Congratulations 🎊 Galatians 3:27 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Baptism is part of your initiation into the church.
Pastors told me that baptism was a work. Then they said it was not a work, but could become a work. After much more discussion, they said it was not a work after all. But then again, they would never tell anyone they HAVE to be baptized... One told me that baptism is a non-essential topic; so you can agree to disagree on infant baptism. The other pastor said that infant baptism was a straight up heresy. They both denied that the scripture in Peter that says "baptism now saves you" refers to baptism saving us. And they don't understand why I'm becoming Catholic ... 😅
If Protestants can’t agree on baptism, that alone is a strong case to look elsewhere for Christian doctrine. It’s clearly very, very important in the New Testament.
Yeah i converted 2 years ago. Once i realized a person could increase their faith, i realized essentially it’s a work to believe. If you can work harder to believe more or slack off and believe less, then it must be a work! I realized according to St James there’s 2 kinds of faith, the kind that doesnt work and just intelligently accepts a fact, and another that is infused with love and is motivated to work. At the end of the day, is it the Hammer, the carpenter’s hand, or the carpenter that drives the nail into the wood? Protestants say it’s the carpenter. Catholics say all of them play a role in the same action. Because of their theology, Protestants cannot explain the role of the hand or the hammer. All over scripture it makes it sound like the hand and the hammer are essential in driving nails but protestant 2D theology leaves no room for the hand or the hammer. This causes scripture to make little sense to them, then they feel an obligation to assign a better meaning to the passage that what they see. It’s like always living in a box and telling people outside the box how youve figured out the whole world.
Wow, I needed this video, and there it was at the top of my feed. I'm a new convert from Baptist, and my boys are getting baptized into Catholicism Saturday. God's moving through you, and I've seen God's hand everywhere lately. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
Wrong, my dear. You're teaching the kids that there is no other way into heaven other than baptism (!!!) and that is a lie. That horrific UNTRUTH is explicitly stated in CCC 1257 and if you believe that, rather than Christ who said HE was the way, then all hope is lost. Good day.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d It is not a lie that Baptism is necessary for us; it is what Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles taught from the beginning of HIS Church (Refer to the many references in this video). Catholics do not deny that Christ is the way and that we need the merits of HIS atonement to be saved; the only difference is that we accept the way that HE gave us to receive the merits of HIS atonement.
If baptism doesn't save, why does 1 Peter say Noah’s flood prefigures baptism? People who deny baptism are saying a catastrophic event prefigures something that doesn't do anything. That is not what prefigure means.
While reading Genesis, it struck me how much like baptism the flood was. The flood cleansed the earth of all unrighteousness and was followed by a covenant with God.
@@IG88AAAI don't get that the flood was a washing. The water brought Death, not life. Without the Ark, Noah would have also perished. The ark is what saved Noah's life. The ark prefigured Christ who is the Ark of our salvation. What does this have to do with water baptism? Answer, Nothing.
People are not defining what work is. Work is an action performed. Baptism is not a work because WE are not performing baptism. We are receiving baptism. The Bible is clear about how faith needs to be active. That means you need work to have an active faith. Galatians says our faith WORKS through love.
Excellent distinctions! What of the possible objection that the choice or consent to receive baptism is a work inseparable from it; thus, if you believe baptism saves, you believe works save? I'd personally respond by asking what faith is if not a reorientation of the will in light of some revelation, thus desiring baptism is evidence of saving faith if baptism is a core doctrine of said revelation, which I think it clearly is for the Christian. Curious what everyone thinks here. For support of my definition of faith, an analysis of Hebrews is useful: "faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb 11:1, DRV). Faith is, first, some kind of substance. Second, it pertains to hope. Third, it yields evidence either contrary to or beyond appearances or purely empirical knowledge. Now, hope implies some kind of willing or desire of the thing hoped for, thus faith pertains to the essence behind hopeful desires, and those desires are for that which is revealed to us beyond what our senses are competent to receive.
@@sophia-proskomen As a Protestant, your objection is accurate and is why baptism cannot be your "savior", which is what you are advocating when push comes to shove. If you are receiving B, IN ORDER to be saved, you have essentially put the work of Christ on the same level as the work you RECEIVED in that ritual. Therefore, what you are believing is "another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4. Scripture says we are born again by the word of God in 1 Peter via the "foolishness of preaching" elsewhere. NOT by the B-word.
@ThornyCrown-l5d I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure I follow that St. Peter's words or any other statement of something that saves in Scripture, e.g. good works, hope, etc. as others have pointed out, is exclusive of any other. There appear to me to be many ways to have all of the above truly save under faith. I also hope my response to the objection makes sense. If baptism is a critical doctrine present in saving faith, then it saves alongside faith, and a choice or movement of the will towards it is secondary to its salvific character as a part of saving faith, whatever that may be. So, our secondary work of desiring and accepting baptism is not what makes baptism salvific. Baptism itself is salvific through its source (Christ and our faith in Him). If we disagree that baptism is a critical component of saving faith, then that's a different story and is basically a nonstarter for this level of dialogue.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d I'd also add your explanation is fully accurate. If someone believed baptism was their "savior" and was baptized to "strong arm" God into saving them, I'm pretty sure that's an invalid baptism and possibly a very strange kind of legalistic idolatry.
@@sophia-proskomen I understand your view, but I must reject the premise. So you say baptism is salvific due to the SOURCE (i.e., Christ giving instruction to do so), but that is walking a very fine line between heaven in hell. Baptism either saves you or it does not. Christ will not share his glory with a ritual, regardless of the fact he wants us to engage in it, as he wants us to do good works. Speaking of which, when the catechism says we are saved by the good works we do.... with God's grace (#1821), we say, NO WAY. We are not saved by good works that COME FROM grace, or Christ as their source, because we are told he has chosen NOT to save anybody on the basis of any works of righteousness whatsoever, period, case closed (Titus 3:5). Paul cursed the Judaizers (those early Christians) for adding certain aspects of the law to be saved in ADDITION to Christ, but he would not stand for it, "no, not for an hour", as stated in Galatians. Catholicism is guilty of the very same error. In the final analysis, what Joe is saying cannot stand because CCC 1257 makes it clear that the RCC cannot imagine ANY MEANS OTHER than baptism that ensures eternal life. THAT, my dear, is crossing the line over into "another gospel" which saves no one (2 Cor 11:4). NO OTHER MEANS? NO OTHER WAY? Do I really have to spell it out? Jesus said, "I AMMMM the way"; consequently, I trust in the merits of him alone. His words are as clear as the light of day and demolishes papal claims in the blink of an eye. I kissed the Pope farewell 30 years ago for this and many other biblical reasons and never looked back. Good day.
