It is no accident the churches which do away with the biblical sacraments often end up inventing sacraments of their own, such as the altar call or the evidence of speaking in tongues, or the goosebumps.
An altar call is not a sacrament, but just a fishing net. Once the fish are caught, you disciple and baptise. If you don’t like that fishing net, use a different one. But maybe you should avoid scandalising other churches.
@@ntlearning In my experience, altar calls have become synonymous with salvation: that somehow the Holy Spirit really isn’t moving you unless you “walk the aisle.” Yes indeed it is sacramental in the way it has been used. The object of faith becomes one’s physical position in the church and not believing on the person and work of Christ. Before the 19th century, there never was such a thing as the altar call. Why does one’s salvation depend on where one is standing in the church? And if you say (rightly) that it doesn’t, why do it?
@@Outrider74 Protestants believe in only 2 sacraments: The Lords Supper and Baptism. Show me an evangelical church that publishes that altar calls are a sacrament on their website or church confession? You can’t because no one believes that. Altar Calls are adiaphoristic. It is simply a method of evangelism, and is not biblical nor is it forbidden in the Bible. Just like any NT church using incense or vestments like the Levites did, even though the NT says nothing about that. It’s only one method of evangelism. There are others also. Handing out pamphlets isn’t in the Bible either. I’ve seen people on altar calls never come back, and I’ve seen people go on in faith and get baptised and living on fire for Jesus Christ growing in Him. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. And Ive also seen people get baptised Catholics or high church Protestants and they are sleeping around, clubbing, swearing like pagans that show no evidence of being regenerated or born again. If some one makes a decision for Christ on a bus, or at work or on an altar call, it must be in faith. It has nothing to do with church membership. Same in baptism. If one doesn’t come in faith, then it’s just a water bath they get.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)
The fascinating aspect of all of this is that as much as the Biblical passages here cited are clearly teaching 'baptismal regenerationism', if you lack the proper worldview of what many 20th century theologians call the "Sacramental Imagination", you will simply dismiss these obvious interpretations and opt for more convulted ways of getting around the uncomfortable conclusions. The issue is more foundational than "what does the text say about baptism..?", and is rather, "what is our theology of the relationship between God and the material world?" I tend to think _Gnosticism_ is thrown around like a boogeyman nowadays (especially by those who denigrate Greek philosophy generally and Scholasticism in particular).. but in this regard, I think there are some leanings in modern evangelicalism.
I think you're totally right on this front. This is a worldview problem more than anything. I believe a healthy place to start is our Christology. The God-Man works the divine through the material. It is the blood (material) of God (immaterial) that saves our souls (immaterial). Christ Himself is the chief sacrament and the key to helping us understand the relationship between material and immaterial.
Indeed (though the gnosis is not secret, it is openly proclaimed). Perhaps another way of putting it is that salvation is a Platonic escape for most credo-baptists. The body with its passions and pains is a necessary burden till we can attain the spiritual fulness of heaven.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)
As someone who moved from Baptist to reformed baptist this video is very interesting! I don't think baptism is just something we do to show our commitment to God, and I do believe baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but I also think regeneration precedes faith rather than being withheld to baptism. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sins and a clean conscience, but those are also received in faith. It is less like a ring in a marriage and more like the wedding itself. One can be married apart from a wedding, sure, but you can also say that a wedding is when you got married and not be lying. Or a king's coronation, where you can truly say that that is where the man became king, even when he was king before that moment. Both of these examples are also things that are done to willing participants, rather than things they do themselves. Also on infant faith I think infants can have faith! I am appalled at baptist churches which require a person to be like 20 to be baptized. As soon as a little one displays faith they should be baptized! I just don't think we should assume that all infants have faith. Point of clarification: do all infants have faith, or is it just the infants of believers? So overall, I think this is a good video critiquing broad evangelicalism, though I disagree on the particulars of how baptism is efficacious and whether baptism of infants should be infants according to faith or infants according to flesh.
Have you ever read this? It seems Luther himself was not fully consistent on this matter. Early in his ministry, Luther tended to emphasize the importance of faith in baptism, especially against the sacramental Catholic view. In 1520 Luther wrote The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, partially for the purpose of attacking how Catholicism had turned the sacraments into empty rituals devoid of faith. He claimed that, “It is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfills that which baptism signifies.”9 As late as 1522, Luther preached on the centrality of faith and baptism as merely a sign pointing to Christ.10 Luther argued that human faith is necessary for baptism to be profitable, even to the point of arguing that faith without the sacrament could still be salvific.11 Basing his argument on Mark 16:16, “the one who believes and is baptized will be saved,” Luther claimed, “Where there is a divine promise, there everyone must stand on his own feet; his own personal faith is demanded.”12 He declared, “It is not the sacrament but faith in the sacrament that justifies,” and then quoted Augustine, “It justifies not because it is performed but because it is believed.”13 The younger Luther clearly saw faith as necessary for baptism. Several years later, a different threat-the Anabaptist movement- appeared. Luther again felt the need to publicly counter a theology he deemed false. Luther likely had very little understanding of the views of Anabaptists, and even “may never actually have seen a genuine Anabaptist face to face.” 14 8 David P. Scaer, “Luther, Baptism, and the Church Today,” CTQ 62.4 (1998): 252. 9 Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Abdel Ross Wentz and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), 36:66. 10 Samuel Byung-doo Nam, “A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Understanding of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Hubmaier” (Ph.D. diss., Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), 80. 11 Bryan D. Spinks, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From Luther to Contemporary Practices (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 6. 12 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 36:49. 13 Martin Luther, Lectures on Hebrews, in Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, eds., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia, 1968), 29:172. 14 Jaroslav J. Pelikan, “Luther’s Defense of Infant Baptism,” in Luther for an Ecumenical Age: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation,
Yes, everything you said there is in line with the Lutheran view. The water itself does not do anything - but the Word of God that Jesus spoke in the Great Commission that says: "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - that does the work. That means "in the power and presence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That power and presence of God given in baptism is what matters. However, these words are commanded (by Jesus!!!) to be given to the believer with water. It is God-filled water. You are baptized with these words *and* water. If words spoken to you earlier gave you faith, forgiveness of sins, and the power and presence of God (like what happened with me - I believed many months before I got baptized), then great! But God still wants water -- which saves nobody on its own - involved. So, to complete and seal the presence of God within you, water baptism must be done. Otherwise, God's way of giving you salvation is being hindered. Can God still save even if you hinder him? Of course. But that does not mean it is right. And where could I get the idea that baptism seals you in your faith? Simple. In Collossians 2, Paul refers to the putting away of the flesh as something like a circumcision - and then he says this happens via the circumcision of Christ - which he then equates with baptism. Translation: Baptism is the new circumcision. And Paul says in Romans 4 that circumcision sealed the righteousness that Abraham had within him by faith (and Paul then goes on to chastise improper views/use of circumcision!). And Genesis is clear that circumcision is a covenant - or a promise - from God to be faithful to Abraham and his heirs and work salvation among them. Like some sort of a contract. Translation: Baptism is a contract from God toward you - and a promise - that He will be faithful -- and He literally gives His presence to you in the waters of baptism, as well. Why does that matter? A solid contract from God that you are saved gives you something to lean on and connect to the cross with. It's a contract that was physically applied to you with the presence of God. This is why in Romans 6 Paul encourages to lean on our baptism to fight the old self. It's not about the water. It's about the promise or solid contract from God that we are buried with him. If this seems like it's making too big of a deal out of baptism, then do understand that two of the three persons of the Trinity appeared visibly when Jesus got baptized - and the Father was heard. This happens nowhere else in the Bible that all three persons of our God are present in this way. And then Jesus refers to his death on the cross as a baptism, and the first preaching in Acts involves Peter encouarging baptism. It's a big deal, and there's no need to worry about focusing too much on it. The issue is that there are a lot of ignorant pastors and theologians in America who spread bad teachings in our country. And regarding Luther, there are tons and tons and tons of writings from Luther - even late in his life - on this matter. I highly recommend reading this collection of sermons on baptism by Martin Luther: www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-Holy-Baptism-Sermons/dp/0758659725
I grew up in a Lutheran culture where 90% of infants were baptized and later confirmed, but only 10% considered themselves Christian as adults…. Perhaps it was deficiency in the sprinkling method. (Sarcasm)
It’s true that many people do not continue in the faith. I experienced the same thing in an evangelical church. Many of the children and teen ages who “prayed the sinners prayer” stopped attending church as adults.
