church Fathers are a secondhand source. Can you really trust it??? What about people who cannot be baptized because of disabilities and medical devices being attached??? Are those people unable to be saved??? I don't think so.
We know for certain the Protestant traditions of Faith alone and Scripture alone, were not universal in the Church Fathers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I have to say the issue of Baptism is the hardest for me to understand. Like you said in the video there are so many "exceptions" to the rule, in fact, I have only seen "exceptions" to the rule. The issue of the bible stating that faith saves. But then what do we do with "Now, baptism saves you"? It's hard. But during the video i thought of the Eucharist. In a way, the Eucharist is salvific. Through it we are furthered in Sanctification, we are further united to Christ who is our Salvation etc. But some is obviously regenerated and justified before their first Eucharist participation. I don't know what do you think Gavin? Thanks for the work.
It's a great point and yes, I think that understanding baptism as a means of grace but not cause of regeneration leads to greater consistency between the two sacraments, and also greater continuity with their O.T. precursors (circumcision and the Passover).
@@TruthUnites "means of grace but not cause of regeneration." But aren't we regenerated by grace? What if it's both/and: we are both regenerated through initial justification and forgiveness (counted righteous) and continually regenerated through sanctification (made righteous). Since that would mean regeneration is not a one-time-only thing, regeneration apart from baptism would not exclude baptismal regeneration (?)
@@abbyschubert5637 there are some people who define regeneration like that, but I think the more common way of understanding it, and the one I use, is that regeneration is being made alive to God. So it is a one-time act. If someone thinks that baptism is regenerative in the sense of imparting new life to the one receives it in faith and is already spiritually alive, I have no objection to that.
At 14:00, Acts 9 does not say the Spirit "descends" on Paul when Ananias lays his hands on him. Ananias communicates to Paul his purpose of being there, "that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." This does not mean it was through his hands that Paul was regenerated. Interestingly, scales fell off his eyes (which is how he regained his sight) and was baptized (how he received the Holy Spirit). That to me is the most natural reading.
Hi Gavin, I thought this was actually a fascinating video. When I was a protestant, I had no idea that the baptists had that high a view of baptism, so I appreciate those details. I think many modern baptists could benefit from getting in touch with their roots! As an Orthodox Christian, I subscribe to a synergistic view of regeneration, and tend to view salvation more as a process than a "one off deal". Do you think a synergistic view might impact patristic attitudes toward baptism?
Thanks Daniel! I totally agree many modern Baptists need to get in touch with their roots. Groups like the Center for Baptist Renewal are helping with that. Yes, I definitely think the synergistic view of regeneration is relevant, and has explanatory power for the some of the objections. God bless.
@@TruthUnitesDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water Acts 1:5 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water) In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18. In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
28:18. Gideon Lazar who is a Roman Catholic who debated Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers on evolution brought up that there were ECFs who did not believe in water baptismal salvation for the causation of salvation. As a former Roman Catholic, I had not heard that before, and I had not read of any examples of this, until I heard it here. It was helpful hearing that you can find examples from Justin Martyr in the second century to Cyril of Jerusalem well into the fourth century. Do you have any other examples like this, or know where to find them? I think where the early church really swayed on this issue, particularly in the west is that when we read the book of Acts, generally when someone came to Faith, they were immediately baptized, nearly always the same day. I can see where this eventually led those in the early church to believe and conflate that water baptism regenerates a person to salvation BECAUSE it was done on the same day. This is a non sequitur though and cannot be deduced from the text. Thanks for this, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, Dr Ortlund!
Baptism is the time and place that God removes your sins and gives you the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God can justly do this because of the suffering of Jesus which paid for your sins. The removing of your sins is the rebirth because you are starting over sinless and must continue to live a repentant life. God regenerates AT baptism, we are not regenerated BY baptism. That is why Peter said in 1 Peter 3:18ff that baptism saves you. It is when God does His work and you are reborn.
I really enjoyed this! I attend a Baptist church, although personally, I've never been fully settled on exactly what that it means or who should be baptized. I really enjoy listening what you have to say about it! You're extremely thoughtful and careful, and you don't just ignore history on the subject. I would love to hear some thoughts sometime about the mode of baptism. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling, leaning backwards, leaning forwards, words of institution, etc. That's a lot, but I love to hear your thoughts!
People should be immersed for baptism, as that is what was done in Scripture. The Greek used for believer's baptism in Scripture is always Baptizo (to immerse), and never Rhantizo (to pour/sprinkle). Rhantizo does exist in Scripture, but never in regards to believer's baptism. Thus, the proper way to baptize is by immersion. Those that pour/sprinkle are incorrect. Leaning backwards or forwards, dunking numerous times, and whatever wording is to be used is subjective and not addressed in Scripture.
Appreciate your gentle approach to difficult topics. This is a something that has been extremely perplexing for me as the Bible seemingly points in both directions at times. Your analysis and especially the graduation analogy has given me some peace about this. My brothers and I are about to read Finding the Right Hills to Die On together and finding your RUclips channel has me pumped to read your books!
Hello Gavin! I have that book by Stanley Flowers. It is a great book. Thanks early Baptist have a similar view to the church of christ. Especially the British Baptist. Thanks for your channel. I think that baptism is the meeting point of your faith and God uses it to wash away sin and give the Holy Spirit.
I believe that one of the reasons why there is much confusion over baptism, is because most people have jumbled together baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit. These are two separate and distinct occasions for the Christian, and only one of these does the Scripture call a "sealing". Namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit.
the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place with the indwelling presence that follows baptism. There is only ONE baptism per scripture, and it is water baptism as seen in the eunuch and Phillip conversion, several things happen in water baptism; sins are forgiven, the indwelling of the HS takes place. regeneration as a new person since the sins are removed and you start over as a child. GOD makes all these changes, the wat er makes none of them. It is just the time and place.
@@timbabb5348 Hello again Tim. Hope you are well. I know we discussed this topic at length previously. Let me ask you: How are we Justified (Made right/ righteous) with God? I think this question relates to the topic at hand
The Catholic way to phrase the "baptism as seal" view would be that baptism is an actual grace that ignites and ensures the believer in the sanctifying grace of the regeneration he has already received from the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is the new circumcision Colossians 2:11. This is one of the reasons why we baptize babies at 8 days old. Circumcision was to be performed at 8 days old according to Genesis 17:10-14. Thus we baptize babies at 8 days old being that Baptism is the new circumcision.
@@timothy9360 Yes, that parallel makes sense, and we must also highlight that circumcision is the shadow but baptism is the effectual sign that unites sinners to Jesus.
@@lhinton281 baptism represents a few things really. It comes from the Jewish mikvah. The high priest was to wash in the mikvah before entering the Holy room. Being that we are all spiritual priests under the new covenant. Baptism is also the new mikvah. But it's also a way of washing away sins. Such as God sprinkling with water to wash them of their idolatry. As stated in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Baptism is also the actual birth of being born again without entering the womb. It is the representation of the womb. The physical birth out of the birth canal without going back into the womb as a grown man.
Hey Dr. Ortland! Thank you for your considered take on Baptism. To take your analogy of the ceremony a proponent of baptismal regeneration (such as myself) could take the example of engagement and marriage where the latter is more fundamental. The coming to faith could be seen as an engagement. Many times engaged (or dating) person will be referred to as son/daughter-in-law even though the marriage has not taken place. This is because there is an understanding that the marriage ceremony WILL take place. Whereas you could have a queen without coronation you won't have a married couple without the marriage ceremony. In the same way it could be said that becoming a Christian is not complete if baptism is omitted although the process might have begun. Another image might be conception and birth. You need both to have a baby.
Dr. Ortlund I am a follower of yours and enjoy your work. I have a healthy challenge though. I do see often you defend historic Protestantism. Especially those of the Anglican and Lutheran sides against claims from the orthodox and Roman Catholics. However typically their critiques are geared primarily at historical sacramental , liturgical Protestants. Have you considered using your own tradition - baptist - key points to defend your stances ? As in can we find baptists both modern and post reformation that would share the same view points of the sacramental Protestants you often quote ? Also what does one do with the modern baptist position ? If in practice and often in theology they reject any idea of a sacramental viewpoint on these things? Would you be willing to challenge Baptists specifically on their own historical traditions and go as far to say if they are not in line then they are truly not baptist ? Or does it mean one may have to re evaluate the Baptist tradition of today in lue of church history, Protestant history, and baptist history Again a healthy challenge, not to combative but also a cause to pause for second
Thanks for the great question and forgive me being very brief but I am right in the middle of something at the moment: briefly, I think it is appropriate to defend a "mere Protestantism" despite being a particular kind of Protestant, just as CS Lewis defend "mere Christianity" despite being an Anglican. Of course, we cannot stay in either mere Protestantism or mere Christianity indefinitely.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the response I made a mistake in my original comment. What I meant to say is typically critiques towards Protestantism are not towards the Anglican , Lutheran streams. I do agree with defending Protestantism but I also agree that we have critiques within Protestantism. Most of the sacramental/ liturgical Protestants have a kinship with the catholic , orthodox and church of the east. Rather than say a baptist or Pentecostal. So I guess more if I am wondering can we hear the voices of ancient and modern non Anglican/ Lutheran/ Moravian/ Methodists? Definitely want to know more of the historic baptist views.
Gavin the Catholic tradition and dogma doesn't demand that Baptism is the normative means in the sense of statistics. Plenty of us Catholic theologians believe that adult converts are normally (ie statistically) regenerated at the moment of conversion prior to Baptism. But that doesn't mean that Baptism wasn't ordained for the purpose of conveying (ie causing) regeneration, especially since it's intended (although you disagree) to be given to infants, none of whom can be regenerated prior to Baptism (since they can't experience conversion as infants). And since the majority of Christians through history have been Baptized as infants, there is a sense in which Baptism regenerates "normatively" in the sense of statistically . But yes, the vast vast majority of what you affirm and argue is already part of the Catholic dogma.
Where is there a single example in the Bible of an infant being baptised? (*effectively, it seems you may be implying, that people can be saved without faith and without hearing the Word of God; if you are saying that, then, that is unbiblical). Also, infants of course have a fallen nature, but I believe there is an age of accountability for each person (*only God knows exactly what time that is for each person); in which, a person finally knows enough and is mature enough to be accountable for their own sinful actions (*see Isaiah 7:15-16). Humans are born in the flesh with their inherited sin nature, from Adam, but I believe there may enough evidence to show that a person's spirit is not dead initially (*the Scripture calls infants and children "innocent"; see Psalm 106:37-38) , and therefore, dosent require the new birth (*the reviving of their spirit) until after they have sinned (*when someone's spirit is cut off from God) when or after, they have reached the age of accountability; "The soul who sins is the one who will die..." (*Ezekiel 18:20b) Therefore King David had the assurance that he would be with his son again, who was not baptised, and who had died prior to being circumcised, since the child did not live until the eighth day (*see 2 Samuel 12:23)
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 There are household baptisms in scripture. And the assured salvation of infants who die apart from baptism is irrelevant - they are saved by the grace of God, given the graces of faith and baptism at death, which if they remained alive, and not baptized, they would grow up without.
Author: Ron Graham Baptism and the Greek Word “eis” -What does the word mean? This lesson is a study of the argument about the Greek word εις (eis). The question we answer is as follows: In Acts 2:38, does the Greek word εις mean (1) “in order to receive”, or does it rather mean (2) “because you have received”? Here's the text: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for [εις] the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' " (Acts 2:38). The little word εις The English word “for” in the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" translates the original Greek word εις. εις -is usually pronounced “ice” or “ees”. εις -is usually translated “into”, “unto”, or “for”. The Argument on εις and Baptism The argument regarding baptism says that, in Acts 2:38, the phrase "for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" means “because of the forgiveness of sins”. So the passage is made to say, "Repent and be baptised because of the forgiveness of sins". This supposedly puts forgiveness before baptism, so that First one is forgiven by God and saved, and because of that, one is then baptised. But why couldn't Peter mean that the forgiveness of sins is on offer and because of that, repent and be baptised to receive it? That would put repentance and baptism back before forgiveness, where they belong. Forgiveness by grace is the prospect; repentance and baptism (among other things) lead a person into that prospect. 1 Repentance and Baptism Notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but also of repentance. "Repent and be baptised..." (Acts 2:38). If the argument is correct that forgiveness is granted before baptism, then forgiveness is also granted before repentance. But the scriptures say that one must repent before forgiveness is granted. On another occasion, Peter said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). Peter did not say, “Repent and return because your sins have been be blotted out.” He said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out". Peter put repentance before forgiveness. He made repentance a condition of forgiveness. And if Peter has put repentance before forgiveness, that's where he has also put baptism, because he gave both repentance and baptism the same relationship to forgiveness viz "Repent and be baptised... for [εις] the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
εἰς is a preposition that typically means "into," "to," "towards," or "for" when used with an accusative noun. It denotes direction, purpose, or result. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (for the remission of sins). When εἰς is followed by an accusative in Koine Greek the usage is "NEVER" causal. Therefore it should not be translated because. In Acts 2;38 baptism is for the purpose that a person sins may be forgiven, ἄφεσιν is in the accusative position. This is not a matter of opinion it is a fact of the Koine Greek language. The Bible is right and if preachers and teachers in the churches are teaching this fact then they are correct.
I am a Lutheran but struggle with this concept. Because I also see believers that are clearly regenerated prior to baptism. I have thought about how Christ's life, death, and resurrection saved those prior to the birth of Christ. In the same way, maybe the believer is saved by baptism prior to the occurrence of the baptism. But that seems like it's about the same thing as the seal or ceiling of regeneration.
A believer can be regenerated either by the sacrament of baptism itself, or for the desire thereof, as Catholic theology teaches. An example of this can be found in both Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47. *Acts 2:38* “And Peter said to them, “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.” Here the repentance and water baptism came first, then the remission of sin and the Holy Spirit was received. *Acts 10:47* “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Here the Holy Spirit was received first, then water baptism. Presumably based on their desire for the sacrament. Hope this clears some things up, God bless!
I just wish people like billy graham didn’t comepletely ignore baptism right after belief when the New Testament example shows immediate baptism after belief.