2:15 I was always really struck by this at my old baptist church when I started looking into Catholicism. I was reading through the "what we believe" section on the website. I found it VERY curious that the baptism section omitted a verse like 1 Peter 3:21. You'd think a church that claims to teach based on the Bible alone could simply list every passage from the Bible that contains the word they are purporting to teach about. I think we see the same thing with divorce and remarraige. We have explicit passages concerning that in scripture, yet many protestants like to quote from very general verses that don't touch on divorce at all and then cram their interpretation of those into the divorce passages later. Edit: I was baptized into the Catholic Church in 2023. The issue above came up when I was seeking baptism in my local baptist church and began to read more deeply into the faith.
Read 1 Peter 3:21 does it say baptism saves ? No, what saves is a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's what saves, not baptism.
@@eddyrobichaud5832That’s literally what it says though. You can try to bend the meaning all you want, but the plain reading is clear. Baptism saves. “And **baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you**-not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21
@@eddyrobichaud5832 Two things.... 1. You missed my point. I was not commenting on how to defend 1 Peter 3:21 in my original comment. I was simply pointing out the peculiarity of churches who claim to teach from the bible alone omitting verses that use the exact word they are purporting to teach about. One would assume that an easy way to teach about something from "the bible alone" would be to just list the verses where that something is mentioned. Failing to do that either means that the Bible isn't clear on something (which runs afoul of the protestant doctrine of perspecuity) or that those churches are not teaching from the Bible alone... or both 2. The verse literally says baptism is that appeal to God for a clean conscience. It isn't a work. It is a physical+spritual thing (a sacrament) that our loving Father gave us (a bunch of fallen physical+spritual beings) as a fitting and beautiful way to be regenerated... born again... by His grace.
@@Ruudes1483 It doesn’t say baptism saves you, what saves is is believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not take away or wash away the dirt of your flesh, meaning it doesn’t take away the sin from you. What saves you and washes away sin is Jesus Christs death and resurrection. And it says having a good conscience towardsGod, babies don’t have a good conscience. So baptism is not for babies.
I was raised loosely Protestant (meaning we only went to church on Holy days like Christmas and Easter or when my grandma guilted my dad into it). Been attending Mass and started RCIA a few months ago. Thought I was baptized. Looked for my baptismal certificate and it turns out I was only "dedicated"! Really looking forward to being baptized into the Catholic Church this coming Easter!
Welcome home! God bless you. Remember that your education in faith doesn't end with your baptism and confirmation. Study your new found faith by reading the Church Fathers and lives of the Saints (i.e. Magisterium). The understanding of what being Catholic is, is a life long endeavor. Pray, Fast, Read, Go to Mass and Acts of Mercy.
I absolutely love how you biblically support our Catholic faith!!! Amazing!!! I have passed on this video to my daughter whose fiancée is taking classes to become Catholic!!! Please pray for him. His parents and grandparents are Baptist and they have been taught that Catholics don’t believe in the Bible or Jesus as their savior. He has been going to Mass with her steady for about two years so he knows that what he has been told is misinformation!!! So grateful for you! Keep up the great work!!! You are reaching many people!! May God’s blessings be upon you!!!
May the Holy Spirit help us live the grace of Baptism every day and make visible to our neighbours the love of Christ, Who died and rose again for us. Amen. 🙏✝️
How did some Protestant sects get so far off track regarding baptism? Is this mostly a feature of American evangelical Protestants? I’m asking as an American. I was raised with almost no religion, especially after my paternal grandmother died. I converted to Catholicism to be in union with my late husband. Some of the things I found out, that Protestants believe or don’t believe, seem so far off base. Another one (I know this is off-topic) is that Jesus had siblings. What?!! As someone raised without religion and was then nominally Catholic for years, I never thought Jesus had siblings. This idea that a person has to know what they’re getting into, regarding baptism, is bizarre. It reminds me of the parents who say “I’m not going to raise my child in any faith because they should decide for themselves”. Or “I’m not going to give my child gender specific clothes, toys, whatever because they should decide for themselves”. It’s absurd
Also, as “bible believing Christians” or bible alone self Interpretation, why do they ignore so many passages in the bible that refer to baptism? Where did they get it so wrong?
It is what happens when you have a loose tradition with no authority to correct you when you start to veer. Veer a little with each generation and soon you have lost touch with all of reality.
List of things that Scripture is less clear on than than affirming the proposition "Baptism saves you": The divinity of Christ The Trinity Which writings *are* scripture The structure of the Church that Christ founded That slavery is wrong Anyone care to add to it?
I believe the 4th cup will be drank in heaven: "Ittell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Mathew 26, 29
@@Maranatha99Then read Scott Hahn’s book. He was a well-known Scripture scholar as a Presbyterian (a very anti-Catholic one) who became Catholic through Scripture.
@TrueChristianityWithSandra I have listened to 2-3 videos by Dr. Hanh, & there was a lot of doctrinal error in them. Since I became a true Christian at age 25, I have been reading & studying Scripture. The only way of not being deceived is by reading Scripture regularly. Do you do it?
@TrueChristianityWithSandra "I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Mathew 26, 29
It is not either Baptism saves OR Christ saves. It is both. Christ saves by means of Baptism. No need for such confusion. It is like asking: what gets you to Europe, is it the pilot or the airplane? The answer is both. The pilot and the airplane are not mutually contradictory. It is not as if you have to choose only one answer, the pilot as opposed to the airplane. Or another example: where do I go for truth, the Bible or the Holy Ghost? Both are correct. The truth in the Bible is not mutually opposed to the truth from the Holy Ghost. What saves me? Christ, Baptism, grace, faith, repentance, hope ("we are saved by hope"--Romans 8:24), the mercy of God, the cross of Christ? Answer: all of them in their own proper mode. Again, no need for confusion.