This is one instance of getting baptized more than once. Acts 19:2-6 KJV [2] he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
“The fact” is that they are two different baptisms. John’s baptism is not the baptism that Jesus mandated in the great commission. So it has no bearing on anything. The most analogous modern version of this would be someone being baptized in the name of Jesus rather than the trinitarian formula. This person would be “re baptized” but they were not baptized in true Christian baptism in the first place.
You are talking about two different Baptisms 😅. The first one is John the baptizer’s baptism which points to Jesus’s baptism (the Trinitarian baptism). These were disciples of John who had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. If you have not been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, you need to receive this NT baptism. The Bible is clear that there is “one” baptism.
I actually have heard some scriptural arguments for baptism being a work. One is when Jesus goes to John the Baptist to be baptized, Jesus says that he must be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness". Another is the parallel Paul draws between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2, and we already know from Galatians baptism is a work. Therefore, if the parallel works, then it seems baptism is a work. Would you mind responding to these please?
Sorry that I'm just responding, all of the owners are really busy this week. Anyway, thank you for pointing this out! Never seen this verse used in that way. Regarding the fulfillment of righteousness, we don't deny that Christ works are meritorious. So if the baptism of Christ is "a work" that doesn't harm our position because we receive what He did in our baptism, which is passive. Look at all the passages and you'll notice that for us, they're passive. In baptism, we receive something. In general, it's very questionable to use something Christ did that we repeat as an establishment of doctrine. Description vs. prescription if that makes sense. The Early Church (as really evident in Irenaeus) argued that in His baptism, Christ sanctified the waters for us. His work cleansed the waters so we could receive the gifts of baptism. Regarding the parallels between circumcision and baptism, it's arguably a type and shadow deal. Just as the Law couldn't save but foreshadowed the Gospel by pointing to Christ in some ways, so too circumcision points us to baptism because it is the spiritual circumcision. Circumcision is fleshly, but baptism is spiritual. It's no longer us fulfilling the Law, but us receiving the Gospel, which is why baptism is so much greater than circumcision. On top of all this we either synthesize the sola fide passages with baptismal passages by reasonably affirming that baptism doesn't contradict sola fide, or we obscure the baptismal passages or sola fide passages. Hope this helps!
Jesus did a work on the cross. We do not "work" when we believe in the cross and when God gives us the cross. So, even if Jesus "worked" when he got baptized, it doesn't automatically imply that we "work" when we get baptized. But if you notice, Jesus does nothing in his baptism - the work is all what John does and what the other persons of the Trinity do. It fulfills all righteousness for other human beings for God to baptize Jesus - or for God to baptize Himself. It fulfills righteousness when I believe in the gospel. That does not make my believing a work. Lastly, circumcision is not a work - and Paul circumcises someone in Acts (either Timothy or Titus, I forget whom). Rather, in Galatians, circumcision was being treated as a work by the Galatian believers - it was treated as something they must do before God to justify themselves. Thus, it became a work. Anything that we think we have to "do" for God for salvation becomes a "work." That doesn't mean that the activity is a work in and of itself. If you, tomorrow, start thinking that your faith justifies you because of the effort you put into your faith - and the how well you believe - then your faith will be morphed into a work (and such views could eventually cut you off from God!). But justifying faith itself - properly understood as a recieving mechanism of Christ's work on the cross - is not a work. Anything can be made into a work with the wrong view. That's the message of Galatians.
Do you think that getting re-baptized is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (unforgivable) or just blasphemy against Jesus (forgivable) Because what people are doing is saying that God’s Word has no power in baptism when they deny their baptism and do it over again.
No I don't think it's quite that serious. I think people can absolutely be forgiven for being rebaptized. I know people who've been baptized multiple times, then converted and realized their mistake. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is persistent unbelief. It's unbelief to the end of life, as Augustine says. - Jared
@@ScholasticLutherans another question. I’ve grown up in churches and currently attend one that believe that the Lord’s Supper is just a symbol. Am I actively missing out by not going to a Lutheran church and taking communion there, or should I continue to attend my college church (reformed baptist-ish) because they still do a good job of preaching the gospel and making disciples?
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)
😅 you go to the text that actually says “baptism saves you” and add the word “NOT” to God’s Word? I am an ex baptist. I had to choose God over baptists teachings.
Let me be clear on this... without Apostolic Roots and Succession, there is no valid sacrament including Baptism. In the Bible we have a person named Simon who tried to buy a gift of Holy Spirit and take it outside of the Church. He met his doom. In the (1 Tim 4, 14-16) is the explanation as to what Apostolic Succession is and includes: 1) Gift newly ordained priest receives via Laying on of Hands v. 14, and 2) Having correct doctrines v. 16. What that translated into Apostolic means that person performing Baptism must have unbroken lineage in ordinations from the Apostles all the way until our days. If we look at the present day RCC, EOC and Orientals who only have roots that are 2000 years old, RCC & Orientals do not have succession in teachings and are thus invalid, which leaves EOC only one with the clergy having Apostolic Succession and thus can perform true Baptism. Protestants.? Their roots are only 500 years old.
I was disappointed with this explanation. You need to be more “forensic” with your approach and less aggressive about Evangelicalism. Here are the issues I’m working through: First, though salvation is declared to be wholly of God, who alone can save, it has yet been taught in some portions of the Church (like yours) that God in working salvation does not operate upon the human soul directly but indirectly through instrumentalities which he has established as the means by which his saving grace is communicated to men. As these instrumentalities are committed to human hands for their administration, a human factor is thus intruded between the saving grace of God and its effective operation in the souls of men; and this human factor indeed, is made the determining factor in salvation. The whole point of evangelicalism is to be faithful to sola fide. So by high church Lutherans introducing a sacerdotal requirement is starting to play with fire on sola fide. This is the accusation being made. Please explain. Second: In the interests of the pure supernaturalism of salvation, True evangelicalism insists that God himself works by his grace immediately on the souls of men, and has not suspended any man's salvation upon the faithfulness or caprice of his fellows. Protestantism, as opposed to Rome, suspends the welfare of the soul directly, without any intermediaries at all, upon the grace of God alone. The whole argument here is that justification is an alien righteousness, and man is justified by Christ even though his inward self is not changed. But I just watched a traditional sedevacantist attack Luther and evangelicals using your very argument! That baptism is where regeneration happens and where grace is infused and therefore justification, hence Luther is a heretic. How do Lutherans respond to this? Would you like the link? Regarding infant baptism: Does a baby really have faith? And what about David’s baby to Bathsheba? Died after 7 days without circumcision but David said he will be with baby one day in heaven. And that’s the OT! Thoughts?