The Men of Nineveh We read that the men of Nineveh "repented at [εις] the preaching of Jonah" (Matthew 12:41). It is sometimes argued that the word εις in this verse points backward because the preaching came before repentance. So the Ninevites repented because of the preaching of Jonah. They did not repent to get the preaching of Jonah. It is argued that in the same sense one is baptised because of the forgiveness of sins, not to get that forgiveness. But that is not what is meant by Jesus. That is not a sound exegesis. Nineveh’s repentance involved a turning away from sin and turning to the preaching of Jonah. They repented in order to receive the benefits of Jonah’s preaching, to escape condemnation and to enter into the grace and salvation that Jonah preached. 2 Faith and Confession As another example of εις, take Paul’s statement, "With the heart one believes unto [εις] righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto [εις] salvation" (Romans 10:10). In that quote the belief results in righteousness or justification, and likewise the confession results in salvation" (Romans 10:10). Translators generally render this passage as though a heartfelt and confessed faith leads to justification. In other words salvation is the outcome of a confessed faith. Translators don't render the verse to say that faith and confession are because of salvation, and come after salvation. 3 Baptism and Death Jesus spoke of his, "blood of the new covenant, shed for many for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). The second instance of the word "for" is eis in Greek. As we all know, Jesus did not shed his blood because forgiveness had been granted, but so that it could be. This is another instructive parallel to Acts 2:38. However it is even more instructive to examine how Paul relates baptism to the death of Christ and our death to sin (Romans 6:3-5). Paul says, "Don't you know that all of us who have been baptised into [εις] Christ Jesus have been baptised into [εις] his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into [εις] death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4). Now in this passage, translators put "into" for εις indicating that we meet and join Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism. We are "buried with him through baptism... so that we might [rise to] walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). So even if Peter (in Acts 2:38) said, “be baptised because of [εις] the forgiveness of sins,” that would simply mean, “Be baptised because forgiveness is available. Christ’s death is your only hope of forgiveness. Because of that, be baptised into that death.”
Gavin, after watching your video for a second time I feel that denying the patristic consensus on baptismal regeneration (or trying to explain it away by forcing an Evangelical exegesis) is ultimately only convincing to the uninformed.
The question is, can a person truly believe/be saved and *_refuse_* to be Baptized? Or will Baptism always accompany true and saving faith, whenever possible?
I would think so, since growth sometimes comes to a halt. It really depends how much understanding there is. Maybe that person hears the gospel on a trip and believes but then goes back to a place where there is no church and other believers and so no more growth...
@@timbabb5348 consider this possibility: By belief (faith), we are baptized with the Spirt (as also seen in Acts 10). What if the baptism of Mark 16:16 is a baptism of the Spirt? And note how this possibility flows with the entire verse (as your quote did not have the entire verse): “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Consider that an unbeliever is not baptized with the Spirit. There is no category here for a believer who has not been baptized (with water) I’m not saying this is any kind of certainty…just a possible way to reconcile these points. God bless
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Are you referring to the speaking in tongues the Gentiles did for the benefit of those with Peter to convince them the gospel was for the gentiles? That "baptism" you are calling was for the benefit of someone else. Like the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost for the benefit of the listeners. That would not be a saving "baptism of the spirit" because it wasn't for the benefit of those the Spirit fell on. It was for the benefit of others. When Ananias told Paul to "be baptized", that was not a spirit baptism, it was water baptism where God removes your sins. Paul had faith, but he was still covered in His sins. Nowhere is a "spirit baptism" mentioned in relation to someone being saved. It was water baptism for the Ethiopian eunuch , for example. and you can't get yourself "spirit baptized", but you can get yourself water baptized. IN acts 10 Peter ordered the gentiles to be baptized so their sins could be removed and receive the Holy Spirit as in acts 2:38.
The BIBLE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE CAUSE OF REGENERATION."OF HIS OWN WILL BEGAT HE US BY THE WORD OF TRUTH."JAMES 1:18."BEING BORN AGAIN NOT BY CORRUPTIBLE SEED BUT BY INCORRUPTIBLE SEED BY THE WORD OF GOD WHICH LIVES AND ABIDES FOREVER". 1 PETER 1:23.WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DEBUNK BAPTISMAL REGENERATION? LET THE WORD OF GOD SPEAK NOT ANY COUNCIL OR CHURCH FATHER. NOW,HOW CAN THE WORD OF REGENERATES US? SIMPLY BY BELIEVING.Romans 10:17. The same with Gal.3:2 "DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT BY OBSERVING THE LAW OR BYBELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD?". THE RECEPTION OF THE SPIRIT IS A SIGN OF HAVING BEEN REGENERATED.AGAIN HOW CAN ONE RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT/REGENERATION? BY BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.AGAIN ROM.10:17.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to take this position based on the church father’s understanding - you need to also baptize infants.
In your view, is it possible that baptism is the way we are suppose to physically accept the message preached? It seems to me that the original purpose of baptism, from John's baptism, was to be ones acceptance of the message preached. Luke 7:29-30 Those who were baptized acknowledged God's justice by being baptized, and the Pharisees rejected God's purpose for themselves by not being baptized. It appears that in every conversion in Acts that baptism was taught along side the gospel presentation since the response of those who believed the message was to be baptized or ask for baptism. Acts 22:16 connects baptism with calling upon the name of the Lord and 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism is an appeal to God. It seems in the modern baptist world that the "sinner's prayer" replaced this purpose of baptism. Perhaps because they wanted something physical/tangible, a point in time to hold to. There also seems to be a logical progression of baptism in Lukes writings that I would love your thoughts on: Luke 1:77 John will give people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, Luke 3:3 he preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 3:16 He foretells of Jesus who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 after Jesus' death burial and resurrection we see that those who repent and are baptized will receive the Holy Spirit.
It just seems contrary to scripture... Romans 4:9-11 NKJV - Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also... Basic understanding of what God tells us in scripture and everything He reveals to us shows us we are saved by faith. Your faith is accounted to you as the righteousness of Christ through His death on the cross. Because we believe we do what He says. We are children of promise as sons of Abraham, saved by faith. All who are justified are being sanctified. Because we are justified, we do what He tells us to do! Paul doesn't go out of his way to tell us we aren't saved by jumping though this physical hoop to now tell us to jump through another physical hoop in order to be saved. Christ gives us LIVING water! The Holy Spirit! 🙏
I have gone through these baptism videos multiple times, so forgive me if I’m commenting again. I think perhaps a distinction between justification and regeneration may be in order. I also do not necessarily believe that regeneration, or the new birth is instantaneous. Basically, full fledge initiation into Christianity in the new testament times was repentance, faith in the gospel, baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Spirit, acts 2:38, 8-12:16, 19-1:6, Romans, 34, five and six, chapter 8, etc. we can see this pattern in Hebrews six -1: three. It is not that someone could not go to heaven whatsoever. If these four things were not completed, but something was missing in the foundation, and I believe that anyone who knowingly willingly unabatedly, refuses any of these steps with full knowledge Would be in jeopardy even though I believe justification is at the point of repentance and faith, I believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the meeting place of Grace and faith. I like the language of sign and seal, and I also believe that it doesn’t work within. I believe that it gets sin out of the soul so to speak and it cleans us up. Not that we are not forgiven in the justifying sense, but baptism demonstrates this, and it is a bath and the burial. A great book by a man by the name of David Pawson is called “the normal Christian birth. “Everyone should get it I may not totally and completely agree with absolutely everything, but I think he has some marvelous insights into how Christians should be initiated, and how they should be caught up if they have missed any of these things in their foundation. I also believe that water baptism is the act in which we steal the covenant and it is like an under circumcision, though I am not by any means a Pedo Baptist, so that is not where I’m going, but I do believe it is like new covenant official circumcision. If you compare act 2:38 with Romans 6-3:6, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2-11, and following, I think it has some great insights into the remission of sins. Sorry for the typos as I have no vision and I’m dictating this to Siri and don’t want to start over. Lol.
Lots of strawmen. No one said baptismal regeneration. You aren't saved by getting baptized alone, but you ARE saved by obedience and that includes baptism. Period.
There are many who are more learned that disagree with you: Barnabas (circa 75 AD) "Blessed are they who place their trust in the cross and descend down into the water... We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, however we come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit." Hermas (circa 110 AD) "Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal then is the water. They descend into the water dead, and they rise alive." Justin Martyr circa - (circa -160 AD) "But there is no other way than this to become acquainted with Christ; We must be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of our sins, and for the remainder of our lives we must live sinless lives." Iranaeus (circa 180 AD) "But there are some Gnostics who assert that it is unnecessary to bring people to the water. Rather they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those that are to be initiated. .. This they maintain to be the redemption... But there are other heretics that reject all of these practices and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable should not be performed by visable and corruptible creatures. They claim that the knowledge of the power of God is itself perfect redemption." Tertullian (circa 198 AD) "(Unless a man is born of water and of Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.) {Quoted from John 3:3} These words have tied faith to the necessity of water baptism, and accordingly, all those that became believers were thus baptized. It was also this way with Paul, that when he believed, he was baptized." Cyprian (circa 250 AD) "One is not re-born by the imposition of hands when they receive the Holy Spirit; Rather it is through water baptism. Therefore, having thoroughly cleansed, he may receive the Holy Spirit." Archelaus (circa 320 AD) " If he (Jesus) was not been baptized in water, neither are any of us baptized. Yet, if there is no baptism, neither will there be the remission of sins. Rather, every man will die in their sins." Apostolic Constitutions (circa 390 AD) "He who, out of contempt will not be baptized in water, he will be condemned as an unbeliever. He will be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, unless a man is born of water and spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Quoted from John 3:3) and again he said, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Quoted from Mark 16:16)" There are many more quotes from many other men throughout history that taught that baptism is the method of conversion, where we receive the remission of our sins.
Jesus was baptised (once only!) in water and the Holy Spirit came down like a dove, it’s the same for us, this is the start of our priestly ministry! Are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t come down? If so this contradicts what Jesus demonstrated. If the Holy Spirit has come down there would be no point if nothing happened, ie no regeneration, what happens is the spirit imparts a special grace, and the father is happy with us too! Because of Jesus who has reconciled us to him. The same Holy Spirit comes down through our our life too and dwells in the believer who stays in gods favour.. we can be confirmed renew our baptismal vows, receive the Eucharist, ask forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit can give grace each time. So Jesus was talking to nicodemus about the time when we first encounter gods saving Grace which will be our baptism, the Holy Spirit comes down and we are born again then through water and the grace of the holy spirit. Each grace moment through out our life is in once sense a ‘born again experience’ as ‘born again’ Christian’s might say, for we need to stay in gods Grace the ‘born again experiences’ are called sanctification., however we are only born again in the biblical sense (ie what Jesus meant) once and that is through baptism, and like Jesus this prepares us for our life to which he have died to through our baptism in the hope of salvation through the holy cross, a part of which we are called to carry. The baptismal generation first grace and all subsequent grace help us to carry our crosses.
I wonder if the language of 'causation' may be a little biased or unhelpful. I wouldn't say preaching is the cause of regeneration, but it may be the tool God uses to bring regeneration about. Would this not be analogously the BR view? Viewing regeneration partially as a process (which Baptists tend not to) may also be of some limited use to bridge the gap of understanding.
You should check out "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered" by Bishop Ray Sutton. I think it will answer a lot of your questions (and I believe, misunderstandings).
There’s not any evidence at all for baptismal regeneration or infant baptism at all according to scripture, Regeneration comes before baptism, Regeneration comes before faith- Faith would come before baptism, it’s a sign of our faith, THIS would apply to true professing possessing believers who have been born again through regeneration , born from above divine act of God. Good video We wouldn’t choose God if we were not granted faith to believe, we are fallen sinners and d you must make that choice to be baptized, it’s a no brainer if you ask me. Would love to speak on this more
It would be interesting if you would do a video if it is allowed on RUclips, but how for many years in church history they baptized, naked … the typology that was included of putting off your old self bearing your own cross, laying down your life, we find within some of the early riding 300-500 they were baptizing naked when it began, and when it ended idk, but they did, and it’s crazy to us in our culture now but maybe not then?
People often miss the essential fact that God has been regenerating his people from the beginning. Abraham, even before he was circumcised, believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Paul is showing that salvation does not depend on works. Of course, Abraham would have been made alive unto God, born again or made regenerate. Those who espouse baptismal regeneration want us to believe that in the NT God all of a sudden made regeneration dependent upon water baptism. This makes no sense whatsoever. Those who think that in the OT it was dependent on circumcision, miss the entire point of Paul's argument about what happened to him prior to circumcision. I am a reformed baptist. To understand baptism it is essentially to grasp reformed baptist covenant theology.
Growing up in Oneness Pentecostalism I was always told salvation is water baptism (in Jesus name) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with evidence of “speaking in tongues”. After struggling with this false doctrine God opened my eyes when reading Romans. I’m thankful but many are falling into this heresy due to lack of knowledge about it.
It's not as complex as what he's making it out to be. Read the Church Fathers for yourself. This is a lot of sophistry. How can you listen to this guy and not get the feeling he's trying really hard to make the text say what he wants it to say?
I appreciate your struggle, Dr. Ortlund, to find a more clear explanation to this complex subject. IMHO, everyone on any side of the controversy needs to go back to first principles. For example, you mentioned that so many people cite 1Peter 3.21 as final proof of their particular view. Unfortunately, the greek of that verse is terse to a rather great degree, and English translations may not be expressing the complexity that actually occurs. No one should "start" their argumentation by using a controversial verse. Second, I never hear anyone, including you, young sir, ever go and expound on the fact that Luke-Acts, three times, repeats a profound parallelism contrasting water and the HOLY Spirit, in Luke 3.16, Acts 1.5, Acts 11.16 - recorded in the mouths of John son of Zechariah, Jesus, and Peter. This parallelism occurs six times in the Gospels and Acts. Surely this is a sign of its profound importance to the earliest generations of Jesus's followers. In this parallelism, water and Holy Spirit are contrasted. In the parallelism the two figures using these elements are compared. Both are baptizing [which I understand to mean "purifying"], one with water for the purity-liable Jews who originally heard John's message, the Other with the Holy Spirit, for all who would be transformed, i.e. regenerated by the power of the Almighty, through Christ's death and resurrection, mediated directly to the repentant person by the Holy Spirit. Of the greatest failures of later generations of early believers, is that no one personally expounds a direct, stand-alone experience of receiving the Holy Spirit - as in Acts 2, as in Acts 10, and as I understand, in various other places in Acts. So, young Dr. Ortlund, I commend you on your struggle. Bottom line, this parallelism, from the start, distinguishes between being baptized with water, and being baptized with the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter that later daring expositors decided that the contrast is between water and then the newly discovered sacramental water/Spirit baptism that accomplishes its action, ex opere operato, [magick of a Christianized variety]. This view, as you know, was canon, and the Roman Catholic Church "knows no other practice." But we are told in Scripture that Jesus was angry with his disciples before, "And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” Matthew 17.17. Who says Jesus has not been angry with the Christian Church for untold centuries, though there is always a way of repentance for restoration. A live dog is better than a dead lion. I pray Dr. Ortland that you will stand for "Sola Scriptura" even if no one else near you does.