The genius of Catholicism is its BOTH/AND philosophy ie Jesus & Baptism. Other examples, Jesus & Mary, Sacred Tradition & Scripture, Body & Blood, Faith & Reason etc
Excellent video as always, Joe. It makes sense to ask the viewers who are so immersed in protestant doctrines of sola fide and anti-catholic church beliefs, to view from just on what scripture teaches. If they do, then they will do like so many other protestants who stopped protesting and came home. I say a prayer for you who are on their way home.
Another another analogy for Mark 16:16. He who buy a car and fills the tank with gas will be able to drive to Florida but he doesn't buy a car will not be able to drive the Florida. Why would I include the gas in the second part if the person doesn't own a car?
20 minutes in and already the content, reasoning and exposed truth surpasses anything posted on this platform. One would have to read a long book for Scott Hahn to adsorb as much content. Nice work Joe!
This video is great. I feel called to the priesthood and have been spending the last year trying to spread the misunderstood faith in my small town and so I have been making defenses and tiktok post about Catholicism. Your videos are extremely helpful. Will definitely give credit
Love the content and would love to hear your opinion on the following argument I'm working on, where even if you concede that Jesus is using metaphor in the last supper, it still leads to a salvific understanding of the eucharist: premise 1: Jesus is using metaphor when he says "this is my body/blood." premise 2: metaphor is a device wherein a predicate nominative acts as a descriptor for the subject conclusion: Jesus is saying that the eucharist is given for us in the same kind of way that his body would be given for us on the cross, which is to say, for the life of the world and forgiveness of sins. Thanks!
I think it needs more development, but it seems like it has the potential to be an argument for transubstantiation. I just don't know exactly how to move it there
I think a baptist might counter with the syllogism: 1. we are not saved by works 2. baptism is a work 3. baptism does not save The problem is that the baptist then has to use an extrabiblical premise for 2, and then premise 3 contradicts the plain text of Scripture. In your syllogism, premise 2 is a direct quote from the Scripture, and premise 3 is therefore completely reasonable and compatible with the Scriptures.
It's easy to refute the "baptism by confession but not needed for salvation" protestants. They will pivot and also add that baptism must be by immersion. If baptism does nothing, then why does it even matter how we baptize? Then they will say "tHe gOOd tHiEf dIdnT nEEd tO bE BapTizEd." Then remind them that we don't know the relationship of the "Good thief" he had with Jesus. Also, how can Christ bring him to heaven that day when Christ didn't even enter heaven until 40 days after the resurrection. The problem is generation after generation of made up anti-catholic "doctrines" that have zero basis in historical or theological reality.
What a great point! If it is only symbolic, who cares about the method of the baptism as it would be the symbolism that matters... So much confusion with them.
@@truthnotlies Yes! Whenever I ask them "so baptism doesn't matter in your opinion, correct? Then why are you saying that our baptisms are invalid because we have different modes?" They just say whatever fits their personal opinions and they have no one to oppose them. Total chaos.
I'm only halfway through so perhaps this gets added to the discussion; In 1 Corinthians; when there is dispute between different groups over who baptised them... St Paul could just say "it is a symbol, it does not matter" Instead he goes on an *elaborate* defense of why it does not matter who baptised us. Implying St Paul sees it as more than a symbol
@Maranatha99 the first chapter explicitly, The theme is followed into the 3/4 chapters regarding division in general. But it Ch 1 begins with explicit example of baptism 1 Cor 4:6 St Thomas Aquinas interprets (rightly I believe) this to mean that he has substituted these/his names for the actual person's names who are causing divisions.
@@Maranatha99 that was not my point at all. Joe's video that we are commenting on focuses more on that. My point is that it if it is purely symbolic that would be the place for St Paul to explain. This evidence is not against: "It has a spiritual effect but does not play a part in justification" Nor do I claim it to be :) It is against the "purely symbolic " view
@@Maranatha99 are you a JW or SDA? If so I have an argument based on Revelation that I have seen nobody else use :) I'd be happy to share it and get your thoughts
Dear Joe, thank you so much for yet another illuminating video! I’ve converted into Catholicism (or better said, I’m in the process of converting) and I keep referring to your channel whenever I have doubts. I’m also doing the confirmation course in my Church (although I’m not baptized yet!) and one of the things my teachers (I’d say incorrectly) have taught us is that following our “moral conscience” is more important when it comes to salvation than baptism and the sacraments. I’d love hearing your view on that. Once again, thank you and a big hug from Uruguay ❤
I would say that there isn't really a comparison to make with the sacraments. Baptism and Confirmation are formative and transformative; helping to form us in Christ and form our conscience is part of that. The Eucharist unites us with Christ in a way nothing else can on earth. Reconciliation restores our union with Christ when we stray from our good moral conscience. Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are blessings given by the Church and direct our moral actions as well. Last Rites is a blessing for those at the end of their life
1 Peter 3:21 is pretty clear that baptism saves and in addition, baptism is not a 'work' because it's not about what we do, it's about what God does (and here, an infant is a perfect example of doing nothing themselves).
@@mattb4249 Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit and protects them from the wiles of Satan (who we know prowls the world looking for souls (1 Peter 5:8). Who would not want that grace and protection for their child?. As a child grows up, their developing faith is nurtured and empowered by the grace of that baptism, their parents, god parents and the whole Church, but we still have free will and some people do sadly, grow up and reject Christ. If the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not effective. It's in abeyance (but we can still hope and pray they come back to Christ. It's never too late).
It occurs to me now that baptism is like being plunged back into the primal waters of the chaos at the beginning of creation, hence from them you are made anew.
First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed “they” practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to “we,” his Christian followers, “they” are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:
Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lord’s mercy.
Around the 40 min mark Joe brushes up against something i’ve noticed when arguing with protestants ALL the time. They will focus on one part of a passage so heavily that the impact of some of all terms lose all their impact or meaning. For example you “you must be born of water and spirit” the protestant really just believes in the spirit part and so they interpret the ‘water’ part to mean something like physical birth. This way Jesus is really saying to be saved you must be born first and then reborn of the spirit. I like to point out that if “born of water” was removed in this case, how would it impact their theological conclusion from the passage. Clearly it would have zero impact on their theology if he never mentioned water at all. What human hasnt been physically born? This happens so often with protestants that i dont think they even realize it’s happening. It shows how flexible they think scripture is, how can an ultimate authority be flexible at all on matters of salvation?