I'm not the guy who did the video (nor am I affiliated with this channel... I don't know these guys), but here's my response as a Lutheran, for what it's worth! Regarding your first point, you're technically adopting a Catholic or Orthodox mindset (even though you're using that mindset in a Calvinist direction). Many (though perhaps not all) Catholics and Orthodox claim that without Mary agreeing to bear Jesus in her womb, the world would not have been saved. This is why she is a co-mediatrix and co-savior with Jesus according to some in those churches - the Queen of the Universe (there's literally an Orlando church called Mary Queen of the Universe -- scary stuff - look it up!). And even if these views are not universally accepted by every member of those churches, the one thing they agree on is that Mary's "yes," was a vital part of human salvation - and it shows how humans work with God to achieve that salvation. However, the classical Protestant view - both Reformed and Lutheran - claim that Mary's "yes" was no more proving the need for God to work with humans than Judas' betrayal, Pontius Pilate's presiding, nor the crowd's demands for Jesus' crucifixion. At the end of the day, God is in control of all events. God foresaw that Mary would say yes -- and he even was the one who worked the faith in her to say yes. Just like we our faith is not something we do but is something God works in us to recieve Christ spiritually, Mary's faith was something God worked in her to recieve Christ physically (and spiritually, for that matter). The human factor in Mary's "yes" to God was not really human work nor cooperation - it was just God doing what God does - working through human means and human instruments to save people. In the same sense, God works a will to hear the gospel and be saved thereby. In the same sense, God works a will in evanglists to spread the Good News. In the same sense, God works all things to the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), and it is also God who works in us to will anything and do anything whatsoever for Him (Phillipians 2:13). With all of this, God using instruments -- the Word, Baptism, or the Lord's Supper - to work salvation in the hearts and minds of people - is no different than the above. In fact, if I'm right in what I'm saying, then God will be using me as an instrument to say these things - and if I am wrong - and you correct me in a subsequent comment - then God will use you as an instrument for me. This is how God works. He allowed a tree to become an instrument of a self-cursing for Adam and Eve, and he actively used a new tree - the cross - as a physical instrument of salvation for the world. In case you still feel like I'm not addressing your point, let me just state that in God and through God we have our being -- we all exist in God - and God controls all - and He works whatever He wills whenever it pleases Him - so any instrument is fully within his control - whether that instrument is a human being, an object, a cross, water, or whatever. To say otherwise is to believe as Catholics and Orthodox believe. And if you are one of those, then great! We have many other debates to have. But surely, you'll see where I am coming from. If we are all in God, and God can raise up children of Abraham from stones - then who are we to obsess about a "human element?" And human element or instrument is just God at work. God intended Joseph being thrown into a pit as a good thing - Genesis literally states that God wanted this to happen for Joseph, even though the human element (his brothers) intended it for evil. God is in complete control. He controls all instruments and human elements. When he allows humans to resist him, it is by His choice that he allows such things. He could stop that in a moment, if he so desired. (continued below)
(continued from above) Regarding the sacerdotal element, this is not how we view things. Baptism is not a work that we do at all. Somebody else baptizes you! But God can also save without baptism. Why, then do we say that baptism is necessary? Well, part of that phrasing is due to the limits of human language. But here's an explanation as to why we need baptism and what purpose it serves... I just wrote this to a different commenter above. I'll copy and paste it here, and the next "line" you see below (like what I used before this paragraph) will serve as a marker for the end of the copied and pasted section. Here's what I wrote (with one modification in the first line): The water in baptism itself does not do anything - but it is the Word of God that Jesus spoke in the Great Commission that says: "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - that does the work. That means "in the power and presence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That power and presence of God given in baptism is what matters. However, these words are commanded (by Jesus!!!) to be given to the believer with water. It is God-filled water. You are baptized with these words *and* water. If words spoken to you earlier gave you faith, forgiveness of sins, and the power and presence of God (like what happened with me - I believed many months before I got baptized), then great! But God still wants water -- which saves nobody on its own - involved. So, to complete and seal the presence of God within you, water baptism must be done. Otherwise, God's way of giving you salvation is being hindered. Can God still save even if you hinder him? Of course. But that does not mean it is right. And where could I get the idea that baptism seals you in your faith? Simple. In Collossians 2, Paul refers to the putting away of the flesh as something like a circumcision - and then he says this happens via the circumcision of Christ - which he then equates with baptism. Translation: Baptism is the new circumcision. And Paul says in Romans 4 that circumcision sealed the righteousness that Abraham had within him by faith (and Paul then goes on to chastise improper views/use of circumcision!). And Genesis is clear that circumcision is a covenant - or a promise - from God to be faithful to Abraham and his heirs and work salvation among them. Like some sort of a contract. Translation: Baptism is a contract from God toward you - and a promise - that He will be faithful -- and He literally gives His presence to you in the waters of baptism, as well. Why does that matter? A solid contract from God that you are saved gives you something to lean on and connect to the cross with. It's a contract that was physically applied to you with the presence of God. This is why in Romans 6 Paul encourages to lean on our baptism to fight the old self. It's not about the water. It's about the promise or solid contract from God that we are buried with him. If this seems like it's making too big of a deal out of baptism, then do understand that two of the three persons of the Trinity appeared visibly when Jesus got baptized - and the Father was heard. This happens nowhere else in the Bible that all three persons of our God are present in this way. And then Jesus refers to his death on the cross as a baptism, and the first preaching in Acts involves Peter encourging baptism. It's a big deal, and there's no need to worry about focusing too much on it. ----------------------------- (continued below)
(continued from above) Regarding what you said about the sedevacantist Catholic, your key point is when they said that "grace" is "infused" in baptism. They think that grace is a power of sorts - and that it is merged into us. As a result, they think we have to continue to abide in this power and do certain things to stay "saved." If we do not, then guess what? They claim that we lose the grace of baptism. Seriously. And they claim it can only be restored by confession - and then using both faith and works to make ourselves right with God. We Lutherans are totally different. We believe (and this will clear up a lot of things for you... I almost feel like I should have said this earlier, but God is telling me to leave things as they are... so here goes...)... we believe that the whole world had its sins nailed to the cross when Jesus died. Even Hitler's sins were nailed to the cross. Everyone. In a weird way, everyone was saved on the cross... except... if you don't believe, you're damned. How can we say that? How can we say that everyone is saved... and yet everyone isn't saved? Well, here's the key. My salvation and your salvation didn't occur when we first believed. It occurred 2000 years ago on the cross - along with the whole world's salvation. But what if we hadn't believed? What if you hadn't believed? Well, guess what? You'd then have other gods. Maybe your family would be a god to you. Or your friends. Or your happiness. Your pleasure. Maybe music. Maybe video games. Who knows? But you would have a different "god" than what you currently have. Because a "god" is whatever we take ultimate comfort and solace in. You would have something like that, and it would be your god. When you worship another god besides the one true God who died on the cross for you, then you are basically rejecting the one true God. This turning away from God cuts us off from the cross. It cuts us off from where our salvation happened. And that damns us to hell. So, with someone as evil as Hitler, he was actually forgiven on the cross 2000 years ago -- but he worshipped other gods. And he thereby cut himself off from the source of his salvation - and spit in Christ's face. As such, he is now burning in hell for all eternity (or he will burn after judgement day... I'm still unclear what happens immediately after death... I need to look that up!). So, everyone is saved on the cross, but if you cut yourself off from the cross - then you cut yourself off from that salvation. And you don't get heaven! Now, with all of that out of the way, since the salvation was already