According to your understanding, is it possible that Baptism itself can actually remit sin? Clement of Alexandria (among many others) seems to hold this to be the understood teaching of the Apostles. (Ref his catechetical letter on the instructor of children).
I watched all of the videos related to baptism between you and Dr. Cooper. I’m reformedish so I suppose I’m defaulted into not agreeing with baptismal regeneration. But I’ve found the subject so interesting and don’t really have a strong opinion either way yet. I’ve appreciated the depth into which you’ve talked about it.
I think Mr. Coopers argumentation is stronger and more biblical. If you just look at the verses on babtism lutheran view is much more biblical. Regeneration, forgiveness of sins, salvation, putting on Christ. These are few of the biblical images of babtism
Dr. Ortlund, Thanks for this very helpful video. My problem (or at least perplexity) eight he Reformed view is that, though the word “seal” is used profusely, I have yet to feel I understand what it meant by the term. What does it mean to “seal” ones regeneration? What is the practical reality we are referring to here? One problem with this vagueness, in my opinion, is that it allows contemporary Reformed Christians to slide much closer to a sign-only view than their predecessors in the Reformed tradition did without realizing it or being bothered (or at least confronted) by it.
Hi Gavin-I’d love to dialogue about this! I’m an Anglican seminary student, and I actually started as a Baptist with the exact sacramental-Baptist view you describe (Baptism is a sign, seal, and means of grace associate with but not causative of salvation). But here’s why I’ve come to adopt a Reformed Anglican view called Baptismal Efficacy. First, to understand the view, we need to situate this within continual justification. Contra a lot of evangelicals, it’s not the case Biblically that God justified me and forgave me once and done. God continually justifies (=regards as righteous) and continually gives me the forgiveness of sins. His continual justification (not the Roman Catholic view of making righteous, but of continually regarding me as righteous through faith) involves continually giving me the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is situated within this sort of view. Hence, adult converts can indeed (and even, perhaps, normally) be justified, regenerated, and given the Spirit prior to their baptism. That doesn’t negate the reality that God continually justifies (=forgives sins and regards me as righteous), and even continually regenerates (=sustains me in being as a new creation). In this context, Baptism is God’s visible and public way of justifying and causing the forgiveness of sins. Although he is always doing that, in Baptism God does this visibly in and through the waters by the Spirit and Word. So just because Baptism causes the forgiveness of sins does not mean that Baptism necessarily (or even normally for adult converts) does so for the first time. Rather, it’s part of his economy of continual justification; in Baptism, God visibly and publicly forgives and makes visible his act of continual justification. That makes best sense pastorally (of the cases you describe), and with the language of the New Testament (“as many as are baptized have put on Christ”, United to Christ *by* Baptism, etc).
And that means that Baptism is the objective and visible way we know ourselves to be in Christ. I can always look to my Baptism, and because God objectively and visibly adopts and justifies those Baptized, I can know that he did so for me-even if I had been justified prior to Baptism (or if I hadn’t been!). Because justification is continual, and because Baptism is God’s visible and objective way of justifying and forgiving, many if not most adults might be justified prior to Baptism and yet visibly and objectively receive their adoption in Baptism.
@@anglicanaesthetics Lutheran here. I love the Anglican Luther Scholar Dr. Phillip Cary. His explanation of Lutheran/Anglican baptismal theology vs radical protestants is second to none.
@@anglicanaesthetics isn't this similar to Dr Gavin saying that baptism is the visible seal strengthening and confirmation of being made spiritually alive .
@@aajaifenn It is! But I'd add something more. It's causative of the forgiveness of sins and of justification--the visible cause of those things. As I've argued above, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's the first cause/causative "of the initial obtaining" of justification and forgiveness (though it can be), but it's nevertheless causative of justification and forgiveness.
@@anglicanaesthetics agree totally but as long as it is not the first cause necessarily of the initial obtaining of justification and forgivness , then I think Dr Gavin would also be in agreement . In his debate with Dr Cooper I think he stated that he agreed that baptism conveys forgivness of sins to the recepient who has faith .
I think many proponents of baptismal regeneration would be happy to say that for a baptist minister, spiritual regeneration apart from baptism is the norm. They'd say though that is because of the Baptist practice of only administering the sacrament of baptism to those who've heard, understood, and accepted the word of God preached to them. However, since most people both today (at least I think-perhaps I'm wrong) have not become Christians this way, but instead became Christians when their parents had them baptized as infants, we can still say that it's baptism which is the ordinary means of regeneration.
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. Some questions I would ask is, if todays Baptists/Baptist beliefs on this topic are not representative of historical baptist beliefs on it, how/who are we as laity to follow in our understanding? Why have the historical Baptist beliefs on baptism dissolved into todays symbolism that is widely proclaimed? Why does something so basic to the faith such as baptism not have a unified understanding in Baptist denomination when all baptists through time would claim that their beliefs are purely based on the truth in scripture alone? In full disclosure: I say this as someone who grew up very nominally Baptist and my adult/sincere Christian life has been in Baptist and reformed circles but openly say that I have been exploring more orthodox and catholic theology over the past year. Thank you for the sincerity, genuineness and humble heart with which you approach your ministry. It is a phenomenal example to emulate and I have benefited greatly.
Good video Gavin - I found it helpful to understand your own view better (and apparently a historical Baptist view). As a touchpoint, let me refer to your discussion around the 21 minute mark regarding norms and exceptions. Before, I plunge into differences, I would hope that all Christians would agree that God is the ultimate or “principal cause” of regeneration with any other cause being secondary in some sense - I hope we can all hold that in common (I know that is the Catholic position via instrumental causes). But to get into the differences, with respect to the Sacrament of Baptism, it seems one way to put it, is that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox position is generally that water Baptism is the “normative cause” (with noted exceptions- baptism of desire, blood ) of regeneration while the your Baptist position is that Faith is the normative cause and that Baptism is normally (with plenty of exceptions) the supreme occasion of manifesting the regeneration caused by Faith. That probably boils both views down a little too quickly but RUclips comments are no place for an extended analysis(this will be long enough). I do think that Baptist position is a plausible reading of the NT and of the Fathers ( a little bit less so with respect to the latter ). But my defense of the Catholic/Orthodox reading is 1) I just think it better and more coherently holds together the differing uses of “saves” and the other tension points in the NT/Fathers you raise. 2) Since this is the view of all three major and ancient streams of the Church (RC, EO, OO) that itself is a significant argument for me (at the very least a “tiebreaker” ). We can add Lutherans to a large degree- with perhaps some hesitation on their part about the nuances of “cause”. I also think one should not consider this issue in isolation to the other dividing issues. Again, across all these dividing issues, I think Protestant just is not as satisfying in bringing it all together in a coherent whole as RC/EO/OO. For me, there are too many breakpoints with consistent positions (and liturgical “teaching”!!!) held by the East and West from roughly 800-1500 to have remained a Protestant. The Reformation rupture was only “necessary” if a clear heterodoxy was being taught /practiced - but for 700 years? And then taking your view of the nuanced differences between us - with such nuances was it really right to break apart the unity of the Church. Finally, and, here I am speaking as a Catholic, I also find in the Catholic Church the fullness of catholicity across time and space. And of course, all of the above amounts to being convinced the Catholic Church also has the fullness of Truth. Not the perfect truth, but the fullest Truth as we can receive in this world - we will only approach a perfect understanding of all these things in the world to come with the Beatific Vision.
@@TruthUnites My point is that a person can have a conversion experience and be filled with enthusiasm for the faith without salvation necessarily attaching. Buddha had a profound conversion experience which significantly altered his behavior. But a Christian cannot say that Buddha's conversion experience was salvific. I don't believe that your argument that the fathers termed other things as salvific in addition to baptism and so therefore baptism is not the cause of salvation actually works. To use an analogy: Let's say I want to climb Mt. Everest. There is a whole chain of events which has to occur before I get to the summit. The final part of the chain is traversing the Hillary step and then climbing the remaining 300 feet to the summit. Certainly, traversing the Hillary step and climbing to the summit is not the sole cause of summiting the mountain. But if I turn back before the Hillary step, I haven't summited the mountain. So while traversing the Hillary step may not be the sole cause of summiting Everest, it is a cause. And you cannot get to the summit without it.
I’ll be honest, for years now I thought my view of baptism was in the serious minority because I was baptist yet I had always described baptism as the “seal” or “objectification” of salvation and not the cause. I always was comfortable with baptism saving, yet in all my church contexts they always said baptism does not save. I thought maybe I should be Lutheran at a point since they believed in baptismal regeneration but were Protestant, yet I didn’t believe it regenerated or in baptizing babies. I was confused. It’s good to know that I am not alone and this is the historic view of my denomination.
What if someone believes but is not baptised? I believe that person is still saved, because salvation occurs when you believe, not when you get baptised. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
@@JosefFurg1611 That person is an oxymoron. Do they not believe the words of Jesus and the Holy Ghost when They say to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? What then do they believe in? The idea of Jesus? What if Abraham believed God but didn't try to sacrifice his son? Would he still be justified? Would he still be called the Friend of God? Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved* ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Im not interested in debating but more so seeking advice. How would one go about telling their southern baptist pastor that they are going to convert to Catholicism? My wife and kids will still be attending the southern baptist church. Any advice would be appreciated
@@Mygoalwogel im convinced of the papacy purgatory and the differences between mortal and venial sin. I know the orthodox have a very rich history but im not really looking to debate. I was hoping to get some advice on my situation and i figured a baptist pastor would be a good person to ask
I honestly can't see how one goes to Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you are going to accept that much doctrinal development, maybe choose the church whose last 5 leaders aren't manifest heretics.
NEWSFLASH: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about! The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE! The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself! In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present! That said, Jesus declared: "You will know them by their FRUIT"! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" ! Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption! Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence! Here are just some samples for starters-- Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮 Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries! Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city. He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave! Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope! During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions! Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight! Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮 In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮 Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III. Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly! Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him! Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent! He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing! Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'! Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484! Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times! But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes! Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them! Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV, known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism! Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮 Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city! Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History! In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on! Indeed, it's undeniably endless! In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮 Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
Pastor Ortlund I have on several occasions, because I have e few relatives that are Church of Christ, had discussions on baptismal regeneration and the Biblical truth of Grace alone by Faith alone. I’m a fairly new Christian, 14 years, Praise Jesus, and have been drawn to apologetics,namely the various differences in the way the Bible has been interpreted. Thank you for your Biblical and logic based teaching.
Interesting. I believe in baptismal regeneration, in the sense that it is part of the salvation process, but I do not believe that if someone genuinely repent of their sins, and believes on the Lord Jesus and dies of a heart attack 30 minutes later before they come to the understanding, or have the opportunity for baptism that they would be lost. If someone were to refuse to take on the name of the Lord Jesus and baptism after they are illuminated, I would be very concerned, but some people are just confused. I definitely believe God is working in baptism for sure, but I definitely do not go, so far as the church of Christ does.
I am Catholic. I think that we should all be able to understand that the conception of the new birth happens with prevenient grace. This is when Christ through the Spirit grabs us by the hand and pulls us to His bossom. Baptism then is the new life coming to full birth where we then leave the bossom of Christ and enter into Christ. Our initial union with Christ and being brought to his bossom is through prevenient grace, and our new life IN Christ is through baptism. This is why the doorway into Christ was opened in his side, where blood and water flowed out
I am curious about your response to Titus 3:5. I don't think "washing of regeneration" can mean anything other than "baptism of regeneration." I don't disagree with your attempts to define and explain baptismal regeneration, but if baptismal regeneration is biblical language, then we need to define it, not deny it. Sometimes, wording matters. Because Protestants--I'm a Protestant--are afraid of the term, it has to affect them in the reading of Scripture, but more so in the reading of the fathers. Justin, for example, says, "We take them to water, and there they are regenerated in the same manner we were." That terminology, as you know, is universal, or almost so, in the ante-Nicene fathers. I found the phrase "laver of regeneration" in both Origen's and Cyprian's writings. You are willing, because of 2 Peter 3:21, to say "baptism saves you," then explain what you mean. Why, then, are you not equally willing to say, "Baptism is the 'washing' and 'laver' of regeneration, then explain what you mean"? I would add to this that in your discussion with Trent Horn about the same subject, Trent was trying to hold to the term "baptismal regeneration," but soften it with his descriptions, while you were rejecting the term, but in softening your rejection of it, you and Trent got very, very close, at least in my opinion, in describing what you believe, while one of you only rejected the term baptismal regeneration. I think Scripture calls you to accept it. Thoughts?
Without having to spend hours watching all your other videos, can you distill the context of your historical view of Baptists? Namely, do you view Baptists as Protestants, or rather as in a lineage from the apostolic age through the dark ages? Thanks in advance for the clarification!
One more thing. This is my second comment. In Acts, baptism is always immediate. Even with Paul, there is not just Acts 9, but Acts 22, where Paul says that Ananias told him, "What are you waiting for? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The Didache, very early, mentions the church fasting and praying with a convert for a couple days, but that did not happen in Acts, and it was not always before the church in Acts (e.g., Philippian jailer). Baptismal regeneration may seem more scary to us now that time and tradition have us waiting a long time to be baptized. I know that what you mentioned in the video, six months of catechesis, was normal by no later than the early third century, but there was no such thing in Acts. Today, evangelicals use the "sinner's prayer" in the same way the apostles used baptism. I would say that most Baptists believe in "sinner's prayer regeneration" in exactly the same way the apostles taught baptismal regeneration.
As usual, this discussion on a complex issue is very insightful. It is disappointing, however, that Acts 8 was not discussed. I would love to hear a response to the following passage. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:14-17 KJV This point is even more clear in modern translations.