@ No it refers here to water baptism….. the word cleanses, baptism cleanses, fire cleanses, and Jesus cleanses. It’s ok to consider baptism here since we have other cleansing mechanisms listed in scripture. Lets look at the context, what must a person DO to be saved. Be reborn of water and spirit, immediately after this they go and baptize people. Catholics like the early christians also do not confine our definition of God’s word to mean the holy scriptures. The scriptures are part of god’s word but god also breathed on the apostles, apostolic tradition is god’s word, and so is Jesus himself. So the phrase word of god doesnt only pertain to scripture historically speaking. The Ethiopian church, the coptics, syro malabar, assyrians, and eastern orthodox all agree with the catholic church that this refers to water baptism. So we have modern and historical consensus of all christians. The first Christians to think baptism was just a symbol are the anabaptists and they were condemned by all historical protestant groups. Specifically for their heretical views on baptism. The Mennonites and amish took up the theology, it wasnt for 100 years that any mainline protestant group would accept credo/symbolic baptism. Finally in the early 1600’s english baptists would emerge blending anglican theology with anabaptism to give us your apparent belief. Imagine 3/4 of christian history goes by before someone agrees with your interpretation of John 5. Ever wonder why every christian who read that passage for the first 1500 years of the faith thought he meant water baptism? Could so many through history be wrong? Could the men who were directly discipled by the apostles all be wrong? What about the Syro Malabar church that was separated from the main church for 1400 years and had identical theology concerning the eucharist and they had basically NO SCRIPTURE? The truth is we get the teaching from Jesus directly through the apostles and the scriptures just confirm this doctrine. In this modern age, any interpretation seems valid but imagine you were one of those first anabaptists to say you know what, i think every single christian before me was wrong about this. I know scripture says to submit to my elders but i think i can ignore that passage. It says lean not on my own understanding but in this case i think i should. It says the church is the bukwark of truth and it if i wont listen to the church, i should be treated as a gentile and tax collector but ya know what. Im not gonna listen to the church on this one…. I dont think the church supports the truth like scripture says so ill start my own church. I just cant understand the mentality of the early reformers, to be one, you have to ignore so much scripture just to get to the point where your own interpretation of scripture can be the only infallible authority.
@timboslice980 Mark 16, 16: 1. The emphasis is in believing, 2. That part of Mark might not be original, but added later. Mark 16, 9-20 might not be from Mark
Thank you so much Joe! My wife has fully agreed for our son to be baptized into the church. She even stated this morning well if the intent was wrong in my baptism in the Baptist church I would like to be Baptized again! I’ve asked before about this I’m sure. But, if she were to become Catholic as well would/could she be baptized again?
A brother Catholic here, my friend. I would recommend you to be cautious. If you say that the sacrament of Baptism does not imprint character (the “seal” or “σφραγίς”, as more usual in the Greek patrology), it would be contrary to the text of Mark 16, 16, if understood in its entirety. As said, _”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”:_ a baptized person can lose faith but a baptized person can never lose the seal of the baptized, if it was valid (regardless of if it was licit). Not only that. I think it is problematic to take that road without some guardrails because it will enter all over again the problem of rebaptism of heretics and the Donatist crisis: if baptism does not imprint character or the “seal” but only a diffuse episode of grace, whomever feels to arbitrate where grace is (like Donatists and crypto-Donatists of modern day, which tends to be a huge problem among Eastern Orthodox) - meaning heretics can’t offer that nor any kind of seal -, then the position of always rebaptizing heretics that confer baptism as the Church does (correct form and matter, and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) would have prevailed. But it hasn’t. The Donatists were declared heretics and not the other way around. Pope St Stephen of Rome won over the discussion with St Cyprian of Carthage. The Fathers of Nicea have dealt with that SPECIFICALLY in two of its canons. And they simply attest that the dogmatic position of the Church of Rome prevailed in its canonical regulations. In *Canon 8* of Nicea, the Ecumenical Council decided that the Novatian heretics (they called themselves the “purists” or the ‘cathari’) - curiously enough, Novatianism was declared a heresy by the Church of Rome using the letters of St Cyprian of Carthage (!) - MUST NOT BE rebaptized when coming to the Church. In *Canon 19,* on the other hand, the Holy Ecumenical Council decided that Paulianist heretics (the followers of Paul of Samosata, also known as “Adopcionists”) MUST BE rebaptized when coming to the Church. What was the difference between one case (Novatianism) and the other (Adoptionism)? Although both groups were dogmatically declared heretics by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils, Adoptionists had to be rebaptized because they rejected the Most Holy Trinity. In this case rebaptism is unavoidably necessary. For a Catholic, not only it is heresy to rebaptize “heretics” without further distinctions, but it is also sacrilegious and disrespects the canons and the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea. The oneness of baptism is not something to play with: since it is the only sign of sacramental unity amidst the unfortunate disunity, it will eventually lead to the oneness of faith again. Devil or “diablo” comes from the Greek word “dia-ballein”, which means the union of the word “dia”, that means the other side, across (like in ‘diagonal’) and “ballein”, that means to shoot, to aggressively push (like in ‘ballistic’). So the devil is the one to push to the other side what was united before; he is the one behind the multitude of baptisms as theatrical acts or of the Neo-Donatist heresy of these days, honestly. That’s a serious issue. The mere fact that Protestants can have a different doctrine concerning baptisms being regenerative or not is insufficient (“per se”) to indicate the case is for rebaptism. Maybe you should talk to a priest, my friend. God bless!
The Catholic Church recognizes all Trinitarian baptisms - in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If she was thus baptized, she would not need to be rebaptized. Even if they don’t have perfect understanding, their faith and obedience is cooperation with God’s grace.
As someone mentioned above, if the baptism was done with the correct Trinitarian formula and with water, then the Catholic Church sees it as valid. Therefore, if that's the case, then she should not be rebaptized.
Echoing the others, all that's needed for intent is that they were intending to do a Trinitarian baptism. It's a relatively low bar to clear. You don't have to fully understand the theology of sacrament (or even recognize it as a sacrament) to intend to do it. (This comes up a lot in marriage: you can be validly and sacramentally married as a baptized Protestant, even if you aren't aware that there's a sacramental nature to your marriage).