accomplished on the cross, it's now a question of how God gives that to us. He gives it to us through the preaching of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These three ways of God giving us the cross and connecting us to the cross don't get in each other's way. He gives us words of salvation, water with words, and bread and wine with words. It's all kind of the same thing. The key thing is, we Lutherans don't believe in "once saved always saved" due to the parable of the sower and the seed. So, God keeps connecting us to the cross throughout our whole life. He keeps giving us the word, giving us comfort in prayer, and giving us communion. These things keep re-connecting us to the cross - where our salvation is. And baptism, as a one-time contract that was specially packed with His presence is kind of like a guarantee that we are His. It's his ultimate covenant with us. Therefore, remembering it as Paul commands us to do in Romans 6 keeps us connected to God's presence - without having us focusing on ourselves and our own efforts. Many other denominations always have to look at their works or their feelings to be assured that they have the cross. We have the word and the sacraments. And unlike Catholics, we do not believe that grace is a "power." We believe it's just divine favor. It's God saying that we are His child. And He does this through forgiveness of sins. So, grace is - most of the time in the Bible - forgiveness of sins. And it doesn't get "infused" into us. It gets proclaimed to us and laid over us. So, in baptism - like everywhere else - proclaims God's forgiveness to us. And it gives us His presence. Just like the Word of God. That's all! ------------------------------- (continued below)
(continued from above) Sorry, I've had difficulty with my replies. I just had to delete one, because it was out of order somehow. Anyway... here we go. Thank goodness I copied this to a Word doc. This is back to what I originally wrote to you without taking stuff from other comments that I wrote to others. Regarding what you said about the sedevacantist Catholic, your key point is when they said that "grace" is "infused" in baptism. They think that grace is a power of sorts - and that it is merged into us. As a result, they think we have to continue to abide in this power and do certain things to stay "saved." If we do not, then guess what? They claim that we lose the grace of baptism. Seriously. And they claim it can only be restored by confession - and then using both faith and works to make ourselves right with God. We Lutherans are totally different. We believe (and this will clear up a lot of things for you... I almost feel like I should have said this earlier, but God is telling me to leave things as they are... so here goes...)... we believe that the whole world had its sins nailed to the cross when Jesus died. Even Hitler's sins were nailed to the cross. Everyone. In a weird way, everyone was saved on the cross... except... if you don't believe, you're damned. How can we say that? How can we say that everyone is saved... and yet everyone isn't saved? Well, here's the key. My salvation and your salvation didn't occur when we first believed. It occurred 2000 years ago on the cross - along with the whole world's salvation. But what if we hadn't believed? What if you hadn't believed? Well, guess what? You'd then have other gods. Maybe your family would be a god to you. Or your friends. Or your happiness. Your pleasure. Maybe music. Maybe video games. Who knows? But you would have a different "god" than what you currently have. Because a "god" is whatever we take ultimate comfort and solace in. You would have something like that, and it would be your god. When you worship another god besides the one true God who died on the cross for you, then you are basically rejecting the one true God. This turning away from God cuts us off from the cross. It cuts us off from where our salvation happened. And that damns us to hell. So, with someone as evil as Hitler, he was actually forgiven on the cross 2000 years ago -- but he worshipped other gods. And he thereby cut himself off from the source of his salvation - and spit in Christ's face. As such, he is now burning in hell for all eternity (or he will burn after judgement day... I'm still unclear what happens immediately after death... I need to look that up!). So, everyone is saved on the cross, but if you cut yourself off from the cross - then you cut yourself off from that salvation. And you don't get heaven! Now, with all of that out of the way, since the salvation was already accomplished on the cross, it's now a question of how God gives that to us. He gives it to us through the preaching of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These three ways of God giving us the cross and connecting us to the cross don't get in each other's way. He gives us words of salvation, water with words, and bread and wine with words. It's all kind of the same thing. The key thing is, we Lutherans don't believe in "once saved always saved" due to the parable of the sower and the seed. So, God keeps connecting us to the cross throughout our whole life. He keeps giving us the word, giving us comfort in prayer, and giving us communion. These things keep re-connecting us to the cross - where our salvation is. And baptism, as a one-time contract that was specially packed with His presence is kind of like a guarantee that we are His. It's his ultimate covenant with us. Therefore, remembering it as Paul commands us to do in Romans 6 keeps us connected to God's presence - without having us focusing on ourselves and our own efforts. Many other denominations always have to look at their works or their feelings to be assured that they have the cross. We have the word and the sacraments. And unlike Catholics, we do not believe that grace is a "power." We believe it's just divine favor. It's God saying that we are His child. And He does this through forgiveness of sins. So, grace is - most of the time in the Bible - forgiveness of sins. And it doesn't get "infused" into us. It gets proclaimed to us and laid over us. So, in baptism - like everywhere else - proclaims God's forgiveness to us. And it gives us His presence. Just like the Word of God. That's all! ------------------------------------- (continued below)
(continued from above) So, regarding infant faith, infants don't have the capacity to resist God. They have sin. But they haven't developed their sin into a hardening of their heart yet. Adults have hardened their hearts and resist God. But if any adult had an unhardened heart and never resist God, then they would instantaneously believe. All of the earth testifies to God and His presence. A non-resisting adult would believe that God exists, and if they found out about Jesus, they would believe as well. Since babies are already non-resistant, they are already in a receptive (therefore faithful) state toward God. All that is needed is to apply the gospel to them. However, in the parable of the sower and the seed, it shows how one can lose the faith. When a baby grows older and is capable of understanding human language more -- if then, the gospel is not preached to them -- whatever they had in terms of belief will be snatched away by the devil. If we Lutherans are wrong regarding all of this, and only adults believe, Luther himself had an answer... he said that once someone starts believing, then the baptism will count for them and work as a sign that they are the Lord's - and the power and presence there will work on them. Think about it this way: I had a Bible about a year before I began to believe in Jesus Christ. When I first believed, did I need to burn my Bible and buy a new one? No, the one I had still worked and took on new meaning for me. The baptism infants recieve will mean something totally new once they believe as an adult -- if they lost their faith in childhood or if they never really did believe. They will be able to - the moment they believe - say "Wow, God has promised my that I am His in baptism, and I can know that I have been specially connected to the cross through it - I really am buried and risen with Christ -- my baptism confirms it!" It has that meaning the moment they believe. Regarding David's baby... that's cool! We don't say that baptism is absolutely necessary. And I know that that sounds weird since "necessary" means "absolutely needed." But if we just say it's "not necessary" then in English (and in many other languages), it makes it sound optional. It's necessary in the sense that God commands it, and it is something God wishes to use to save people and/or keep them saved. But it's not absolutely needed... so we split the difference and say "It's necessary but not absolutely necessary." Sometimes human language cannot fully explain the divine. We just have to work with what we have. The End! I hope that helped!
![The Semi-Pelagian Anthropology of Evangelicalism [Scriptum #4.2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NKQumQus3CU/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Semi-Pelagian Anthropology of Evangelicalism [Scriptum #4.2]](/img/tr.png)
![Some Thoughts on Contemporary Worship [Improviso #9]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wJcgGhTMnDQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![What Did John's Baptism Do? [Improviso #3]](/img/1.gif)
"All Baptism is infant baptism" Beautiful. The Lutheran BOTH AND instead of EITHER OR
It is no accident the churches which do away with the biblical sacraments often end up inventing sacraments of their own, such as the altar call or the evidence of speaking in tongues, or the goosebumps.
An altar call is not a sacrament, but just a fishing net. Once the fish are caught, you disciple and baptise.
If you don’t like that fishing net, use a different one. But maybe you should avoid scandalising other churches.