I think that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration - that baptism is a/the means unto salvation; that anyone who is baptised is saved; that anyone (including infants) who dies unbaptised is "damned"; etc, - is/was pre-requisite to the doctrine/idea of purgatory. Let me explain: in the Western medievel world EVERYONE was "Christian" - they were all baptised as infants and were therefore all "Christian"; they were all members of the Church; they all were saved; and all were guaranteed admittance to heaven. But, it is evident by their lives that many of these "Chistians" (kings, princes, bishops, etc) were wicked, evil people - they murdered, they committed adultery, had mistresses, exploited the poor, etc. These evil, wicked "Christians" were baptised "Christians" - Guaranteed a place in heaven. Thus, in my opinion, a doctrine of purgatory was developped as a response - these wicked, evil people had to be purified of their wickedness ..... if not in this life, then in the next. Perhaps this connnevtion was more sub-conscience than conscience. But there was a need to reconcile the fact - that these wicked, evil people were "Christians" and yet, in spite of their wickedness were "guaranteed" a place in heaven.
Here’s one thing you can say about Dr. O: he is definitely not here to shirk from the tough questions on his side of the apologetics debates, and he’s not here to cut down straw men!
Thank you Matthew. I really do try to be honest.
He’s building steel men and then punching them with a brass knuckle lol
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. However, I wanted to get baptized during that time. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
I am in the same position. What led you to be baptized???
@@bradentutt6642 I believe all believers will be led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized. But it is not water baptism that gives us the Holy Spirit-it is the spiritual baptism we get when saved.
You should become a member at a biblical Church and get baptized to proclaim your faith in Christ.
@getrit3007 And there are many who share our same experience!
Hey Gavin
Thanks for a respectful and honest look at baptism! I'm a Lutheran who's pretty hooked at baptismal regeneration (I think the last Cyril quote pretty much sums up my view). I learned a lot! I admittedly thought the Baptist view was more of a "just a symbol"-view. Glad to have that nuanced.
thanks a lot, and glad it was useful!
@@TruthUnites Which baptism is related to salvation?
The Word “Baptize”:
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
If you mean by "baptismal regeneration" that at baptism is when GOD regenerates you, I agree. It is the time and place it happens.
He clearly didnt read the entirety of Cyril's lecture... "*If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation;* except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. "
Good point.
This makes more sense. I left a Baptist church over the sacraments being ordinances and only symbols. I love the idea of sealing. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful Tammy!
I have diligently studied baptism, it is amazing how so many have it wrong. Baptism has to do with the conscience. Baptism or submission into the name of Jesus. If one does not even know who Jesus is, that person can not by any biblical standard be considered baptized. The act in and of itself does not possess any kind of power whatsoever.
Agreed!!
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why, only that I should
do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Awesome video. The language of metonymy - I love that. Feels true to the text, in contrast to some well-intentioned “workarounds” that satisfy no one. Well-researched and thought out. Helpful to me. Thanks Gavin!
Glad it was helpful!
Why do you need workarounds to the plain text in the bible?
Thanks for this!! Re your last point, I’m struck by Gregory of Nyssa’s warning:
The baptismal water may be applied to the body, but if the soul hasn’t cleansed itself from the filth of its sinful passions, and your life after baptism is no different to your life before baptism, your baptism in water was a mere experience of water and nothing else. A bold thing to say, but I won’t flinch from saying it! If this is the nature of your baptismal birth, the gift of the Holy Spirit in no way appears. How have you been changed, if your life is still distorted by anger or inflamed by greed, and the divine image in you is warped by uncontrolled and tasteless thoughts, by self-importance, resentment, arrogance? What if you still hold onto the fruits of dishonesty, and carry on committing adultery? If such vices still cling to you, I can’t see how you have been changed at all; I see the same person I saw before you were baptised.
Someone may have been washed in the bath of baptism, but what good is that, if the people he treated badly, accused wrongly, and stole from, see no difference in him? …A baptised person who is morally unchanged, and yet jabbers nonsensically about the blessing he has received from baptism, needs to hear Paul: “If a man thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal.6:3). If you haven’t become a thing, you are not that thing. “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become God’s sons” (Jn.1:12). Thus the Gospel speaks of the new birth. A child through its birth has the same nature as its parent. If, then, you have received God, and become a child of God, show by your attitudes that God dwells in you; exhibit in yourself the One who begot you!
The Great Catechism, ch.40
thanks, awesome quote!
“If a man claims to be converted, and continues to be just as mean, spiteful and snobbish as he was before, we may rightly suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary.”
CS Lewis
Your taking that letters out of context, in fact prior to that texts, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly mentioned that Baptism is a spiritual birth[or regeneration], here's the quote that you did not include:
"Baptism is a spiritual birth, but he who is born by spiritual birth must recognize by whom he is born and what kind of creature he must become. In physical birth, those who are born owe their life and existence to the impulse of their parents, but the spiritual birth is in control of the one who is being born. It is the only birth where we can choose and determine what kind of beings we are to become.
Now it is evident to everyone that we must receive the saving birth of baptism for the purpose of growth and renewal and changing in our nature …"
Take note that he called it[Baptism] as
1.) Spiritual birth.
2.) Saving birth.
Don't take the letters out of context.
In addition with, St. Gregory of Nyssa mentioned again on his writings titled "ON THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST"
"...Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration..."
This is evidently clear that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't support the Baptist doctrine of Baptism.
The words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a Catholic Bishop, are very Catholic. If one is baptized yet continues in mortal sin, the gift of baptism - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace is lost. There is no blessing as the blessing (gift) was lost. The physical act of baptism without the conversion of heart does nothing.
Thankful for your work on this. As a baptist from pretty much birth, I really appreciate how you have introduced me to nuance on different positions and the way to properly discuss and advocate for a view. Your method gives great weight to the message you give.
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Gavin, this was so helpful. It came along at the right time for me. Thanks for the nuanced arguments. There is a lot of confusion in my corner of the world about this.
so glad it was useful! Yeah, this topic really needs more attention, it seems.
As a baptist minister I find your videos really helpful. I see baptism as a part of theosis (I tend to lean to the East on a few subjects). If you get a chance you should read Mark the Monk’s Counsels on the Spiritual Life from the popular patristics series. In the introduction Tim Vivian writes about the different views that some of the fathers had. They certainly weren’t all in agreement.
Watch Trent Horn's rebuttal on this for both sides of the story.
@@Momof15plusDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@Momof15plusAdult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism.
- Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise =
Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 18:8
8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 2:41
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those
- Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual)
- second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant)
- third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born,
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife.
And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart.
And also circumcision was not give to girls.
- in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
@@Momof15plusdude has to rebut everything that is clearly opposed to his position 😂😂😂
Excellent and helpful, Gavin. Very grateful for your ministry.
Thanks JR, I appreciate that!
Atleast some folks seem to get wet and yet continue unchanged in carnal lives with no distinct observable difference...in those cases how would one conclude to affirm fool proof baptismal regeneration?
I'm not wrestling with it. I know that baptismal regeneration is biblically sound. This all stems from the need to defend a false doctrine based on misreading Ephesians 2:8-9. Alone, alone, alone is the false doctrine. Even the name of the false doctrine you attempt to combat with your own false doctrine is falsely named. The false doctrine you guys attempt to combat you call it works-based salvation... when it should be called Merit-based salvation. You guys excoriate people who through obedience by faith seek regeneration from God. That's what 1 Peter 3 is all about how we are seeking regeneration from God through baptism by faith. Notice how that water baptism is directed toward God all the while you knuckleheads say it is an outward show (toward people). It is an appeal to God in 1 Peter 3 and it is calling out to God (calling on his name) in Acts 22. For we believe that if we are buried with him by baptism into death we shall also be raised by he who raised Jesus from the dead. It is by God's grace that we are saved through our obedience by faith. Neither grace nor faith are alone. So stop saying 'alone, alone, alone'. That is a bait-and-switch tactic. You don't know what you are talking about.
The very day I got saved, by repentance from sin, and faith toward Christ as my Savior; I KNEW I needed to be water baptized. Honestly I didn't even know why (at that time), only that I should
do it. I was saved from my sins 3 weeks before I was immersed. It was the act of a good conscience toward God.
Adult Baptism is the Biblical Baptism.
- Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul always preached First Believe, Repent and then second Baptise =
Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 18:8
8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 2:41
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
So as you can see First is Repentance and then Baptism. And babies can't do both of those
- Paul talks in Colossians 2:11 about circumcision without hands which is by believing in Lord Jesus Christ, and then continues in Colossians 2:12 about baptism by believing. So as you can see again first came belief and then Baptisim. (And yes both circumcision and Baptisim in this verses are not not actually physical rather Spiritual)
- second reason= there is not one example is baby getting baptized (little children getting baptized yes not infant)
- third reason - babies born to Christians are Holy from the time they are born,
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ((Some one would say " you also get holy when believed in Lord Jesus Christ and Gospel then you don't have the need to get baptise just like you Baby. But I'm holy because of I believe in God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit . But my baby is holy because I'm a Believer. Even a unbelieving wife is sanctified because of her Christian husband and a unbelieving husband is sanctified because of her Christian wife.
And don't compare circumcision with baptism, it's like comparing hand with legs those are two very different things. And Bible does talk about circumcision of heart.
And also circumcision was not give to girls.
- in Samuel 12:18 David's son died on the 7th day (circumcision is made on 8th day), without circumcision. But in 2 Samuel 12:22 David said that "he will go to the child the child will not come to him" meaning he will meet the child in Heaven.
Difference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
@@mynameis......23 I agree. I received the Holy Spirit the moment I accepted Jesus as my Savior. That is who impelled me to be subsequently water baptized.
The water didn't cleanse or save me; repentance from sin and faith in Christ did.
Believers are baptized ONCE into the body of Christ, but there are many fillings throughout his/her life.
Same here! I came to Belief privately, then shortly after I knew I needed to be baptized. The Spirit led me no doubt. I remember it clearly.
I was saved and it was a radical conversion. I didn’t get water baptized for at least another 5 years. I wanted to get baptized though. During those 5 years God really sanctified my life and many people commented on this.
For anyone interested, in his Large Catechism, Luther addresses the Anabaptist objection as it relates to Sola Fide and the Lutheran Confession concerning Holy Baptism. He affirms Sola Fide, but recognizes, quite rightly, that Faith must have an object to which it clings. Ultimately, that object is the Person and Work of Christ, but He is grasped as He is given through the Means of Grace. There is no contradiction between Sola Fide and Baptismal Regeneration.
I realize, Dr. Ortlund, that you were charitable on this point, but for any who are interested in how Luther addresses the matter, look into his Large Catechism.
Thanks Marcus! I appreciate you providing a place to look on that point. We are in agreement that there is not necessarily a problem for sola fide.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster Do you care to elaborate on your assertion that Sola Fide and Imputation of Righteousness is irrational?
@@marcuswilliams7448
I say it because I used to believe both without question, but when actually reading the Bible and challenged to support it then it became impossible. Neither are taught anywhere in the Bible, which tells us that only the one who does what is righteous is righteous, just as Jesus *is* righteous by doing what is righteous (1 John 3:7). You won’t find a single verse that says a Christian was imputed the righteous acts Jesus performed 2000 years ago as if the Christian performed them. Not a single verse. Also, James is clear we are justified by works (James 2:24). Paul is also clear we are justified by works when the Holy Spirit works through our works (Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 6:7-10). Paul on “faith apart from works” would be interpreted correctly if Luther had simply accepted the rational position that every church writer understood before him including Augustine: the works which Paul says do not save are works done apart from the Holy Spirit.
@@IAmisMaster St. Paul actually asserts that God justifies the ungodly, apart from works (Rom. 4). How is it, then, that you can assert that only those who are righteous are the justward moving people? In addition, it would be tautological for St. Paul to mean "works done apart from the Holy Spirit" when referring to the ungodly being justified apart from works. So, the Apostle is better understood in consideration of Titus 3 when, very clearly, he asserts that God saved us, not because of works done by us *in righteousness*.
What are your further thoughts on this?
Or this from Cyril: "Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John's was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ."
I do disagree with your conclusions, but I respect so much your candor, respect, and thoughtfulness of complexities. I appreciate you thinking things through and not just repeating the same arguments that get passed around. You gave this our own thoughts, and at least consider and acknowledge how those who don't think as you may come to their conclusions, and you explain their positions well. Of those who don't believe baptism in water in Jesus's name is involved n being saved, yours is by far the best presentation I've seen.
“A larger spiritual category of language of cleansing water that baptism participates in and fulfills and points to baptism but baptism does not exhaust it.”
I don't know why Protestants have such a hard time arguing about the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity for salvation. The Scriptures are very clear on this subject.
Baptism is God's most beautiful gift. It is not a "work" that some Christians say.
Baptism is called the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit" for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God ( Titus 3: 5. John 3:5 ) How much clearer do you want ?
By Baptism all sins are forgiven, the stain of original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God , neither Adam's sin, not personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is eternal separation from God.
Born with a fallen human nature, and tainted by original sin, children also have need of rhe new birth of Baptism to be freed from the power of the darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all of us are called (Col 1: 12-15 ) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christ said: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you."(*John 15:5); the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (*Titus 3:5) is not synonymous with water Baptism, although full immersion water Baptism IS commanded of ALL believers, AFTER they have believed (*Mark 16:16 & Acts 8:36-37) The Apostle Paul also seems to use a different phrase in Ephesians to describe the same process "washing of regeneration" mentioned in Titus; Ephesians 5:26 refers to that process as: "...the washing of water by the word".
Consider the repentant thief next to Christ's cross; he was assured entry into paradise without ever being baptised. Be careful that you aren't teaching that a Baptism WITHOUT authentic faith saves (*real faith that saves is itself a gift of God and does not have a human origin, a faith that saves "is the substance of things hoped for" and is not mere mental agreement with certain doctrines), and Baptism WITHOUT real faith saves no one.
"Now this is the parable: the seed is the word of God. And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved."- Luke 8:11-12
(*note- Christ's words in the above verse clearly indicate that the person would be saved by believing the Word that the Sower has sown in their heart, which is specifically what the devil prevents in this particular context that Christ describes).
"So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."- Acts 2:41
(*note- that only those who received his word, that is specifically the Word of God, spoken through Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit, were baptised; those who received his word were the same ones who authentically believed it at first, prior to baptism, also see Acts 2:44)
"Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."- James 1:18
"For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."- 1 Peter 1:23
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast."- Ephesians 2:8-9
"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17
Abraham, Issac and Jacob and all the Old Testament Prophets will all be in the Kingdom of God, according to Christ (*Luke 13:28), and they were not water baptised; consider the context of John 3:5; Nicodemus had just asked Christ about if he had to go back into his mother's womb to be born a second time, and then, in that context, Christ answers "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Therefore in this context, Christ may be referring to the waters of natural birth (* first, "born of water") and then a spiritual second birth afterward ("born of the Spirit").