What’s sad is that a lot of Protestant churches believe that baptism is only symbolic and often times they say it’s not necessary. This is despite the fact that Jesus gave the command to his apostles to baptize. I have a niece whose fiancé is going through RCIA/OCIA right now and apparently there’s a debate whether or not he should be baptized. well if he was not baptized in his previous upbringing then he should be baptized at Easter vigil is my opinion. because otherwise the marriage taking place next summer will not be sacramental.
You should bring up conditional baptism! I’m a former Protestant, now Catholic, and the deacon running RCIA said I didn’t need to be baptized if I already was as a Baptist. That might be true for other Protestant sects that believe baptism IS salvific, but if the sect the person is coming from doesn’t believe baptism saves, then it can be safely assumed that it was not their intention to “do what the Church does,” which is one of the components of a valid baptism. Me, I was eventually conditionally baptized and conditionally confirmed when I went to a TLM parish, since there was no assurance my first confirmation, which I received without having been baptized, was valid. It was a whole big headache. But look into your niece being able to be conditionally baptized! Might save her soul, but at the very least it will definitely save time later lol
@@PatrickSteilthat’s not accurate. If he had a Trinitarian baptism then it is valid regardless of what there intention is. This was dealt with in the Church back in the 2nd century when at times heretics baptized people and the Church already answered this question
Ephesians 2:1-10 is talking about initial salvation via baptism. Initial justification is by Grace alone, and the standard practice of new believers in the New Testament was to be immediately baptized upon conversion. We see that play out in verses 1-4 where Paul talks about how he and the Ephesians were dead in sin but we see in verses 5 & 6 by grace they were moved to baptism and saved, hence initial salvation. Notice verses 5/6 speak of being dead in trespasses, making us alive in Christ, raised up with him. This is early Christian jargon for baptism. Colossians 2:12-13, which is also written by Paul, refers to baptism in the very same way (dead in our trespasses, made alive with Christ, raised up with him).
I've been railing on this point for a while. I'd even go a little further, that "being dead in trespasses" ought to be translated "being dead to trespasses", looking to Romans 6 as a parallel. It's also significant that Ephesians 2 is an extension of the discussion in Ephesians 1, where Christ dies, is raised, and then seated in Heaven.
@michaelbeauchamp22 I appreciate the insight on this. I will do a re-read of Ephesians 1 and Romans 6. This only furthers the point that Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with faith alone.
@michaelbeauchamp22 Ephesians 1:18- 20 is indeed an allusion to baptism. "Your hearts" in verse 18 is calling back to Deut 30:6 and Acts 2:37. Early theologians like Justin Martyr described baptism as the sacrament of enlightenment, which is a reference to Eph 1:18 (CCC 1216).
11:57 Batism is a good work, it's submitting to the Authority of God, which I have ZERO understanding of how that is controversial. Do protestants think that you are saved without submitting to God's Authority?
Baptists, specifically, get baptized out of obedience. They think they repent/believe and the Holy Spirit enters them and they are saved… then because of their salvation, they obey. So it’s still important, it just isn’t what does the saving.
@Maranatha99 i don't, i get the idea that protestants believe we are saved by "Faith alone", the Bible teaches that we are saved through Faith working through love.
Matthew 28:19-20 KJV [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Rom 6 is key to everything! Faith, baptism, obedience all of that leads one to the gift of Salvation which I can't accomplish through any deeds of the flesh that I conceived of, but to experience death to sin in baptism of Christ before my body actually experiences physical death. Death is the gift! Get saved by dying to sin. Experience the death of sin in me through faith in Christ's words and commands. Like our blessed mother Mary said, "Do what he tells you to do!" Get into His body the Church and get his body and blood into your self via the Eucharist! Do this! Those are physical things on earth now that have an eternal substance and nature!
What a lot of Protestants have a hard time with is their presuppositions and assumptions being challenged. There's a whole category of Protestant thought and to some degree Catholic but it's mitigated and within certain guardrails, of presuppositionalism. The difficulty is getting them to see that what's being discussed and what's being debated is the ground that they're standing on, what they thought was firm is actually what's being debated not what they consider to be their arbitrary list of essentials or non-essentials as one of your previous videos pointed out. They can't even tell us what the essentials are.
it washes the stain of original sin away, and marks you as a son or daughter of God. Peter says it saves you, Paul says it saves you, and Jesus says it saves you. i don't know how much clearer scripture needs to be.
Im a Protestant who has held both views in my life: baptism is essential for salvation, and baptism being an outward sign of an inward decision that you already are saved. Where I fall now is who cares if it’s technically required or not. Our Lord asked us to do it, so I do it. It’s literally in the great commission. Just get baptized rather than worrying about how little you can do and still be saved. I will always baptize people as their next logical step after putting their faith in Christ and then regardless of my doctrinal beliefs they are putting on Christ, they and i are being obedient to Christ, and Christ is doing the work. These aren’t only theological logical questions, these are commands by God our savior and should not be downplayed because of theology
I think the key to reconciling both positions is baptism of desire. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but sacramental baptism is not the only kind of baptism; it's the ordinary sign that we have been saved by dying and rising with Christ. In either case, baptism saves, not faith alone.
@MarkStein-n3r even when Protestants believe it’s an outward symbol of an inward decision, it’s certainly not “nothing” or significant at all. We do it because Christ commanded us to. That’s very significant. Just because we don’t believe you technically need to for salvation, doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean anything to us. There are lots of very important things that aren’t necessary for salvation but are very important to be obedient to God for..
@MarkStein-n3r I don’t believe baptism is essential for salvation. I’m a credo baptist as well. But what I’m saying is this is bigger than theology, it’s a command by Jesus. So just don’t whether it’s essential or not. And because I don’t believe it’s essential for salvation, it affords me to have a more charitable position on it. I don’t think God is going to reject people from heaven because they got baptized wrong accidentally. Referring to it as a “bath” for babies is pretty demeaning and unnecessary language.
@ yea you’re completely misunderstanding me. As a Protestant, I completely agree with you about Protestants. Protestants that I know tend to put more weight on their own theological positions than just being obedient to Christ and his commands. For example being so entrenched in sole fide that they almost diminish the necessity of baptism. I think that’s wrong. My comments were targeted for Protestants sir. And I agree with you on the church fathers and councils. I’m becoming more Catholic daily. And no I don’t think theology is just nerdy talk. I love theology and teach theology as well. What I’m saying in this particular case is Protestants put their own theology above just obeying Jesus because they wanna be right. I’m like, just obey Jesus and get baptized.