@@ntlearning In my experience, altar calls have become synonymous with salvation: that somehow the Holy Spirit really isn’t moving you unless you “walk the aisle.” Yes indeed it is sacramental in the way it has been used. The object of faith becomes one’s physical position in the church and not believing on the person and work of Christ. Before the 19th century, there never was such a thing as the altar call. Why does one’s salvation depend on where one is standing in the church? And if you say (rightly) that it doesn’t, why do it?
@@Outrider74 Protestants believe in only 2 sacraments: The Lords Supper and Baptism. Show me an evangelical church that publishes that altar calls are a sacrament on their website or church confession?
You can’t because no one believes that.
Altar Calls are adiaphoristic. It is simply a method of evangelism, and is not biblical nor is it forbidden in the Bible. Just like any NT church using incense or vestments like the Levites did, even though the NT says nothing about that.
It’s only one method of evangelism. There are others also. Handing out pamphlets isn’t in the Bible either.
I’ve seen people on altar calls never come back, and I’ve seen people go on in faith and get baptised and living on fire for Jesus Christ growing in Him. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t.
And Ive also seen people get baptised Catholics or high church Protestants and they are sleeping around, clubbing, swearing like pagans that show no evidence of being regenerated or born again.
If some one makes a decision for Christ on a bus, or at work or on an altar call, it must be in faith. It has nothing to do with church membership.
Same in baptism. If one doesn’t come in faith, then it’s just a water bath they get.
@@ntlearning Well there's your problem: Lutherans believe that no one can make a decision for Christ.
@@FvckFred For sure, but it aint a problem for me. God can call people out of darkness anywhere He chooses.
I'd love to see a Pentacostal "baptism of the Holy Spirit" debate/investigation on this channel. Great video
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
The fascinating aspect of all of this is that as much as the Biblical passages here cited are clearly teaching 'baptismal regenerationism', if you lack the proper worldview of what many 20th century theologians call the "Sacramental Imagination", you will simply dismiss these obvious interpretations and opt for more convulted ways of getting around the uncomfortable conclusions.
The issue is more foundational than "what does the text say about baptism..?", and is rather, "what is our theology of the relationship between God and the material world?" I tend to think _Gnosticism_ is thrown around like a boogeyman nowadays (especially by those who denigrate Greek philosophy generally and Scholasticism in particular).. but in this regard, I think there are some leanings in modern evangelicalism.
I think you're totally right on this front. This is a worldview problem more than anything. I believe a healthy place to start is our Christology. The God-Man works the divine through the material. It is the blood (material) of God (immaterial) that saves our souls (immaterial). Christ Himself is the chief sacrament and the key to helping us understand the relationship between material and immaterial.
Indeed (though the gnosis is not secret, it is openly proclaimed). Perhaps another way of putting it is that salvation is a Platonic escape for most credo-baptists. The body with its passions and pains is a necessary burden till we can attain the spiritual fulness of heaven.
Protestantism (evangelical) are heavily influenced by gnosticism
I like the citation of the 7th Gospel (after Bach's B Minor Mass and Isaiah), "Has American Christianity Failed?"
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
As someone who moved from Baptist to reformed baptist this video is very interesting! I don't think baptism is just something we do to show our commitment to God, and I do believe baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but I also think regeneration precedes faith rather than being withheld to baptism. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sins and a clean conscience, but those are also received in faith. It is less like a ring in a marriage and more like the wedding itself. One can be married apart from a wedding, sure, but you can also say that a wedding is when you got married and not be lying. Or a king's coronation, where you can truly say that that is where the man became king, even when he was king before that moment. Both of these examples are also things that are done to willing participants, rather than things they do themselves.
Also on infant faith I think infants can have faith! I am appalled at baptist churches which require a person to be like 20 to be baptized. As soon as a little one displays faith they should be baptized! I just don't think we should assume that all infants have faith. Point of clarification: do all infants have faith, or is it just the infants of believers?
So overall, I think this is a good video critiquing broad evangelicalism, though I disagree on the particulars of how baptism is efficacious and whether baptism of infants should be infants according to faith or infants according to flesh.
Have you ever read this? It seems Luther himself was not fully consistent on this matter.
Early in his ministry, Luther tended to emphasize the importance of faith in baptism, especially against the sacramental Catholic view. In 1520 Luther wrote The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, partially for the purpose of attacking how Catholicism had turned the sacraments into empty rituals devoid of faith. He claimed that, “It is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfills that which baptism signifies.”9 As late as 1522, Luther preached on the centrality of faith and baptism as merely a sign pointing to Christ.10 Luther argued that human faith is necessary for baptism to be profitable, even to the point of arguing that faith without the sacrament could still be salvific.11 Basing his argument on Mark 16:16, “the one who believes and is baptized will be saved,” Luther claimed, “Where there is a divine promise, there everyone must stand on his own feet; his own personal faith is demanded.”12 He declared, “It is not the sacrament but faith in the sacrament that justifies,” and then quoted Augustine, “It justifies not because it is performed but because it is believed.”13 The younger Luther clearly saw faith as necessary for baptism. Several years later, a different threat-the Anabaptist movement- appeared. Luther again felt the need to publicly counter a theology he deemed false. Luther likely had very little understanding of the views of Anabaptists, and even “may never actually have seen a genuine Anabaptist face to face.”
14 8 David P. Scaer, “Luther, Baptism, and the Church Today,” CTQ 62.4 (1998): 252. 9 Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Abdel Ross Wentz and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), 36:66. 10 Samuel Byung-doo Nam, “A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Understanding of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Hubmaier” (Ph.D. diss., Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), 80. 11 Bryan D. Spinks, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From Luther to Contemporary Practices (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 6. 12 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 36:49. 13 Martin Luther, Lectures on Hebrews, in Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, eds., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia, 1968), 29:172. 14 Jaroslav J. Pelikan, “Luther’s Defense of Infant Baptism,” in Luther for an Ecumenical Age: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation,
Yes, everything you said there is in line with the Lutheran view. The water itself does not do anything - but the Word of God that Jesus spoke in the Great Commission that says: "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - that does the work. That means "in the power and presence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That power and presence of God given in baptism is what matters. However, these words are commanded (by Jesus!!!) to be given to the believer with water. It is God-filled water. You are baptized with these words *and* water. If words spoken to you earlier gave you faith, forgiveness of sins, and the power and presence of God (like what happened with me - I believed many months before I got baptized), then great! But God still wants water -- which saves nobody on its own - involved. So, to complete and seal the presence of God within you, water baptism must be done. Otherwise, God's way of giving you salvation is being hindered. Can God still save even if you hinder him? Of course. But that does not mean it is right.
And where could I get the idea that baptism seals you in your faith? Simple. In Collossians 2, Paul refers to the putting away of the flesh as something like a circumcision - and then he says this happens via the circumcision of Christ - which he then equates with baptism.
Translation: Baptism is the new circumcision.
And Paul says in Romans 4 that circumcision sealed the righteousness that Abraham had within him by faith (and Paul then goes on to chastise improper views/use of circumcision!). And Genesis is clear that circumcision is a covenant - or a promise - from God to be faithful to Abraham and his heirs and work salvation among them. Like some sort of a contract.
Translation: Baptism is a contract from God toward you - and a promise - that He will be faithful -- and He literally gives His presence to you in the waters of baptism, as well.
Why does that matter? A solid contract from God that you are saved gives you something to lean on and connect to the cross with. It's a contract that was physically applied to you with the presence of God. This is why in Romans 6 Paul encourages to lean on our baptism to fight the old self. It's not about the water. It's about the promise or solid contract from God that we are buried with him.