Also, in the Old Testament, David's son who died was not baptised, and he died before being circumcised (*which some people think is an OT type of baptism), but David had the assurance that he would see his son again (*in Heaven and/or in Abraham's bosom, the place of safety that was in Sheol, prior to Christ's death) : "I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”- 2 Samuel 12:23
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I definitely do not believe that infants who die go to hell. Neither do I believe that anyone goes to hell who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, but the cause of a tragedy, or whatever the case was not able to get to the water. Compare Romans, four versus 11 and following with Colossians two versus 11 and Follow. However, I am definitely a baptismal effectual list. I believe that the Lord can work in someone before baptism into Jesus Christ, but even if regeneration happens through the word, there is a further work done in baptism, and it certainly has to do with remission/forgiveness of sins, act 2:38, 22:16, and I do not believe it is merely symbolic, but if appropriated through repentance and faith, Mark 16:16, act 2:38, 8-37:39, 16-31:33, Brings about change/deliverance/freedom/forgiveness/cleansing of conscience/spiritual, circumcision, etc. Act 2:38 is the whole package and everyone needs it. Certainly the Lord can give the Holy Spirit before baptism, act 10-404:48, but that does not eliminate the necessity of baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus For those who have understanding and opportunity.
You should definitely write a book on baptism
Hey Dr Ortlund I’ve enjoyed your channel, keep it up. A few suggestions in regards to baptism. 1) faith and baptism in Acts seem to be closely correlated in terms or time. That’s to say no long spans of time between believing and being baptized (Ethiopian Eunuch and Jailer- Acts 8 & 16. Almost an urgency in being baptized upon faith- eunuch on the side of the road and jailer/ family in the middle of the night. 2) I hope this makes sense but Biblically I would correlate faith and baptism with the covenant rather than regeneration. Regeneration being an inner work of the Spirit whereas the language of counted righteous and signs/sealing are I believe clearly covenantal actions. 3) Abraham is justified by faith but circumcision is a necessity to remain in covenant. To refuse circumcision is to be cut off from the covenant people. 4) Paul seems to say in Ro 6, Gal 3 and Phil 2 that baptism unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection particularly. Blessings to you.
Paul said; don't, "be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3, for
water baptism does not save, as Peter noted in 1 Peter 3:21, that it is, “..the answer of a good conscience toward God,”. How do we know this experientially? It is shown by the saving of Cornelus and his house, Acts 10:43-47; “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins, or salvation). And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”
These got the water baptism (giving an answer of a good conscience), after being saved. For these were now Christ, as “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9. Again, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3, which they most certainly did have and were saved!
Again, when the Eunuch said to Philip; “See, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If you ‘believe’ with all your heart (Romans 10:9,10), you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:36,37. Philip was making sure it was, "Not by works of righteousness (even baptism) which we (or this Eunuch) have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5.
Glad you got Dr. Fowler’s book! Please be praying for him as he recovers from a major stroke suffered last year.
Hello, Gavin! I Absolutely love your videos. All of your videos are a part of my education as a current college student, I make sure I don't miss one. I really appreciate the ministry you do.
I was curious if you could tell me what you take speaking in tongues to be. You mentioned it a couple of times this video. Is it glossolalia or xenolalia? Or is it both at different times? I'm attending a Christian Charismatic college that heavily emphasizes the practice of speaking in tongues in the glossolalic sense, but I'm unsure if that's even Scriptural. Perhaps you would need to devote a later video to this topic to cover it or maybe you have an existing one I don't know of. Regradless, I'd love to know what you think of the matter. Thanks (:
Thanks a lot John! Maybe I could address that in my upcoming triage series. Thanks!
Thanks, Dr Ortlund, for another great video. As a lifelong Baptist, I have never found the arguments for infant or regenerative baptism compelling, but I confess I have sometimes wondered what the point of the whole thing is. Why be commanded to do something that doesn't actually achieve anything? And yet the thought of it achieving anything goes so strongly against our understanding of sola fide that I can't quite stomach it. I am longing for a more complete and nuanced understanding, and working through your videos is enormously helpful.
I'd love some time to hear more about the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance (growing up Baptist, I just never heard the word 'sacrament'), and also Catholic/Protestant understandings of grace. What does it mean for something to be a 'means of grace', as you say in your video? Is grace something that's doled out piecemeal, or applied to us wholesale and you're either in it or you're not? You now, just in case you don't have four or five dozen ideas queued up for your next videos already ;)
So glad the videos are helpful! Okay, cool, will consider those questions for future videos.
Sola fide (and its correlary imputed righteousness) is an irrational and unbiblical false doctrine not believed by anyone prior to Luther and refuted repeatedly in the Bible (Romans 2:4-11; Galatians 6:7-10; James 2:24). So it’s not terribly important to the question of whether one is regenerated and forgiven of his sins through baptism.
@@IAmisMaster The texts you’ve provided do not refute sola fide, you’ve misunderstood them. I would be happy to discuss them all with you on Discord. Let me know!
@@iQuiiKKz
What’s your discord?
@@IAmisMaster Harding (hashtag 5343)
You could coherently say that the water saved Naaman, too.
Why does nobody look at the story of Zacchaeus in talks of Baptism? Jesus told him “today, salvation has come to this house.”
He didn’t say to hurry up and get in the water. He didn’t say Salvation came when you got baptized. He said “today”.
Dr. Ortlund, I respect your work and your call to get Baptists to stop watering down Baptism with mere symbolism.
Still, you keep saying Baptism isn’t “causative” of regeneration. That the rite isn’t in and of itself regenerative, which is the more Roman Catholic view of Ex Opere Operato…which is entirely contingent on their view of Holy Orders. If that were the view you were disputing with here[, which I would argue isn’t really Baptismal Regeneration,] I think you’d be correct.
However, I get the vibe that you reject the causative aspect of Baptism under the impression that Baptism is just a rite of mere water being applied. That’s not what [Lutheran] Baptismal Regeneration posits. I draw your attention to Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms:
“What is Baptism?
-Answer: Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.
Which is that word of God?
-Answer: Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
“For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?… …In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold. Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. To what else do they refer than to Baptism, that is, to the water comprehended in God’s ordinance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith, and Christ, who directs us thither and binds us to Baptism.”
The Word of Christ is the “causative” operative power in Baptism that makes it regenerative, not the mere rite of water itself or application thereof. If it’s Christ’s Word, it’s Christ’s work. There is absolutely no contradiction with this and Johann Gerhard’s statement that you included here.
This is why I see little reason to look at texts like Ephesians 5:26 and get all hung up on “linguistic complexities” and not draw Baptism from it.
A heart-felt thanks to you brother Gavin, for being an honest searcher. Your thoughts echo that which has also been written by George R. Beasley-Murray's book "Baptism in The New Testament"
Rewatched this - super helpful, thanks again.
Had trouble getting my 4 year old to agree to a nap (she’s sick), starting playing this video and she was snoring in minutes! Haha so you helped us both
Early church Fathers are a secondhand source. Can you really trust it??? What about people who cannot be baptized because of disabilities and medical devices being attached??? Are those people unable to be saved??? I don't think so.
Baptism of desire can avail one to justification, in Catholic theology. That being said it’s best to be water baptized.
We know for certain the Protestant traditions of Faith alone and Scripture alone, were not universal in the Church Fathers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
I have to say the issue of Baptism is the hardest for me to understand. Like you said in the video there are so many "exceptions" to the rule, in fact, I have only seen "exceptions" to the rule. The issue of the bible stating that faith saves. But then what do we do with "Now, baptism saves you"?
It's hard. But during the video i thought of the Eucharist. In a way, the Eucharist is salvific. Through it we are furthered in Sanctification, we are further united to Christ who is our Salvation etc. But some is obviously regenerated and justified before their first Eucharist participation.
I don't know what do you think Gavin?
Thanks for the work.
It's a great point and yes, I think that understanding baptism as a means of grace but not cause of regeneration leads to greater consistency between the two sacraments, and also greater continuity with their O.T. precursors (circumcision and the Passover).
@@TruthUnites Right, thank you for the response.
@@TruthUnites "means of grace but not cause of regeneration." But aren't we regenerated by grace? What if it's both/and: we are both regenerated through initial justification and forgiveness (counted righteous) and continually regenerated through sanctification (made righteous). Since that would mean regeneration is not a one-time-only thing, regeneration apart from baptism would not exclude baptismal regeneration (?)
@@abbyschubert5637 there are some people who define regeneration like that, but I think the more common way of understanding it, and the one I use, is that regeneration is being made alive to God. So it is a one-time act. If someone thinks that baptism is regenerative in the sense of imparting new life to the one receives it in faith and is already spiritually alive, I have no objection to that.
@@TruthUnites That helps a lot, thank you for explaining!
At 14:00, Acts 9 does not say the Spirit "descends" on Paul when Ananias lays his hands on him. Ananias communicates to Paul his purpose of being there, "that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." This does not mean it was through his hands that Paul was regenerated. Interestingly, scales fell off his eyes (which is how he regained his sight) and was baptized (how he received the Holy Spirit). That to me is the most natural reading.
Hi Gavin, I thought this was actually a fascinating video. When I was a protestant, I had no idea that the baptists had that high a view of baptism, so I appreciate those details. I think many modern baptists could benefit from getting in touch with their roots!
As an Orthodox Christian, I subscribe to a synergistic view of regeneration, and tend to view salvation more as a process than a "one off deal". Do you think a synergistic view might impact patristic attitudes toward baptism?
Thanks Daniel! I totally agree many modern Baptists need to get in touch with their roots. Groups like the Center for Baptist Renewal are helping with that. Yes, I definitely think the synergistic view of regeneration is relevant, and has explanatory power for the some of the objections. God bless.
@@TruthUnitesDifference between Receiving the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, and Baptisim of Holy Spirit and Baptisim of water
Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (difference between Baptism of Holy Spirit and water)
In John 20:22 apostles received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.), In Acts 2:4 they were filled with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.) You can see the difference
Paul first was filled with Holy Spirit and then got baptised with water Acts 9:17-18.
In Acts 19 paul found some disciples in Ephesus. Who believed in Lord Jesus and baptised in John's Baptisim (water), paul explained that John preached the baptisim of repentance that is to believe in the one who is coming after him that is Lord Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and then paul laid hands on them and then Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In Acts 10:44 as Peter was speaking the word of God Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And then after receiving the Holy Spirit they got Baptised Acts 10:47-48.
28:18. Gideon Lazar who is a Roman Catholic who debated Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers on evolution brought up that there were ECFs who did not believe in water baptismal salvation for the causation of salvation.
As a former Roman Catholic, I had not heard that before, and I had not read of any examples of this, until I heard it here. It was helpful hearing that you can find examples from Justin Martyr in the second century to Cyril of Jerusalem well into the fourth century. Do you have any other examples like this, or know where to find them?
I think where the early church really swayed on this issue, particularly in the west is that when we read the book of Acts, generally when someone came to Faith, they were immediately baptized, nearly always the same day. I can see where this eventually led those in the early church to believe and conflate that water baptism regenerates a person to salvation BECAUSE it was done on the same day. This is a non sequitur though and cannot be deduced from the text.
Thanks for this, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, Dr Ortlund!
Thanks Steve, and Merry Christmas!
Baptism is the time and place that God removes your sins and gives you the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God can justly do this because of the suffering of Jesus which paid for your sins. The removing of your sins is the rebirth because you are starting over sinless and must continue to live a repentant life. God regenerates AT baptism, we are not regenerated BY baptism. That is why Peter said in 1 Peter 3:18ff that baptism saves you. It is when God does His work and you are reborn.
I really enjoyed this! I attend a Baptist church, although personally, I've never been fully settled on exactly what that it means or who should be baptized. I really enjoy listening what you have to say about it! You're extremely thoughtful and careful, and you don't just ignore history on the subject. I would love to hear some thoughts sometime about the mode of baptism. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling, leaning backwards, leaning forwards, words of institution, etc. That's a lot, but I love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks! I will consider those subjects for future videos!
People should be immersed for baptism, as that is what was done in Scripture. The Greek used for believer's baptism in Scripture is always Baptizo (to immerse), and never Rhantizo (to pour/sprinkle). Rhantizo does exist in Scripture, but never in regards to believer's baptism. Thus, the proper way to baptize is by immersion. Those that pour/sprinkle are incorrect.
Leaning backwards or forwards, dunking numerous times, and whatever wording is to be used is subjective and not addressed in Scripture.
Appreciate your gentle approach to difficult topics. This is a something that has been extremely perplexing for me as the Bible seemingly points in both directions at times. Your analysis and especially the graduation analogy has given me some peace about this. My brothers and I are about to read Finding the Right Hills to Die On together and finding your RUclips channel has me pumped to read your books!
That’s awesome Sam! Thanks for the kind words and I really hope you enjoy the books
Hello Gavin! I have that book by Stanley Flowers. It is a great book. Thanks early Baptist have a similar view to the church of christ. Especially the British Baptist. Thanks for your channel. I think that baptism is the meeting point of your faith and God uses it to wash away sin and give the Holy Spirit.
I believe that one of the reasons why there is much confusion over baptism, is because most people have jumbled together baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit. These are two separate and distinct occasions for the Christian, and only one of these does the Scripture call a "sealing". Namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Yes! Thank you for this excellent point!
the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place with the indwelling presence that follows baptism. There is only ONE baptism per scripture, and it is water baptism as seen in the eunuch and Phillip conversion, several things happen in water baptism; sins are forgiven, the indwelling of the HS takes place. regeneration as a new person since the sins are removed and you start over as a child. GOD makes all these changes, the wat
er makes none of them. It is just the time and place.
@@timbabb5348
Hello again Tim. Hope you are well.
I know we discussed this topic at length previously.
Let me ask you:
How are we Justified (Made right/ righteous) with God?
I think this question relates to the topic at hand
No, they're the same thing
@@natanventura4995
What are the same thing? Baptism of the Spirt and water Baptism?
If so, can you please explain Acts 10 ?
The Catholic way to phrase the "baptism as seal" view would be that baptism is an actual grace that ignites and ensures the believer in the sanctifying grace of the regeneration he has already received from the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is the new circumcision Colossians 2:11. This is one of the reasons why we baptize babies at 8 days old. Circumcision was to be performed at 8 days old according to Genesis 17:10-14. Thus we baptize babies at 8 days old being that Baptism is the new circumcision.
@@timothy9360 Yes, that parallel makes sense, and we must also highlight that circumcision is the shadow but baptism is the effectual sign that unites sinners to Jesus.