@MarkStein-n3r I would agree with you if propositions were so easily established as contrary. It's not easy to establish that what one is saying is actually contrary to a position you hold, only that your particular interpretation of the proposition is. To say so without any attempt at reconciliation is almost always presumptuous and not helpful. What seems like a contradiction in a derivative proposition like these is almost always either a misunderstanding or a difference in more fundamental principles. Philosophical hermeneutics is helpful here to appreciate limitations in understanding that make such an apparent clear cut application of classical logic problematic. Feel free to disagree, but we probably won't get anywhere discussing the issue further.
"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Corinthians 10, 2. This is one of several examples in Scripture where the idea of baptism is used in a metaphorical sense. "Baptism" means "submersion". Paul talks often about the idea of us being "submerged" in Christ, meaning that we identify with Him.
@@EddyRobichaud So the Bible is wrong? “And **baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you**-not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21
If it were merely a passive action, then probably no, dying would not be a "work." However, Jesus considers his death to be something that He is doing, offering Himself up. He says nobody takes His life from Him, but He freely gives it. So that's the sense in which it's Christ's work
@ShamelessPopery Awesome presentation Joe. I've long believed that this one issue is so clear that Protestants are in willful apostasy because they must elevate their own thoughts about the gospel above the clear teaching of the apostles. Baptism is the gateway; (also the gateway out of the mind trap of protestantism).
I’m always amazed how Protestants tend to twist scripture & arrive at dubious conclusions, such as optional baptism in spite of Jn 3:5 1 Peter 3:21 & Acts 2:38-39. Having personally experienced a darkened intellect, I suspect that Protestants suffer from the same condition when arriving at convoluted ideas
@@jimbob3719. The fruit of personal interpretation! Jesus died for us to open heaven. However, our reparation for our personal sins is still required, which is why Holy Mass, an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary is offered. 2 Thes 2:15 Paul works out his salvation with fear & trembling. Salvation is a work-in-progress!
Sin injures our relationship with Christ. Grave sin. We can reconcile ourselves to God by asking for for his forgiveness. Baptism saves and if you don’t commit Any grave sins you can be assured of your salvation. It is good we have confession and can reconcile ourselves back to God when we fall away.
If someone can be ransomed from slavery and then go back to slavery, were they ever liberated? Yes. If someone takes a bath and then gets dirty, were they ever cleansed? Yes. If you catch a vase from falling off a ledge, but then it falls off a different one later, was it saved the first time? Yes. So why are we treating the language of cleansing/ransom/salvation in a theological sense any different than every other time we use it? That seems like special pleading.
In Exodus 12:7, the blood being sprinkled on "the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses" (an act by believers in God) is God's edict to signify one's house belongs to God (i.e. dedicated to God). Similarly, baptism which is an edict by God ("Go and baptize" Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16) is a dedication (i.e. covenant) of the body and soul made by/to God. The baptized, cleansed of Original Sin, belongs to God (i.e. under covenant/belonging to God's rulership). Baptism is an efficacious, indelible sign and symbol of God's fellowship/covenant on the soul.
❤❤crazy fan from the NEC here. Is there a reason to believe that baptism must be done by a priest or follow a specific form? Can someone be washed clean at a rock and roll church dunking?
the "vinegar" (sour wine) was placed on hyssop, in Egypt hyssop was used to spread the blood of the lamb. The sour wine (vinegar) on the hyssop branch embodies the blood of the (new) Lamb of God. And true enough, Jesus said in the upper room that the wine is His Blood.
That shouldn't be done. When a person baptises another, especially a child, they are expecting that the child will be taught the Christian faith. If the child will not be brought up Christian it is worse for the child.
The objection to efficacious baptism defines "works" so broadly that any belief and faith itself is a "work". Faith and belief are acts of the will (cooperating with God’s supernatural grace). Any act of the will is not passive and thus would be a "work" by this extremely broad definition of "works".
@shamelesspopery As Protestant, I have come a long way in seeing how easy it is to pit verses against one another instead of wholistically harmonizing them. The doctine of baptism is no exception, but there are still things that I wrestle with. How would you understand this passage?: "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." Acts 8.14-17 They were baptized in the name of Jesus, which means it was not merely the same baptism of John. They did not receive the Holy Spirit, and therefore could not have been regenerated.
Maybe it wasn’t trinitarian? Or maybe they hadn’t had hands laid on them? This passage is actually the foundation for the sacrament of confirmation, which is the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
That is a difficult one. The best explanation I have seen is that the laying on of hands is the sacrament of confirmation. What is clear is that it cannot undermine baptismal regeneration in favor of the faith alone doctrine of many Protestants because the Samaritans had also received the word of God with all eagerness.
@vinciblegaming6817 Thank you for your reply. No sooner than I wrote that, I wondered, " Wait! It says in the name of Jesus, but not the Trinity. Perhaps that's why?" XD I don't know the answer to that definitively, but it is a valid possibility!
I read that since this was the first time that Samaritans were receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter should be present as the special leader (not pope but leader) he was. Peter was also present the 1st time that Jews & then Gentiles were saved.
Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is a gift that you don't have to accept. If we were all saved simply by Christ's Sacrifice, it would take away from the free will of the people who wish to reject Salvation. Those people might be very ignorant; but their right to reject Jesus is respected by Jesus. Only when you accept Jesus' gift of Salvation can you receive it.