If this seems like it's making too big of a deal out of baptism, then do understand that two of the three persons of the Trinity appeared visibly when Jesus got baptized - and the Father was heard. This happens nowhere else in the Bible that all three persons of our God are present in this way. And then Jesus refers to his death on the cross as a baptism, and the first preaching in Acts involves Peter encouarging baptism.
It's a big deal, and there's no need to worry about focusing too much on it. The issue is that there are a lot of ignorant pastors and theologians in America who spread bad teachings in our country.
And regarding Luther, there are tons and tons and tons of writings from Luther - even late in his life - on this matter. I highly recommend reading this collection of sermons on baptism by Martin Luther: www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-Holy-Baptism-Sermons/dp/0758659725
I grew up in a Lutheran culture where 90% of infants were baptized and later confirmed, but only 10% considered themselves Christian as adults…. Perhaps it was deficiency in the sprinkling method. (Sarcasm)
Lutherans also believe grace can be resisted and one can fall away from the faith. Your experience does not disprove the Lutheran position on baptism.
It’s true that many people do not continue in the faith. I experienced the same thing in an evangelical church. Many of the children and teen ages who “prayed the sinners prayer” stopped attending church as adults.
This is one instance of getting baptized more than once.
Acts 19:2-6 KJV
[2] he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
were they baptized in the name of Jesus by John the Baptist? No
@@gumbyshrimp2606 the fact still remains
“The fact” is that they are two different baptisms. John’s baptism is not the baptism that Jesus mandated in the great commission. So it has no bearing on anything. The most analogous modern version of this would be someone being baptized in the name of Jesus rather than the trinitarian formula. This person would be “re baptized” but they were not baptized in true Christian baptism in the first place.
You are talking about two different Baptisms 😅.
The first one is John the baptizer’s baptism which points to Jesus’s baptism (the Trinitarian baptism). These were disciples of John who had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.
If you have not been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, you need to receive this NT baptism.
The Bible is clear that there is “one” baptism.
I actually have heard some scriptural arguments for baptism being a work. One is when Jesus goes to John the Baptist to be baptized, Jesus says that he must be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness". Another is the parallel Paul draws between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2, and we already know from Galatians baptism is a work. Therefore, if the parallel works, then it seems baptism is a work. Would you mind responding to these please?
I forgot to add that the passage Jesus says he must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness is Matthew 3:15
Sorry that I'm just responding, all of the owners are really busy this week. Anyway, thank you for pointing this out! Never seen this verse used in that way.
Regarding the fulfillment of righteousness, we don't deny that Christ works are meritorious. So if the baptism of Christ is "a work" that doesn't harm our position because we receive what He did in our baptism, which is passive. Look at all the passages and you'll notice that for us, they're passive. In baptism, we receive something. In general, it's very questionable to use something Christ did that we repeat as an establishment of doctrine. Description vs. prescription if that makes sense. The Early Church (as really evident in Irenaeus) argued that in His baptism, Christ sanctified the waters for us. His work cleansed the waters so we could receive the gifts of baptism.
Regarding the parallels between circumcision and baptism, it's arguably a type and shadow deal. Just as the Law couldn't save but foreshadowed the Gospel by pointing to Christ in some ways, so too circumcision points us to baptism because it is the spiritual circumcision. Circumcision is fleshly, but baptism is spiritual. It's no longer us fulfilling the Law, but us receiving the Gospel, which is why baptism is so much greater than circumcision.
On top of all this we either synthesize the sola fide passages with baptismal passages by reasonably affirming that baptism doesn't contradict sola fide, or we obscure the baptismal passages or sola fide passages. Hope this helps!
@@ScholasticLutherans thank you for the reply!
Jesus did a work on the cross. We do not "work" when we believe in the cross and when God gives us the cross. So, even if Jesus "worked" when he got baptized, it doesn't automatically imply that we "work" when we get baptized.
But if you notice, Jesus does nothing in his baptism - the work is all what John does and what the other persons of the Trinity do. It fulfills all righteousness for other human beings for God to baptize Jesus - or for God to baptize Himself. It fulfills righteousness when I believe in the gospel. That does not make my believing a work.
Lastly, circumcision is not a work - and Paul circumcises someone in Acts (either Timothy or Titus, I forget whom). Rather, in Galatians, circumcision was being treated as a work by the Galatian believers - it was treated as something they must do before God to justify themselves. Thus, it became a work. Anything that we think we have to "do" for God for salvation becomes a "work." That doesn't mean that the activity is a work in and of itself.
If you, tomorrow, start thinking that your faith justifies you because of the effort you put into your faith - and the how well you believe - then your faith will be morphed into a work (and such views could eventually cut you off from God!). But justifying faith itself - properly understood as a recieving mechanism of Christ's work on the cross - is not a work.
Anything can be made into a work with the wrong view. That's the message of Galatians.
Do you think that getting re-baptized is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (unforgivable) or just blasphemy against Jesus (forgivable)
Because what people are doing is saying that God’s Word has no power in baptism when they deny their baptism and do it over again.
No I don't think it's quite that serious. I think people can absolutely be forgiven for being rebaptized. I know people who've been baptized multiple times, then converted and realized their mistake.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is persistent unbelief. It's unbelief to the end of life, as Augustine says.
- Jared
@@ScholasticLutherans another question. I’ve grown up in churches and currently attend one that believe that the Lord’s Supper is just a symbol.
Am I actively missing out by not going to a Lutheran church and taking communion there, or should I continue to attend my college church (reformed baptist-ish) because they still do a good job of preaching the gospel and making disciples?
@@gumbyshrimp2606 I'd say that you are missing out. It's a gift of God!
- Jared
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
:)
What you are saying is true and has nothing to do with baptism. If you want to Se what God says about baptism, go to those passages.
You failed to include 1 Peter 3:21. Water baptism won't save you.
“Baptism now saves you” sure dude you’re totally not.
😅 you go to the text that actually says “baptism saves you” and add the word “NOT” to God’s Word? I am an ex baptist. I had to choose God over baptists teachings.
Let me be clear on this... without Apostolic Roots and Succession, there is no valid sacrament including Baptism. In the Bible we have a person named Simon who tried to buy a gift of Holy Spirit and take it outside of the Church. He met his doom. In the (1 Tim 4, 14-16) is the explanation as to what Apostolic Succession is and includes: 1) Gift newly ordained priest receives via Laying on of Hands v. 14, and 2) Having correct doctrines v. 16. What that translated into Apostolic means that person performing Baptism must have unbroken lineage in ordinations from the Apostles all the way until our days. If we look at the present day RCC, EOC and Orientals who only have roots that are 2000 years old, RCC & Orientals do not have succession in teachings and are thus invalid, which leaves EOC only one with the clergy having Apostolic Succession and thus can perform true Baptism. Protestants.? Their roots are only 500 years old.
The fact that your church doesn't rebaptise those who were baptized by Protestants invalidates your entire stupid argument
According to catholic teaching, baptism outside of the Roman Catholic Church is valid as long as it is done with water and in the proper triune name.
I was disappointed with this explanation.
You need to be more “forensic” with your approach and less aggressive about Evangelicalism.
Here are the issues I’m working through:
First, though salvation is declared to be wholly of God, who alone can save, it has yet been taught in some portions of the Church (like yours) that God in working salvation does not operate upon the human soul directly but indirectly through instrumentalities which he has established as the means by which his saving grace is communicated to men. As these instrumentalities are committed to human hands for their administration, a human factor is thus intruded between the saving grace of God and its effective operation in the souls of men; and this human factor indeed, is made the determining factor in salvation.
The whole point of evangelicalism is to be faithful to sola fide. So by high church Lutherans introducing a sacerdotal requirement is starting to play with fire on sola fide. This is the accusation being made.