@@lhinton281 baptism represents a few things really. It comes from the Jewish mikvah. The high priest was to wash in the mikvah before entering the Holy room. Being that we are all spiritual priests under the new covenant. Baptism is also the new mikvah. But it's also a way of washing away sins. Such as God sprinkling with water to wash them of their idolatry. As stated in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Baptism is also the actual birth of being born again without entering the womb. It is the representation of the womb. The physical birth out of the birth canal without going back into the womb as a grown man.
Hey Dr. Ortland! Thank you for your considered take on Baptism. To take your analogy of the ceremony a proponent of baptismal regeneration (such as myself) could take the example of engagement and marriage where the latter is more fundamental. The coming to faith could be seen as an engagement. Many times engaged (or dating) person will be referred to as son/daughter-in-law even though the marriage has not taken place. This is because there is an understanding that the marriage ceremony WILL take place. Whereas you could have a queen without coronation you won't have a married couple without the marriage ceremony. In the same way it could be said that becoming a Christian is not complete if baptism is omitted although the process might have begun. Another image might be conception and birth. You need both to have a baby.
This is great Gavin, thanks so much!
Dr. Ortlund
I am a follower of yours and enjoy your work. I have a healthy challenge though. I do see often you defend historic Protestantism. Especially those of the Anglican and Lutheran sides against claims from the orthodox and Roman Catholics. However typically their critiques are geared primarily at historical sacramental , liturgical Protestants. Have you considered using your own tradition - baptist - key points to defend your stances ? As in can we find baptists both modern and post reformation that would share the same view points of the sacramental Protestants you often quote ?
Also what does one do with the modern baptist position ? If in practice and often in theology they reject any idea of a sacramental viewpoint on these things? Would you be willing to challenge Baptists specifically on their own historical traditions and go as far to say if they are not in line then they are truly not baptist ? Or does it mean one may have to re evaluate the Baptist tradition of today in lue of church history, Protestant history, and baptist history
Again a healthy challenge, not to combative but also a cause to pause for second
Thanks for the great question and forgive me being very brief but I am right in the middle of something at the moment: briefly, I think it is appropriate to defend a "mere Protestantism" despite being a particular kind of Protestant, just as CS Lewis defend "mere Christianity" despite being an Anglican. Of course, we cannot stay in either mere Protestantism or mere Christianity indefinitely.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the response
I made a mistake in my original comment. What I meant to say is typically critiques towards Protestantism are not towards the Anglican , Lutheran streams.
I do agree with defending Protestantism but I also agree that we have critiques within Protestantism. Most of the sacramental/ liturgical Protestants have a kinship with the catholic , orthodox and church of the east. Rather than say a baptist or Pentecostal.
So I guess more if I am wondering can we hear the voices of ancient and modern non Anglican/ Lutheran/ Moravian/ Methodists? Definitely want to know more of the historic baptist views.
Gavin the Catholic tradition and dogma doesn't demand that Baptism is the normative means in the sense of statistics. Plenty of us Catholic theologians believe that adult converts are normally (ie statistically) regenerated at the moment of conversion prior to Baptism. But that doesn't mean that Baptism wasn't ordained for the purpose of conveying (ie causing) regeneration, especially since it's intended (although you disagree) to be given to infants, none of whom can be regenerated prior to Baptism (since they can't experience conversion as infants). And since the majority of Christians through history have been Baptized as infants, there is a sense in which Baptism regenerates "normatively" in the sense of statistically . But yes, the vast vast majority of what you affirm and argue is already part of the Catholic dogma.
Where is there a single example in the Bible of an infant being baptised? (*effectively, it seems you may be implying, that people can be saved without faith and without hearing the Word of God; if you are saying that, then, that is unbiblical).
Also, infants of course have a fallen nature, but I believe there is an age of accountability for each person (*only God knows exactly what time that is for each person); in which, a person finally knows enough and is mature enough to be accountable for their own sinful actions (*see Isaiah 7:15-16). Humans are born in the flesh with their inherited sin nature, from Adam, but I believe there may enough evidence to show that a person's spirit is not dead initially (*the Scripture calls infants and children "innocent"; see Psalm 106:37-38) , and therefore, dosent require the new birth (*the reviving of their spirit) until after they have sinned (*when someone's spirit is cut off from God) when or after, they have reached the age of accountability; "The soul who sins is the one who will die..." (*Ezekiel 18:20b) Therefore King David had the assurance that he would be with his son again, who was not baptised, and who had died prior to being circumcised, since the child did not live until the eighth day (*see 2 Samuel 12:23)
@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 There are household baptisms in scripture. And the assured salvation of infants who die apart from baptism is irrelevant - they are saved by the grace of God, given the graces of faith and baptism at death, which if they remained alive, and not baptized, they would grow up without.
Author: Ron Graham
Baptism and the Greek Word “eis”
-What does the word mean?
This lesson is a study of the argument about the Greek word εις (eis). The question we answer is as follows: In Acts 2:38, does the Greek word εις mean (1) “in order to receive”, or does it rather mean (2) “because you have received”?
Here's the text: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for [εις] the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' " (Acts 2:38).
The little word εις
The English word “for” in the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" translates the original Greek word εις.
εις -is usually pronounced “ice” or “ees”.
εις -is usually translated “into”, “unto”, or “for”.
The Argument on εις and Baptism
The argument regarding baptism says that, in Acts 2:38, the phrase "for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" means “because of the forgiveness of sins”. So the passage is made to say, "Repent and be baptised because of the forgiveness of sins".
This supposedly puts forgiveness before baptism, so that First one is forgiven by God and saved, and because of that, one is then baptised.
But why couldn't Peter mean that the forgiveness of sins is on offer and because of that, repent and be baptised to receive it? That would put repentance and baptism back before forgiveness, where they belong. Forgiveness by grace is the prospect; repentance and baptism (among other things) lead a person into that prospect.
1 Repentance and Baptism
Notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but also of repentance. "Repent and be baptised..." (Acts 2:38). If the argument is correct that forgiveness is granted before baptism, then forgiveness is also granted before repentance. But the scriptures say that one must repent before forgiveness is granted.
On another occasion, Peter said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19).
Peter did not say, “Repent and return because your sins have been be blotted out.” He said, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out". Peter put repentance before forgiveness. He made repentance a condition of forgiveness.
And if Peter has put repentance before forgiveness, that's where he has also put baptism, because he gave both repentance and baptism the same relationship to forgiveness viz "Repent and be baptised... for [εις] the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
εἰς is a preposition that typically means "into," "to," "towards," or "for" when used with an accusative noun. It denotes direction, purpose, or result.
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (for the remission of sins). When εἰς is followed by an accusative in Koine Greek the usage is "NEVER" causal. Therefore it should not be translated because. In Acts 2;38 baptism is for the purpose that a person sins may be forgiven, ἄφεσιν is in the accusative position. This is not a matter of opinion it is a fact of the Koine Greek language. The Bible is right and if preachers and teachers in the churches are teaching this fact then they are correct.
I would love to watch a discussion on this topic with a Church of Christ member. Aaron Gallagher from GBN will happily do a video with you to discuss.
I am a Lutheran but struggle with this concept. Because I also see believers that are clearly regenerated prior to baptism.
I have thought about how Christ's life, death, and resurrection saved those prior to the birth of Christ. In the same way, maybe the believer is saved by baptism prior to the occurrence of the baptism. But that seems like it's about the same thing as the seal or ceiling of regeneration.
A believer can be regenerated either by the sacrament of baptism itself, or for the desire thereof, as Catholic theology teaches.
An example of this can be found in both Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47.
*Acts 2:38* “And Peter said to them, “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.”
Here the repentance and water baptism came first, then the remission of sin and the Holy Spirit was received.
*Acts 10:47* “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Here the Holy Spirit was received first, then water baptism. Presumably based on their desire for the sacrament.
Hope this clears some things up, God bless!
I just wish people like billy graham didn’t comepletely ignore baptism right after belief when the New Testament example shows immediate baptism after belief.
The Men of Nineveh
We read that the men of Nineveh "repented at [εις] the preaching of Jonah" (Matthew 12:41).
It is sometimes argued that the word εις in this verse points backward because the preaching came before repentance. So the Ninevites repented because of the preaching of Jonah. They did not repent to get the preaching of Jonah. It is argued that in the same sense one is baptised because of the forgiveness of sins, not to get that forgiveness.
But that is not what is meant by Jesus. That is not a sound exegesis. Nineveh’s repentance involved a turning away from sin and turning to the preaching of Jonah. They repented in order to receive the benefits of Jonah’s preaching, to escape condemnation and to enter into the grace and salvation that Jonah preached.
2 Faith and Confession
As another example of εις, take Paul’s statement, "With the heart one believes unto [εις] righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto [εις] salvation" (Romans 10:10).
In that quote the belief results in righteousness or justification, and likewise the confession results in salvation" (Romans 10:10).
Translators generally render this passage as though a heartfelt and confessed faith leads to justification. In other words salvation is the outcome of a confessed faith. Translators don't render the verse to say that faith and confession are because of salvation, and come after salvation.
3 Baptism and Death
Jesus spoke of his, "blood of the new covenant, shed for many for [εις] the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). The second instance of the word "for" is eis in Greek. As we all know, Jesus did not shed his blood because forgiveness had been granted, but so that it could be. This is another instructive parallel to Acts 2:38.
However it is even more instructive to examine how Paul relates baptism to the death of Christ and our death to sin (Romans 6:3-5).
Paul says, "Don't you know that all of us who have been baptised into [εις] Christ Jesus have been baptised into [εις] his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into [εις] death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).
Now in this passage, translators put "into" for εις indicating that we meet and join Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism. We are "buried with him through baptism... so that we might [rise to] walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4).
So even if Peter (in Acts 2:38) said, “be baptised because of [εις] the forgiveness of sins,” that would simply mean, “Be baptised because forgiveness is available. Christ’s death is your only hope of forgiveness. Because of that, be baptised into that death.”
Gavin, after watching your video for a second time I feel that denying the patristic consensus on baptismal regeneration (or trying to explain it away by forcing an Evangelical exegesis) is ultimately only convincing to the uninformed.
The question is, can a person truly believe/be saved and *_refuse_* to be Baptized? Or will Baptism always accompany true and saving faith, whenever possible?
I would think so, since growth sometimes comes to a halt. It really depends how much understanding there is. Maybe that person hears the gospel on a trip and believes but then goes back to a place where there is no church and other believers and so no more growth...
No, they cannot refuse and be saved. But that proves Gavin’s point
Matthew 16:16 JESUS SAID "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
@@timbabb5348 consider this possibility:
By belief (faith), we are baptized with the Spirt (as also seen in Acts 10).
What if the baptism of Mark 16:16 is a baptism of the Spirt?
And note how this possibility flows with the entire verse (as your quote did not have the entire verse):
“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
Consider that an unbeliever is not baptized with the Spirit.
There is no category here for a believer who has not been baptized (with water)
I’m not saying this is any kind of certainty…just a possible way to reconcile these points.
God bless
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Are you referring to the speaking in tongues the Gentiles did for the benefit of those with Peter to convince them the gospel was for the gentiles? That "baptism" you are calling was for the benefit of someone else. Like the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost for the benefit of the listeners.
That would not be a saving "baptism of the spirit" because it wasn't for the benefit of those the Spirit fell on. It was for the benefit of others. When Ananias told Paul to "be baptized", that was not a spirit baptism, it was water baptism where God removes your sins. Paul had faith, but he was still covered in His sins.
Nowhere is a "spirit baptism" mentioned in relation to someone being saved. It was water baptism for the Ethiopian eunuch , for example. and you can't get yourself "spirit baptized", but you can get yourself water baptized. IN acts 10 Peter ordered the gentiles to be baptized so their sins could be removed and receive the Holy Spirit as in acts 2:38.
The BIBLE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE CAUSE OF REGENERATION."OF HIS OWN WILL BEGAT HE US BY THE WORD OF TRUTH."JAMES 1:18."BEING BORN AGAIN NOT BY CORRUPTIBLE SEED BUT BY INCORRUPTIBLE SEED BY THE WORD OF GOD WHICH LIVES AND ABIDES FOREVER". 1 PETER 1:23.WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DEBUNK BAPTISMAL REGENERATION?
LET THE WORD OF GOD SPEAK NOT ANY COUNCIL OR CHURCH FATHER.
NOW,HOW CAN THE WORD OF REGENERATES US? SIMPLY BY BELIEVING.Romans 10:17.
The same with Gal.3:2 "DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT BY OBSERVING THE LAW OR BYBELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD?". THE RECEPTION OF THE SPIRIT IS A SIGN OF HAVING BEEN REGENERATED.AGAIN HOW CAN ONE RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT/REGENERATION? BY BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.AGAIN ROM.10:17.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to take this position based on the church father’s understanding - you need to also baptize infants.
In your view, is it possible that baptism is the way we are suppose to physically accept the message preached? It seems to me that the original purpose of baptism, from John's baptism, was to be ones acceptance of the message preached. Luke 7:29-30 Those who were baptized acknowledged God's justice by being baptized, and the Pharisees rejected God's purpose for themselves by not being baptized. It appears that in every conversion in Acts that baptism was taught along side the gospel presentation since the response of those who believed the message was to be baptized or ask for baptism. Acts 22:16 connects baptism with calling upon the name of the Lord and 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism is an appeal to God. It seems in the modern baptist world that the "sinner's prayer" replaced this purpose of baptism. Perhaps because they wanted something physical/tangible, a point in time to hold to. There also seems to be a logical progression of baptism in Lukes writings that I would love your thoughts on: Luke 1:77 John will give people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, Luke 3:3 he preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 3:16 He foretells of Jesus who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 after Jesus' death burial and resurrection we see that those who repent and are baptized will receive the Holy Spirit.
It just seems contrary to scripture...
Romans 4:9-11 NKJV - Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also...
Basic understanding of what God tells us in scripture and everything He reveals to us shows us we are saved by faith. Your faith is accounted to you as the righteousness of Christ through His death on the cross. Because we believe we do what He says. We are children of promise as sons of Abraham, saved by faith. All who are justified are being sanctified. Because we are justified, we do what He tells us to do!
Paul doesn't go out of his way to tell us we aren't saved by jumping though this physical hoop to now tell us to jump through another physical hoop in order to be saved.