Great teaching, but in Acts 19, the people did not received the Holy Spirit at baptism, they received it after Paul laid his hands on them. The same for the samaritans in Acts 8. When you read Acts 2, Peter says be baptized and you WILL receive the Holy Spirit, meaning not at baptism but baptism being the requirment to have hands laid upon you in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
I think your objection is a misunderstanding of either not having read, or misunderstanding other Scriptures which shine additional insight on less clear Scriptures. You initially mention Acts 19. In that text it is crystal clear the believers in question were baptized with "the baptism of John" [the Baptist]. John the Baptist's baptism was a baptism merely of "repentance" [cf. Mark 1: 4, 5] and did not confer the gift of the Holy Spirit BECAUSE: "On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, 'Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: 'Rivers of living waterwill flow from within him.'" He said this in reference to the Spirit that THOSE WHO CAME TO BELIEVE IN HIM WERE TO RECEIVE. There was, of course, NO SPIRIT YET, BECAUSE Jesus had NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED." cf. John 7: 37-39 "But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I WILL SEND him to you." cf. John 16: 7 "While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for ' the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days YOU WILL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.'" cf. Acts 1: 4-5 Even the Apostles themselves, in their baptism in the Jordan, prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit into the Church on that first Pentecost [cf. Acts 2: 1-4] had not been with the Holy Spirit. Once Jesus had "been glorified" [in the Resurrection from the dead, and in His Ascension into heaven], His Spirit proceeds forth into the Church in order that it may communicate the Spirit to her children in baptism, strengthen the conferral in confirmation, and to those in holy orders through the "laying on of hands". At Acts 8, it is obvious there is a difference than at Acts 19. At Acts 19, those believers had only been baptized into the baptism of repentance from sin by John the Baptist, who was a precursor to the coming of Jesus Christ. In Samaria, in Acts 8, it seems the Apostle Philip, in addition to working signs and wonders as a confirmation of his preached message, had been preaching faith in Jesus Christ along with the exhortation to repent of sin in one's life, and had baptized them in "the name of the Lord Jesus". However, when Jesus commissioned the Apostles and charged them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the faith [cf. Matt. 28: 19, 20], the baptismal formula wasn't merely John the Baptist, nor of Jesus Christ alone. The command is to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". At Acts 8, the Apostle Philip seems to have been baptizing only in the name of Jesus [cf. Acts 8: 12]. Since the Samarian Christians also were unaware of the Holy Spirit, they needed to have hands laid on them by the Apostles Peter and John in order to be born again [cf. Acts 8: 14-16].
Calvin said hell was copiously populated with the bodies of infants not a cubit long who burn for eternity in hell because they died without being baptized.
The Bible doesn't explicitly or implicitly say one way or another. And no one, not even Calvin knows the mind of God. The Catholic position is the correct one: Since we don't know the mind of God, we must trust in His justice and mercy without being presumptuous one way or another.
@@alisterrebelo9013 The fact that you can't bring yourself to just say Calvin's opinion was horrible and barbaric and God wouldn't make infants who died without baptism burn forever is truly scary.
@@cultist100 I'm making the Biblically correct point, and speaking truth regardless of your feelings, which I am called to do. Calvin was a murderous thug who Deformed the Church, he was a horrible and barbaric man, during his lifetime.
Everyone is redeemed, but not everyone will be saved. Believe and be obedient. Also, our protestant brothers and sisters are way too much afraid of „works”. Grace builds on nature. We cooperate with God’s grace. Ora et labora. Pray like it depends on God, act as if it depends on you. God bless us all!
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
I have a two-part question. When Jesus asks the chief priests and elders of the people where John's baptism came from, either heaven or men, why was he asking them that question? This video claims that St. Paul thought John's baptism was different than Christian baptism. When Jesus received this "non-trinitarian baptism" he did receive the Holy Spirit which descended in the form of a dove. I know Jesus didn't need to repent from sin; he tells John to baptize him in order to fulfil all righteousness. I have always believed Jesus indirectly claimed to the chief priests and elders of the people that John's baptism was of heaven. I have always thought Jesus was validating John's baptism and adding to it; i.e., giving his disciples an example of a more complete baptism. This is the first time I come across the idea that it was replaced. Everything John did was to prepare the way for Jesus, so his baptism, which was authorized by God, being replaced sounds contradictory. I have also always wondered about the way modern baptisms more closely resemble John's baptism and not the type this video calls "Christian baptisms." I have never seen someone get baptized and then a miraculous event immediately follows like speaking in tongues or prophesying like the example of the Ephesus 12. Also, when Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or in Jesus' name alone as some insist), doesn't this mean the Christian baptism is in Jesus'/the Trinity's authority and not in the authority of any particular church or person? In other words, any disciple/believer can perform this ritual. That's good news to me in light of what is said at 31.46 about baptism being the doorway to the church. Nobody's authority except Jesus' should stand in the way. Maybe more could've been said regarding the baptism formula. Good video. I do agree baptism does something: it identifies you as a follower of Jesus and brings you into his flock.
I baptize you with water, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" Mathew 3, 11 John's baptism was with water, a symbol of repentance Jesus' baptism is with the Holy Spirit
@@Maranatha99 Yes, I am aware of those verses. My point is that there are passages where John's baptism and Jesus's baptism are indistinguishable. For example, look at these passages from John chapters 3 and 4: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized" (Jn 3.22-23). "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee" (Jn 4.1-3). It's not until later after Jesus's ascension that the baptism formula, speaking in tongues and prophesying accompany baptism. I believe that John's baptism was incorporated into Jesus's ministry rather than replaced. Without speaking in tongues and prophesying, would John's baptism and the "Christian baptism" be visibly distinguishable in the early church? It doesn't seem like it. I've never seen it happen in these modern times either.
This is what Paul says in Acts! “Then calling for a light, he entered. And trembling, he fell before the feet of Paul and Silas. So they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and then you will be saved, with your household."” Acts 16:29, 31 CPDV “And bringing them outside, he said, "Sirs, what must I do, so that I may be saved?"” Acts 16:30 CPDV “So they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and then you will be saved, with your household."” Acts 16:31 CPDV Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be Saved!❤️
@ The Greek word for "believe" is pisteuo. It can also mean "to entrust," "to rely on," or "to cling to". In the New Testament, pisteuo conveys the idea of trusting Christ to save someone, rather than just accepting him as an historical figure.
@@Ebreeze1976 I agree "believe" has all of those other meanings you listed, but listing synonyms doesn't answer the question, of what "belief" means from the Bible. For example, if I asked you what does "love" mean from the Bible, there is lots you could say, one example could be, love means laying down your life for your friends, John 15:13. In the same way I'm asking, what does "belief" in Jesus mean? Because right now you're just giving me a circular definition.
@ no I am not giving you a circular answer, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of what he did for you and me, and everyone else to restore man’s relationship to God! There are many parts to the gospel, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has done the gospel! There is nothing for you or me to do in the gospel! The law is the requirement of God for a man to have righteousness before God and the gospel is what Jesus Christ has done to provide righteousness for man before God! There is nothing for you or me or anyone else to do in the gospel of Jesus Christ! What God requires, God provides! We are safe by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone!