Please explain.
Second: In the interests of the pure supernaturalism of salvation, True evangelicalism insists that God himself works by his grace immediately on the souls of men, and has not suspended any man's salvation upon the faithfulness or caprice of his fellows. Protestantism, as opposed to Rome, suspends the welfare of the soul directly, without any intermediaries at all, upon the grace of God alone.
The whole argument here is that justification is an alien righteousness, and man is justified by Christ even though his inward self is not changed. But I just watched a traditional sedevacantist attack Luther and evangelicals using your very argument! That baptism is where regeneration happens and where grace is infused and therefore justification, hence Luther is a heretic.
How do Lutherans respond to this? Would you like the link?
Regarding infant baptism: Does a baby really have faith?
And what about David’s baby to Bathsheba? Died after 7 days without circumcision but David said he will be with baby one day in heaven. And that’s the OT! Thoughts?
I'm not the guy who did the video (nor am I affiliated with this channel... I don't know these guys), but here's my response as a Lutheran, for what it's worth! Regarding your first point, you're technically adopting a Catholic or Orthodox mindset (even though you're using that mindset in a Calvinist direction).
Many (though perhaps not all) Catholics and Orthodox claim that without Mary agreeing to bear Jesus in her womb, the world would not have been saved. This is why she is a co-mediatrix and co-savior with Jesus according to some in those churches - the Queen of the Universe (there's literally an Orlando church called Mary Queen of the Universe -- scary stuff - look it up!).
And even if these views are not universally accepted by every member of those churches, the one thing they agree on is that Mary's "yes," was a vital part of human salvation - and it shows how humans work with God to achieve that salvation.
However, the classical Protestant view - both Reformed and Lutheran - claim that Mary's "yes" was no more proving the need for God to work with humans than Judas' betrayal, Pontius Pilate's presiding, nor the crowd's demands for Jesus' crucifixion. At the end of the day, God is in control of all events. God foresaw that Mary would say yes -- and he even was the one who worked the faith in her to say yes. Just like we our faith is not something we do but is something God works in us to recieve Christ spiritually, Mary's faith was something God worked in her to recieve Christ physically (and spiritually, for that matter). The human factor in Mary's "yes" to God was not really human work nor cooperation - it was just God doing what God does - working through human means and human instruments to save people.
In the same sense, God works a will to hear the gospel and be saved thereby. In the same sense, God works a will in evanglists to spread the Good News. In the same sense, God works all things to the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), and it is also God who works in us to will anything and do anything whatsoever for Him (Phillipians 2:13). With all of this, God using instruments -- the Word, Baptism, or the Lord's Supper - to work salvation in the hearts and minds of people - is no different than the above. In fact, if I'm right in what I'm saying, then God will be using me as an instrument to say these things - and if I am wrong - and you correct me in a subsequent comment - then God will use you as an instrument for me. This is how God works. He allowed a tree to become an instrument of a self-cursing for Adam and Eve, and he actively used a new tree - the cross - as a physical instrument of salvation for the world.
In case you still feel like I'm not addressing your point, let me just state that in God and through God we have our being -- we all exist in God - and God controls all - and He works whatever He wills whenever it pleases Him - so any instrument is fully within his control - whether that instrument is a human being, an object, a cross, water, or whatever. To say otherwise is to believe as Catholics and Orthodox believe. And if you are one of those, then great! We have many other debates to have. But surely, you'll see where I am coming from. If we are all in God, and God can raise up children of Abraham from stones - then who are we to obsess about a "human element?" And human element or instrument is just God at work. God intended Joseph being thrown into a pit as a good thing - Genesis literally states that God wanted this to happen for Joseph, even though the human element (his brothers) intended it for evil. God is in complete control. He controls all instruments and human elements. When he allows humans to resist him, it is by His choice that he allows such things. He could stop that in a moment, if he so desired.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Regarding the sacerdotal element, this is not how we view things. Baptism is not a work that we do at all. Somebody else baptizes you! But God can also save without baptism. Why, then do we say that baptism is necessary? Well, part of that phrasing is due to the limits of human language. But here's an explanation as to why we need baptism and what purpose it serves... I just wrote this to a different commenter above. I'll copy and paste it here, and the next "line" you see below (like what I used before this paragraph) will serve as a marker for the end of the copied and pasted section. Here's what I wrote (with one modification in the first line):
The water in baptism itself does not do anything - but it is the Word of God that Jesus spoke in the Great Commission that says: "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - that does the work. That means "in the power and presence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That power and presence of God given in baptism is what matters. However, these words are commanded (by Jesus!!!) to be given to the believer with water. It is God-filled water. You are baptized with these words *and* water. If words spoken to you earlier gave you faith, forgiveness of sins, and the power and presence of God (like what happened with me - I believed many months before I got baptized), then great! But God still wants water -- which saves nobody on its own - involved. So, to complete and seal the presence of God within you, water baptism must be done. Otherwise, God's way of giving you salvation is being hindered. Can God still save even if you hinder him? Of course. But that does not mean it is right.
And where could I get the idea that baptism seals you in your faith? Simple. In Collossians 2, Paul refers to the putting away of the flesh as something like a circumcision - and then he says this happens via the circumcision of Christ - which he then equates with baptism.
Translation: Baptism is the new circumcision.
And Paul says in Romans 4 that circumcision sealed the righteousness that Abraham had within him by faith (and Paul then goes on to chastise improper views/use of circumcision!). And Genesis is clear that circumcision is a covenant - or a promise - from God to be faithful to Abraham and his heirs and work salvation among them. Like some sort of a contract.
Translation: Baptism is a contract from God toward you - and a promise - that He will be faithful -- and He literally gives His presence to you in the waters of baptism, as well. Why does that matter? A solid contract from God that you are saved gives you something to lean on and connect to the cross with. It's a contract that was physically applied to you with the presence of God. This is why in Romans 6 Paul encourages to lean on our baptism to fight the old self. It's not about the water. It's about the promise or solid contract from God that we are buried with him. If this seems like it's making too big of a deal out of baptism, then do understand that two of the three persons of the Trinity appeared visibly when Jesus got baptized - and the Father was heard. This happens nowhere else in the Bible that all three persons of our God are present in this way. And then Jesus refers to his death on the cross as a baptism, and the first preaching in Acts involves Peter encourging baptism. It's a big deal, and there's no need to worry about focusing too much on it.
-----------------------------
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Regarding what you said about the sedevacantist Catholic, your key point is when they said that "grace" is "infused" in baptism. They think that grace is a power of sorts - and that it is merged into us. As a result, they think we have to continue to abide in this power and do certain things to stay "saved." If we do not, then guess what? They claim that we lose the grace of baptism. Seriously. And they claim it can only be restored by confession - and then using both faith and works to make ourselves right with God.
We Lutherans are totally different. We believe (and this will clear up a lot of things for you... I almost feel like I should have said this earlier, but God is telling me to leave things as they are... so here goes...)... we believe that the whole world had its sins nailed to the cross when Jesus died. Even Hitler's sins were nailed to the cross. Everyone. In a weird way, everyone was saved on the cross... except... if you don't believe, you're damned.
How can we say that? How can we say that everyone is saved... and yet everyone isn't saved?
Well, here's the key. My salvation and your salvation didn't occur when we first believed. It occurred 2000 years ago on the cross - along with the whole world's salvation. But what if we hadn't believed? What if you hadn't believed? Well, guess what? You'd then have other gods. Maybe your family would be a god to you. Or your friends. Or your happiness. Your pleasure. Maybe music. Maybe video games. Who knows? But you would have a different "god" than what you currently have. Because a "god" is whatever we take ultimate comfort and solace in. You would have something like that, and it would be your god.