Christ gives us LIVING water! The Holy Spirit! 🙏
I have gone through these baptism videos multiple times, so forgive me if I’m commenting again. I think perhaps a distinction between justification and regeneration may be in order. I also do not necessarily believe that regeneration, or the new birth is instantaneous. Basically, full fledge initiation into Christianity in the new testament times was repentance, faith in the gospel, baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Spirit, acts 2:38, 8-12:16, 19-1:6, Romans, 34, five and six, chapter 8, etc. we can see this pattern in Hebrews six -1: three. It is not that someone could not go to heaven whatsoever. If these four things were not completed, but something was missing in the foundation, and I believe that anyone who knowingly willingly unabatedly, refuses any of these steps with full knowledge Would be in jeopardy even though I believe justification is at the point of repentance and faith, I believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the meeting place of Grace and faith. I like the language of sign and seal, and I also believe that it doesn’t work within. I believe that it gets sin out of the soul so to speak and it cleans us up. Not that we are not forgiven in the justifying sense, but baptism demonstrates this, and it is a bath and the burial. A great book by a man by the name of David Pawson is called “the normal Christian birth. “Everyone should get it I may not totally and completely agree with absolutely everything, but I think he has some marvelous insights into how Christians should be initiated, and how they should be caught up if they have missed any of these things in their foundation. I also believe that water baptism is the act in which we steal the covenant and it is like an under circumcision, though I am not by any means a Pedo Baptist, so that is not where I’m going, but I do believe it is like new covenant official circumcision. If you compare act 2:38 with Romans 6-3:6, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2-11, and following, I think it has some great insights into the remission of sins. Sorry for the typos as I have no vision and I’m dictating this to Siri and don’t want to start over. Lol.
Lots of strawmen. No one said baptismal regeneration. You aren't saved by getting baptized alone, but you ARE saved by obedience and that includes baptism. Period.
There are many who are more learned that disagree with you:
Barnabas (circa 75 AD)
"Blessed are they who place their trust in the cross and descend down into the water... We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, however we come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit."
Hermas (circa 110 AD)
"Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal then is the water. They descend into the water dead, and they rise alive."
Justin Martyr circa - (circa -160 AD)
"But there is no other way than this to become acquainted with Christ; We must be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of our sins, and for the remainder of our lives we must live sinless lives."
Iranaeus (circa 180 AD)
"But there are some Gnostics who assert that it is unnecessary to bring people to the water. Rather they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those that are to be initiated. .. This they maintain to be the redemption... But there are other heretics that reject all of these practices and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable should not be performed by visable and corruptible creatures. They claim that the knowledge of the power of God is itself perfect redemption."
Tertullian (circa 198 AD)
"(Unless a man is born of water and of Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.) {Quoted from John 3:3} These words have tied faith to the necessity of water baptism, and accordingly, all those that became believers were thus baptized. It was also this way with Paul, that when he believed, he was baptized."
Cyprian (circa 250 AD)
"One is not re-born by the imposition of hands when they receive the Holy Spirit; Rather it is through water baptism. Therefore, having thoroughly cleansed, he may receive the Holy Spirit."
Archelaus (circa 320 AD)
" If he (Jesus) was not been baptized in water, neither are any of us baptized. Yet, if there is no baptism, neither will there be the remission of sins. Rather, every man will die in their sins."
Apostolic Constitutions (circa 390 AD)
"He who, out of contempt will not be baptized in water, he will be condemned as an unbeliever. He will be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, unless a man is born of water and spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Quoted from John 3:3) and again he said, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Quoted from Mark 16:16)"
There are many more quotes from many other men throughout history that taught that baptism is the method of conversion, where we receive the remission of our sins.
Jesus was baptised (once only!) in water and the Holy Spirit came down like a dove, it’s the same for us, this is the start of our priestly ministry!
Are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t come down? If so this contradicts what Jesus demonstrated. If the Holy Spirit has come down there would be no point if nothing happened, ie no regeneration, what happens is the spirit imparts a special grace, and the father is happy with us too! Because of Jesus who has reconciled us to him.
The same Holy Spirit comes down through our our life too and dwells in the believer who stays in gods favour.. we can be confirmed renew our baptismal vows, receive the Eucharist, ask forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit can give grace each time.
So Jesus was talking to nicodemus about the time when we first encounter gods saving Grace which will be our baptism, the Holy Spirit comes down and we are born again then through water and the grace of the holy spirit. Each grace moment through out our life is in once sense a ‘born again experience’ as ‘born again’ Christian’s might say, for we need to stay in gods Grace the ‘born again experiences’ are called sanctification., however we are only born again in the biblical sense (ie what Jesus meant) once and that is through baptism, and like Jesus this prepares us for our life to which he have died to through our baptism in the hope of salvation through the holy cross, a part of which we are called to carry. The baptismal generation first grace and all subsequent grace help us to carry our crosses.
I wonder if the language of 'causation' may be a little biased or unhelpful. I wouldn't say preaching is the cause of regeneration, but it may be the tool God uses to bring regeneration about. Would this not be analogously the BR view? Viewing regeneration partially as a process (which Baptists tend not to) may also be of some limited use to bridge the gap of understanding.
You should check out "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered" by Bishop Ray Sutton. I think it will answer a lot of your questions (and I believe, misunderstandings).
There’s not any evidence at all for baptismal regeneration or infant baptism at all according to scripture,
Regeneration comes before baptism,
Regeneration comes before faith-
Faith would come before baptism, it’s a sign of our faith, THIS would apply to true professing possessing believers who have been born again through regeneration , born from above divine act of God.
Good video
We wouldn’t choose God if we were not granted faith to believe, we are fallen sinners and d
you must make that choice to be baptized, it’s a no brainer if you ask me. Would love to speak on this more
It would be interesting if you would do a video if it is allowed on RUclips, but how for many years in church history they baptized, naked …
the typology that was included of putting off your old self bearing your own cross, laying down your life, we find within some of the early riding 300-500 they were baptizing naked when it began, and when it ended idk, but they did, and it’s crazy to us in our culture now but maybe not then?
People often miss the essential fact that God has been regenerating his people from the beginning. Abraham, even before he was circumcised, believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Paul is showing that salvation does not depend on works. Of course, Abraham would have been made alive unto God, born again or made regenerate. Those who espouse baptismal regeneration want us to believe that in the NT God all of a sudden made regeneration dependent upon water baptism. This makes no sense whatsoever. Those who think that in the OT it was dependent on circumcision, miss the entire point of Paul's argument about what happened to him prior to circumcision. I am a reformed baptist. To understand baptism it is essentially to grasp reformed baptist covenant theology.
Acts 10 and 11 Cornelius was regenerated before baptism
Growing up in Oneness Pentecostalism I was always told salvation is water baptism (in Jesus name) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with evidence of “speaking in tongues”. After struggling with this false doctrine God opened my eyes when reading Romans. I’m thankful but many are falling into this heresy due to lack of knowledge about it.
It's not as complex as what he's making it out to be. Read the Church Fathers for yourself. This is a lot of sophistry. How can you listen to this guy and not get the feeling he's trying really hard to make the text say what he wants it to say?
I appreciate your struggle, Dr. Ortlund, to find a more clear explanation to this complex subject. IMHO, everyone on any side of the controversy needs to go back to first principles. For example, you mentioned that so many people cite 1Peter 3.21 as final proof of their particular view. Unfortunately, the greek of that verse is terse to a rather great degree, and English translations may not be expressing the complexity that actually occurs. No one should "start" their argumentation by using a controversial verse.
Second, I never hear anyone, including you, young sir, ever go and expound on the fact that Luke-Acts, three times, repeats a profound parallelism contrasting water and the HOLY Spirit, in Luke 3.16, Acts 1.5, Acts 11.16 - recorded in the mouths of John son of Zechariah, Jesus, and Peter. This parallelism occurs six times in the Gospels and Acts. Surely this is a sign of its profound importance to the earliest generations of Jesus's followers. In this parallelism, water and Holy Spirit are contrasted. In the parallelism the two figures using these elements are compared. Both are baptizing [which I understand to mean "purifying"], one with water for the purity-liable Jews who originally heard John's message, the Other with the Holy Spirit, for all who would be transformed, i.e. regenerated by the power of the Almighty, through Christ's death and resurrection, mediated directly to the repentant person by the Holy Spirit. Of the greatest failures of later generations of early believers, is that no one personally expounds a direct, stand-alone experience of receiving the Holy Spirit - as in Acts 2, as in Acts 10, and as I understand, in various other places in Acts.
So, young Dr. Ortlund, I commend you on your struggle. Bottom line, this parallelism, from the start, distinguishes between being baptized with water, and being baptized with the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter that later daring expositors decided that the contrast is between water and then the newly discovered sacramental water/Spirit baptism that accomplishes its action, ex opere operato, [magick of a Christianized variety]. This view, as you know, was canon, and the Roman Catholic Church "knows no other practice." But we are told in Scripture that Jesus was angry with his disciples before, "And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” Matthew 17.17. Who says Jesus has not been angry with the Christian Church for untold centuries, though there is always a way of repentance for restoration. A live dog is better than a dead lion.
I pray Dr. Ortland that you will stand for "Sola Scriptura" even if no one else near you does.
According to your understanding, is it possible that Baptism itself can actually remit sin? Clement of Alexandria (among many others) seems to hold this to be the understood teaching of the Apostles. (Ref his catechetical letter on the instructor of children).
I saw a meme and I looked up this video
What meme?
I watched all of the videos related to baptism between you and Dr. Cooper. I’m reformedish so I suppose I’m defaulted into not agreeing with baptismal regeneration. But I’ve found the subject so interesting and don’t really have a strong opinion either way yet. I’ve appreciated the depth into which you’ve talked about it.
Glad the topic is of interest and God bless you as you study!
Ditto.
I think Mr. Coopers argumentation is stronger and more biblical. If you just look at the verses on babtism lutheran view is much more biblical. Regeneration, forgiveness of sins, salvation, putting on Christ. These are few of the biblical images of babtism
AYOO CHURCH OF CHRIST MENTIONED🙌🏻🚨‼️🗣️🗣️🗣️
So Jesus commands that his followers go out and baptize, but Lutherans don’t believe this?
By the way, I find you videos excellent. Brother, keep up the good work..
Dr. Ortlund,
Thanks for this very helpful video.
My problem (or at least perplexity) eight he Reformed view is that, though the word “seal” is used profusely, I have yet to feel I understand what it meant by the term. What does it mean to “seal” ones regeneration? What is the practical reality we are referring to here?
One problem with this vagueness, in my opinion, is that it allows contemporary Reformed Christians to slide much closer to a sign-only view than their predecessors in the Reformed tradition did without realizing it or being bothered (or at least confronted) by it.
This is so hype! would love to listen through a podcast, so Imma have to come back to this vid.
putting it up on the podcast now...
@@TruthUnites let's goooooo! Thanks for all you do!!!
@@WilliamFAlmeida its up!
@@TruthUnites got it on Spotify now... thanks so much!
Hi Gavin-I’d love to dialogue about this! I’m an Anglican seminary student, and I actually started as a Baptist with the exact sacramental-Baptist view you describe (Baptism is a sign, seal, and means of grace associate with but not causative of salvation).
But here’s why I’ve come to adopt a Reformed Anglican view called Baptismal Efficacy. First, to understand the view, we need to situate this within continual justification. Contra a lot of evangelicals, it’s not the case Biblically that God justified me and forgave me once and done. God continually justifies (=regards as righteous) and continually gives me the forgiveness of sins. His continual justification (not the Roman Catholic view of making righteous, but of continually regarding me as righteous through faith) involves continually giving me the forgiveness of sins.
Baptism is situated within this sort of view. Hence, adult converts can indeed (and even, perhaps, normally) be justified, regenerated, and given the Spirit prior to their baptism. That doesn’t negate the reality that God continually justifies (=forgives sins and regards me as righteous), and even continually regenerates (=sustains me in being as a new creation). In this context, Baptism is God’s visible and public way of justifying and causing the forgiveness of sins. Although he is always doing that, in Baptism God does this visibly in and through the waters by the Spirit and Word. So just because Baptism causes the forgiveness of sins does not mean that Baptism necessarily (or even normally for adult converts) does so for the first time. Rather, it’s part of his economy of continual justification; in Baptism, God visibly and publicly forgives and makes visible his act of continual justification.
That makes best sense pastorally (of the cases you describe), and with the language of the New Testament (“as many as are baptized have put on Christ”, United to Christ *by* Baptism, etc).
And that means that Baptism is the objective and visible way we know ourselves to be in Christ. I can always look to my Baptism, and because God objectively and visibly adopts and justifies those Baptized, I can know that he did so for me-even if I had been justified prior to Baptism (or if I hadn’t been!). Because justification is continual, and because Baptism is God’s visible and objective way of justifying and forgiving, many if not most adults might be justified prior to Baptism and yet visibly and objectively receive their adoption in Baptism.
@@anglicanaesthetics Lutheran here. I love the Anglican Luther Scholar Dr. Phillip Cary. His explanation of Lutheran/Anglican baptismal theology vs radical protestants is second to none.
@@anglicanaesthetics isn't this similar to Dr Gavin saying that baptism is the visible seal strengthening and confirmation of being made spiritually alive .
@@aajaifenn It is! But I'd add something more. It's causative of the forgiveness of sins and of justification--the visible cause of those things. As I've argued above, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's the first cause/causative "of the initial obtaining" of justification and forgiveness (though it can be), but it's nevertheless causative of justification and forgiveness.
@@anglicanaesthetics agree totally but as long as it is not the first cause necessarily of the initial obtaining of justification and forgivness , then I think Dr Gavin would also be in agreement . In his debate with Dr Cooper I think he stated that he agreed that baptism conveys forgivness of sins to the recepient who has faith .
I think many proponents of baptismal regeneration would be happy to say that for a baptist minister, spiritual regeneration apart from baptism is the norm.
They'd say though that is because of the Baptist practice of only administering the sacrament of baptism to those who've heard, understood, and accepted the word of God preached to them.
However, since most people both today (at least I think-perhaps I'm wrong) have not become Christians this way, but instead became Christians when their parents had them baptized as infants, we can still say that it's baptism which is the ordinary means of regeneration.
Listens to the Father's in order to find faults or critiques them? Don't be surprised when others do the same.
Do you have a discussion video with the Church of Christ about baptismal regeneration? Wanna watch it.
where is it shown that Henry Lawrence was a Baptist? All my sources say he was a Puritan.
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. Some questions I would ask is, if todays Baptists/Baptist beliefs on this topic are not representative of historical baptist beliefs on it, how/who are we as laity to follow in our understanding? Why have the historical Baptist beliefs on baptism dissolved into todays symbolism that is widely proclaimed? Why does something so basic to the faith such as baptism not have a unified understanding in Baptist denomination when all baptists through time would claim that their beliefs are purely based on the truth in scripture alone?