When you worship another god besides the one true God who died on the cross for you, then you are basically rejecting the one true God. This turning away from God cuts us off from the cross. It cuts us off from where our salvation happened. And that damns us to hell. So, with someone as evil as Hitler, he was actually forgiven on the cross 2000 years ago -- but he worshipped other gods. And he thereby cut himself off from the source of his salvation - and spit in Christ's face. As such, he is now burning in hell for all eternity (or he will burn after judgement day... I'm still unclear what happens immediately after death... I need to look that up!).
So, everyone is saved on the cross, but if you cut yourself off from the cross - then you cut yourself off from that salvation. And you don't get heaven! Now, with all of that out of the way, since the salvation was already accomplished on the cross, it's now a question of how God gives that to us. He gives it to us through the preaching of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These three ways of God giving us the cross and connecting us to the cross don't get in each other's way. He gives us words of salvation, water with words, and bread and wine with words. It's all kind of the same thing. The key thing is, we Lutherans don't believe in "once saved always saved" due to the parable of the sower and the seed. So, God keeps connecting us to the cross throughout our whole life. He keeps giving us the word, giving us comfort in prayer, and giving us communion. These things keep re-connecting us to the cross - where our salvation is. And baptism, as a one-time contract that was specially packed with His presence is kind of like a guarantee that we are His. It's his ultimate covenant with us. Therefore, remembering it as Paul commands us to do in Romans 6 keeps us connected to God's presence - without having us focusing on ourselves and our own efforts.
Many other denominations always have to look at their works or their feelings to be assured that they have the cross. We have the word and the sacraments. And unlike Catholics, we do not believe that grace is a "power." We believe it's just divine favor. It's God saying that we are His child. And He does this through forgiveness of sins. So, grace is - most of the time in the Bible - forgiveness of sins. And it doesn't get "infused" into us. It gets proclaimed to us and laid over us. So, in baptism - like everywhere else - proclaims God's forgiveness to us. And it gives us His presence. Just like the Word of God. That's all!
-------------------------------
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Sorry, I've had difficulty with my replies. I just had to delete one, because it was out of order somehow. Anyway... here we go. Thank goodness I copied this to a Word doc. This is back to what I originally wrote to you without taking stuff from other comments that I wrote to others.
Regarding what you said about the sedevacantist Catholic, your key point is when they said that "grace" is "infused" in baptism. They think that grace is a power of sorts - and that it is merged into us. As a result, they think we have to continue to abide in this power and do certain things to stay "saved." If we do not, then guess what? They claim that we lose the grace of baptism. Seriously. And they claim it can only be restored by confession - and then using both faith and works to make ourselves right with God.
We Lutherans are totally different. We believe (and this will clear up a lot of things for you... I almost feel like I should have said this earlier, but God is telling me to leave things as they are... so here goes...)... we believe that the whole world had its sins nailed to the cross when Jesus died. Even Hitler's sins were nailed to the cross. Everyone. In a weird way, everyone was saved on the cross... except... if you don't believe, you're damned.
How can we say that? How can we say that everyone is saved... and yet everyone isn't saved?
Well, here's the key. My salvation and your salvation didn't occur when we first believed. It occurred 2000 years ago on the cross - along with the whole world's salvation. But what if we hadn't believed? What if you hadn't believed? Well, guess what? You'd then have other gods. Maybe your family would be a god to you. Or your friends. Or your happiness. Your pleasure. Maybe music. Maybe video games. Who knows? But you would have a different "god" than what you currently have. Because a "god" is whatever we take ultimate comfort and solace in. You would have something like that, and it would be your god.
When you worship another god besides the one true God who died on the cross for you, then you are basically rejecting the one true God. This turning away from God cuts us off from the cross. It cuts us off from where our salvation happened. And that damns us to hell. So, with someone as evil as Hitler, he was actually forgiven on the cross 2000 years ago -- but he worshipped other gods. And he thereby cut himself off from the source of his salvation - and spit in Christ's face. As such, he is now burning in hell for all eternity (or he will burn after judgement day... I'm still unclear what happens immediately after death... I need to look that up!).
So, everyone is saved on the cross, but if you cut yourself off from the cross - then you cut yourself off from that salvation. And you don't get heaven! Now, with all of that out of the way, since the salvation was already accomplished on the cross, it's now a question of how God gives that to us. He gives it to us through the preaching of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These three ways of God giving us the cross and connecting us to the cross don't get in each other's way. He gives us words of salvation, water with words, and bread and wine with words. It's all kind of the same thing. The key thing is, we Lutherans don't believe in "once saved always saved" due to the parable of the sower and the seed. So, God keeps connecting us to the cross throughout our whole life. He keeps giving us the word, giving us comfort in prayer, and giving us communion. These things keep re-connecting us to the cross - where our salvation is. And baptism, as a one-time contract that was specially packed with His presence is kind of like a guarantee that we are His. It's his ultimate covenant with us. Therefore, remembering it as Paul commands us to do in Romans 6 keeps us connected to God's presence - without having us focusing on ourselves and our own efforts.
Many other denominations always have to look at their works or their feelings to be assured that they have the cross. We have the word and the sacraments. And unlike Catholics, we do not believe that grace is a "power." We believe it's just divine favor. It's God saying that we are His child. And He does this through forgiveness of sins. So, grace is - most of the time in the Bible - forgiveness of sins. And it doesn't get "infused" into us. It gets proclaimed to us and laid over us. So, in baptism - like everywhere else - proclaims God's forgiveness to us. And it gives us His presence. Just like the Word of God. That's all!
-------------------------------------
(continued below)
(continued from above)
So, regarding infant faith, infants don't have the capacity to resist God. They have sin. But they haven't developed their sin into a hardening of their heart yet. Adults have hardened their hearts and resist God. But if any adult had an unhardened heart and never resist God, then they would instantaneously believe. All of the earth testifies to God and His presence. A non-resisting adult would believe that God exists, and if they found out about Jesus, they would believe as well. Since babies are already non-resistant, they are already in a receptive (therefore faithful) state toward God. All that is needed is to apply the gospel to them.
However, in the parable of the sower and the seed, it shows how one can lose the faith. When a baby grows older and is capable of understanding human language more -- if then, the gospel is not preached to them -- whatever they had in terms of belief will be snatched away by the devil.
If we Lutherans are wrong regarding all of this, and only adults believe, Luther himself had an answer... he said that once someone starts believing, then the baptism will count for them and work as a sign that they are the Lord's - and the power and presence there will work on them.
Think about it this way: I had a Bible about a year before I began to believe in Jesus Christ. When I first believed, did I need to burn my Bible and buy a new one? No, the one I had still worked and took on new meaning for me. The baptism infants recieve will mean something totally new once they believe as an adult -- if they lost their faith in childhood or if they never really did believe. They will be able to - the moment they believe - say "Wow, God has promised my that I am His in baptism, and I can know that I have been specially connected to the cross through it - I really am buried and risen with Christ -- my baptism confirms it!" It has that meaning the moment they believe.
Regarding David's baby... that's cool! We don't say that baptism is absolutely necessary. And I know that that sounds weird since "necessary" means "absolutely needed." But if we just say it's "not necessary" then in English (and in many other languages), it makes it sound optional. It's necessary in the sense that God commands it, and it is something God wishes to use to save people and/or keep them saved. But it's not absolutely needed... so we split the difference and say "It's necessary but not absolutely necessary." Sometimes human language cannot fully explain the divine. We just have to work with what we have.
The End! I hope that helped!