In full disclosure: I say this as someone who grew up very nominally Baptist and my adult/sincere Christian life has been in Baptist and reformed circles but openly say that I have been exploring more orthodox and catholic theology over the past year.
Thank you for the sincerity, genuineness and humble heart with which you approach your ministry. It is a phenomenal example to emulate and I have benefited greatly.
Good video Gavin - I found it helpful to understand your own view better (and apparently a historical Baptist view). As a touchpoint, let me refer to your discussion around the 21 minute mark regarding norms and exceptions. Before, I plunge into differences, I would hope that all Christians would agree that God is the ultimate or “principal cause” of regeneration with any other cause being secondary in some sense - I hope we can all hold that in common (I know that is the Catholic position via instrumental causes). But to get into the differences, with respect to the Sacrament of Baptism, it seems one way to put it, is that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox position is generally that water Baptism is the “normative cause” (with noted exceptions- baptism of desire, blood ) of regeneration while the your Baptist position is that Faith is the normative cause and that Baptism is normally (with plenty of exceptions) the supreme occasion of manifesting the regeneration caused by Faith. That probably boils both views down a little too quickly but RUclips comments are no place for an extended analysis(this will be long enough).
I do think that Baptist position is a plausible reading of the NT and of the Fathers ( a little bit less so with respect to the latter ). But my defense of the Catholic/Orthodox reading is 1) I just think it better and more coherently holds together the differing uses of “saves” and the other tension points in the NT/Fathers you raise. 2) Since this is the view of all three major and ancient streams of the Church (RC, EO, OO) that itself is a significant argument for me (at the very least a “tiebreaker” ). We can add Lutherans to a large degree- with perhaps some hesitation on their part about the nuances of “cause”. I also think one should not consider this issue in isolation to the other dividing issues. Again, across all these dividing issues, I think Protestant just is not as satisfying in bringing it all together in a coherent whole as RC/EO/OO. For me, there are too many breakpoints with consistent positions (and liturgical “teaching”!!!) held by the East and West from roughly 800-1500 to have remained a Protestant. The Reformation rupture was only “necessary” if a clear heterodoxy was being taught /practiced - but for 700 years? And then taking your view of the nuanced differences between us - with such nuances was it really right to break apart the unity of the Church. Finally, and, here I am speaking as a Catholic, I also find in the Catholic Church the fullness of catholicity across time and space. And of course, all of the above amounts to being convinced the Catholic Church also has the fullness of Truth. Not the perfect truth, but the fullest Truth as we can receive in this world - we will only approach a perfect understanding of all these things in the world to come with the Beatific Vision.
You left out the Assyrian Church of the East and classical Anglicanism.
thank you for the thoughtful and well stated comment!
@@Mygoalwogel sure . Thanks
Why is the emotion response to conversion the test of whether a person is regenerate or not?
It's not. Spiritual fruit reveals the tree. Matthew 7:15-20.
@@TruthUnites My point is that a person can have a conversion experience and be filled with enthusiasm for the faith without salvation necessarily attaching. Buddha had a profound conversion experience which significantly altered his behavior. But a Christian cannot say that Buddha's conversion experience was salvific.
I don't believe that your argument that the fathers termed other things as salvific in addition to baptism and so therefore baptism is not the cause of salvation actually works. To use an analogy:
Let's say I want to climb Mt. Everest. There is a whole chain of events which has to occur before I get to the summit. The final part of the chain is traversing the Hillary step and then climbing the remaining 300 feet to the summit. Certainly, traversing the Hillary step and climbing to the summit is not the sole cause of summiting the mountain. But if I turn back before the Hillary step, I haven't summited the mountain. So while traversing the Hillary step may not be the sole cause of summiting Everest, it is a cause. And you cannot get to the summit without it.
I’ll be honest, for years now I thought my view of baptism was in the serious minority because I was baptist yet I had always described baptism as the “seal” or “objectification” of salvation and not the cause. I always was comfortable with baptism saving, yet in all my church contexts they always said baptism does not save. I thought maybe I should be Lutheran at a point since they believed in baptismal regeneration but were Protestant, yet I didn’t believe it regenerated or in baptizing babies. I was confused. It’s good to know that I am not alone and this is the historic view of my denomination.
What if someone believes but is not baptised?
I believe that person is still saved, because salvation occurs when you believe, not when you get baptised.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
John 5:24
@@JosefFurg1611 That person is an oxymoron. Do they not believe the words of Jesus and the Holy Ghost when They say to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? What then do they believe in? The idea of Jesus? What if Abraham believed God but didn't try to sacrifice his son? Would he still be justified? Would he still be called the Friend of God?
Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved* ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Excellent! Very helpful!
Im not interested in debating but more so seeking advice. How would one go about telling their southern baptist pastor that they are going to convert to Catholicism? My wife and kids will still be attending the southern baptist church. Any advice would be appreciated
Why not Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East?
@@Mygoalwogel im convinced of the papacy purgatory and the differences between mortal and venial sin. I know the orthodox have a very rich history but im not really looking to debate. I was hoping to get some advice on my situation and i figured a baptist pastor would be a good person to ask
Whew...Relatable...
I honestly can't see how one goes to Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you are going to accept that much doctrinal development, maybe choose the church whose last 5 leaders aren't manifest heretics.
NEWSFLASH:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "one true Church" as most Catholics are going around..LYING AND DECEIVING people about!
The evidence shows.. it's the complete OPPOSITE!
The Catholic Church is NOT a Church..but an organization.. NOT "created by God"..as you been indoctrinated to believe...but arguably by Satan Himself!
In fact, the undeniable evidence shows.. "The Gates of Hell"..have CLEARLY prevailed against the Corrupt Roman Catholic Church--from it's very beginning..to the Present!
That said, Jesus declared:
"You will know them by their FRUIT"!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has produced..Century after Century...Decade after Decade...Year after Year...from the it's very beginning...to the Present---ROTTEN "FRUIT" !
Accordingly, The Roman Catholic Church or should I say Cult and False Religion..undeniably Lied and Deceived the public and the world..as it CONTINUES to do so..going back centuries with it's History of Corruption!
Let's take a look at just some of the irrefutable evidence!
Here are just some samples for starters--
Catholic Pope John XII..took part in Murdering, invoking Demons, and even having Sex with his own Biological Sisters! 😮
Indeed, Pope John XII's Sexual Sin and Adultery, ended up being his demise however, after a husband caught his wife in bed with Pope John XII and beat the Pope John XII so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries!
Then there was Catholic Pope Boniface VIll ..He was accused of “Heresy, Simony, Embezzlement of crusade funds, Warmongering, Assassination, Idolatry, Blasphemies, Demon Worship, Fornication, and Sodomy" aka (Homosexuality)! 😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Benedict IX --during the time between his reigns, he started Thieving, Murdering and committing other 'unspeakable deeds' throughout the city.
He became the Catholic Pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave!
Then there was Catholic Pope Alexander VI ..Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming the Catholic Pope!
During Catholic Alexander VI's time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions!
Pope Alexander VI is reported as being a "Conniving" Pope in Politics as well as well as having sex with every girl in sight!
Consequently Pope Alexander VI fathered at least nine children, that we know of, and was famous for hosting a series of "Orgies" throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ ! 😮
In fact, it even gets worse..considering the multiple reports..where Pope Alexander VI..engaged in INCEST sex with his own biological DAUGHTER, Lucrezia!😮
Then there was Catholic Pope Sergius III.
Pope Sergius III didn’t just kill the Catholic Pope prior to him, but he also killed the Catholic Pope before that,😮 timing his arrival to reign perfectly!
Pope Sergius lll then used his power to set up his son, Catholic Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be the Catholic Pope..twenty years after him!
Then there is Catholic Pope Innocent VIII! Pope Innocent VIII was NOT so innocent!
He was the very first Catholic Pope in existence to openly confirm his ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, which was around EIGHT KIDS at the time, with speculation of it growing!
Before this Catholic Pope Innocent VIII's open admission, these "bastards" (illegitimate Children) were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews'!
Pope Innocent VIII was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484!
Then there was Catholic Pope Julius II starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times!
But by far Pope Julius II worst feature, was his severe case of Syphilis, which he contracted by having sex with countless prostitutes!
Because of his Syphilis he got from being promiscuous, it was documented that on Good Friday, Pope Julius II's feet were so covered by sores, that no one was able to kiss them!
Then there was Catholic Pope Paul IV,
known as one of the worst Popes for being an Extreme Racist, especially with his horrific acts..of Anti-Semitism!
Instead of being the moral symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, Racist Catholic Pope Paul IV instead. created a Jewish ghetto, in a section of the Roman city...forcing Jewish people to publicize themselves..by wearing yellow hats!😮
Pope Paul IV was such a hated Catholic Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city!
Undoubtedly, I have just scratched the surface, with the many examples of the Roman Catholic Church's Corruption throughout History!
In fact, time limits me..but I could go on and on!
Indeed, it's undeniably endless!
In fact, the Corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which the "Gates of Hell" have clearly prevailed against it continues today..as we have aprox 330,000 children (and counting) that have been Raped and Sexually Assaulted by aprox 4,000 (and counting)--First Degree Felon Criminal Catholic Priests..all of which the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church unsuccessfully tried to cover up...until they got caught!😮
Indeed, ONLY Brainwashed people who have no independent critical thinking skills, would continue to stay in this man made organization with undeniable overwhelming irrefutable evidence of having a long history of bad "Fruit" and Corruption!
Pastor Ortlund I have on several occasions, because I have e few relatives that are Church of Christ, had discussions on baptismal regeneration and the Biblical truth of Grace alone by Faith alone. I’m a fairly new Christian, 14 years, Praise Jesus, and have been drawn to apologetics,namely the various differences in the way the Bible has been interpreted. Thank you for your Biblical and logic based teaching.
Interesting. I believe in baptismal regeneration, in the sense that it is part of the salvation process, but I do not believe that if someone genuinely repent of their sins, and believes on the Lord Jesus and dies of a heart attack 30 minutes later before they come to the understanding, or have the opportunity for baptism that they would be lost. If someone were to refuse to take on the name of the Lord Jesus and baptism after they are illuminated, I would be very concerned, but some people are just confused. I definitely believe God is working in baptism for sure, but I definitely do not go, so far as the church of Christ does.
In Acts 10, Cornelius and his bunch were filled with the Spirit, THEN Peter commanded them to be baptized.
I am Catholic. I think that we should all be able to understand that the conception of the new birth happens with prevenient grace. This is when Christ through the Spirit grabs us by the hand and pulls us to His bossom. Baptism then is the new life coming to full birth where we then leave the bossom of Christ and enter into Christ. Our initial union with Christ and being brought to his bossom is through prevenient grace, and our new life IN Christ is through baptism. This is why the doorway into Christ was opened in his side, where blood and water flowed out
Lots of double speak . It is but it isn't.
I am curious about your response to Titus 3:5. I don't think "washing of regeneration" can mean anything other than "baptism of regeneration." I don't disagree with your attempts to define and explain baptismal regeneration, but if baptismal regeneration is biblical language, then we need to define it, not deny it. Sometimes, wording matters. Because Protestants--I'm a Protestant--are afraid of the term, it has to affect them in the reading of Scripture, but more so in the reading of the fathers. Justin, for example, says, "We take them to water, and there they are regenerated in the same manner we were." That terminology, as you know, is universal, or almost so, in the ante-Nicene fathers. I found the phrase "laver of regeneration" in both Origen's and Cyprian's writings. You are willing, because of 2 Peter 3:21, to say "baptism saves you," then explain what you mean. Why, then, are you not equally willing to say, "Baptism is the 'washing' and 'laver' of regeneration, then explain what you mean"?
I would add to this that in your discussion with Trent Horn about the same subject, Trent was trying to hold to the term "baptismal regeneration," but soften it with his descriptions, while you were rejecting the term, but in softening your rejection of it, you and Trent got very, very close, at least in my opinion, in describing what you believe, while one of you only rejected the term baptismal regeneration. I think Scripture calls you to accept it. Thoughts?
Without having to spend hours watching all your other videos, can you distill the context of your historical view of Baptists? Namely, do you view Baptists as Protestants, or rather as in a lineage from the apostolic age through the dark ages? Thanks in advance for the clarification!
I view Baptists as Protestants. Hope that answers what you are asking!
@@TruthUnites Yes, that helps me understand the context of your teaching. Much appreciated!
One more thing. This is my second comment. In Acts, baptism is always immediate. Even with Paul, there is not just Acts 9, but Acts 22, where Paul says that Ananias told him, "What are you waiting for? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The Didache, very early, mentions the church fasting and praying with a convert for a couple days, but that did not happen in Acts, and it was not always before the church in Acts (e.g., Philippian jailer). Baptismal regeneration may seem more scary to us now that time and tradition have us waiting a long time to be baptized. I know that what you mentioned in the video, six months of catechesis, was normal by no later than the early third century, but there was no such thing in Acts. Today, evangelicals use the "sinner's prayer" in the same way the apostles used baptism. I would say that most Baptists believe in "sinner's prayer regeneration" in exactly the same way the apostles taught baptismal regeneration.
As usual, this discussion on a complex issue is very insightful. It is disappointing, however, that Acts 8 was not discussed. I would love to hear a response to the following passage.
“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 8:14-17 KJV
This point is even more clear in modern translations.
I think that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration - that baptism is a/the means unto salvation; that anyone who is baptised is saved; that anyone (including infants) who dies unbaptised is "damned"; etc, - is/was pre-requisite to the doctrine/idea of purgatory.
Let me explain: in the Western medievel world EVERYONE was "Christian" - they were all baptised as infants and were therefore all "Christian"; they were all members of the Church; they all were saved; and all were guaranteed admittance to heaven. But, it is evident by their lives that many of these "Chistians" (kings, princes, bishops, etc) were wicked, evil people - they murdered, they committed adultery, had mistresses, exploited the poor, etc. These evil, wicked "Christians" were baptised "Christians" - Guaranteed a place in heaven.
Thus, in my opinion, a doctrine of purgatory was developped as a response - these wicked, evil people had to be purified of their wickedness ..... if not in this life, then in the next.
Perhaps this connnevtion was more sub-conscience than conscience. But there was a need to reconcile the fact - that these wicked, evil people were "Christians" and yet, in spite of their wickedness were "guaranteed" a place in heaven.