If baptism really saves and it makes us no longer slaves of sin and also infuses love, faith and love, according to the catechism, why then wait till Easter vigil or a Sunday to be baptized? Can. 856 Although baptism can be celebrated on any day, it is nevertheless recommended that it be celebrated ordinarily on Sunday or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil.
The text you cited literally points out that it can be celebrated on any day (and should be, if there's a fear of death!), but there's something beautiful about entering into Christ's Death and Resurrection on Easter Vigil, and doing it in a way that is public, communal, and liturgical.
@ But if you wait till Easter vigil, you’ll be enslaved to sin until you are baptized, according to the catechism. So Joe sounds like you don’t believe the catechism then that baptism really frees someone of being a slave to sin, if you think you should wait till Easter vigil.
@@jerrodbell-ow7er Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."
I get what you are saying. When I was in RCIA, someone asked this very question because they had not been baptized. This is the answer given and it is in the Cathechism. Through no fault of their own, they died before baptism, but they were trying. Also know tuere are baptisms at Pentecost and the Feast of David that happen, but generally at Easter Vigil. I had alteady been baptized, but Easter Vigil is where I came in.
Joe, is it possible the issue is how baptism is carried out? Shouldn't baptism and chrismation be done together instead of separately? We know faith must accompany the sacraments for them to be fruitful. Can you devote an episode to the issue of a "tied sacrament"? I think this gets to the issue other Christians have with infant baptim. If baptism does all these things where are the fruits?
The liturgical sacramental practices have changed when they were administered throughout history. I like how the Eastern Orthodox have kept baptism and first communion together for the infant. I've heard some prolific Catholic apologists say that since Catholics have split baptism and first Eucharist apart we are starving the newly baptized Christian for years of a grace of God until they have their first Eucharist.
@@classicalteacherthe only problem I have with giving an infant the Eucharist is that newborns are not supposed to have solids so it might be more difficult to digest.
@@classicalteacher The Catechism says Confirmation aka Chrismation is "necessary for the completion of baptismal grace." In fact, the Catechism says all three sacraments constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation". So my question is why do we allow them to be separated? Adults who come into the Church receive all three at once. Why are children not offered the same grace? I know the Catechism discusses the practice of infant baptism. However, why not return to the old form?
Children baptized older than infants receive all three… I kinda prefer confirmation being at the age of responsibility as they take on the mantle of responsibility for their own salvation and their parents are no longer responsible
Why did Jesus instruct His apostles to baptize 10:49 in River Jordan IF it does not save? In Acts 2:38-42 & 1 Peter 3:21, Peter sats baptism saves and he baptized 3,000 who were saved. Finally, ALL EARLY BELIEVING CHRISTIANS believed in water baptism
I have to ask if Baptism was actually worthless why did they waste so much time, ink and papyrus on the subject? I'm sure there was MUCH more they wanted to write about but simply limited themselves. (some Apostles wrote *nothing!)* Even the whole story of another chosen by God could have been eliminated> John the Baptist. His story becomes meaningless if Baptism isn't a literal or required or beneficial. As for all the other things We Catholics do...and are found in the Bible. If they weren't literal, why didn't He speak more clearly then? (I think He spoke quite clearly, and they are literal) Why screw around instead of simply saying that this is figurative? Or in some people's opinion are _not required_ are _optional_ Again why waste the time on optionals? And finally... Why didn't the Apostles get it right when they taught this stuff. If the people were thinking "Oh this is literal" and it, wasn't they had PLENTY of time to make those corrections in their teachings and in the *New Testament!* Yet the early Catholics in the 1st century prove this wasn't the case.
Peter said in Acts 11:13 KJV "and he (Cornelius) showed us how he had seen an Angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell you Words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved. 15 And as I (Peter) began to speak, the HOLY GHOST fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the Word of the LORD, how that HE said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be Baptized with the HOLY GHOST. 17 Forasmuch then as GOD gave them the like gift as HE did unto us, who believed on the LORD JESUS CHRIST; what was I, that I could withstand GOD?" Immersed in physical water is merely a physical sign that points to the saving spiritual truth of being baptized/immersed by the HOLY GHOST making a true believer HIS habitation forever which makes that believer and all believers the true Church which is spiritual not a palace in Rome. Romans 8:9 KJV "But you are not in the flesh, but in the SPIRIT, if so be that the SPIRIT of GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT of CHRIST, he is none of HIS. 11 But if the SPIRIT of HIM that raised up JESUS from the dead dwell in you, HE that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken (bring to life) your mortal bodies by HIS SPIRIT that dwells in you."
I get Baptized into the Roman Catholic Church December 8 next month, Please pray for me
No!
Just joking! Of course, three hail Marys for you. Best decision ever! Congratulations. :)
That is so awesome !congratulations
Congratulations 🎊
Galatians 3:27 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Baptism is part of your initiation into the church.
Congratulations. May the Holy Spirit bear fruit through you and may he lead you to everlasting life. May God bless you.
Congratulations! I have to wait until September 😢
Pastors told me that baptism was a work. Then they said it was not a work, but could become a work. After much more discussion, they said it was not a work after all. But then again, they would never tell anyone they HAVE to be baptized... One told me that baptism is a non-essential topic; so you can agree to disagree on infant baptism. The other pastor said that infant baptism was a straight up heresy. They both denied that the scripture in Peter that says "baptism now saves you" refers to baptism saving us.
And they don't understand why I'm becoming Catholic ... 😅
If Protestants can’t agree on baptism, that alone is a strong case to look elsewhere for Christian doctrine. It’s clearly very, very important in the New Testament.
A lot of people I’ve talked to, saying that baptism does not save don’t understand because they don’t have the spirit of God to understand.
Yeah i converted 2 years ago. Once i realized a person could increase their faith, i realized essentially it’s a work to believe. If you can work harder to believe more or slack off and believe less, then it must be a work! I realized according to St James there’s 2 kinds of faith, the kind that doesnt work and just intelligently accepts a fact, and another that is infused with love and is motivated to work.
At the end of the day, is it the Hammer, the carpenter’s hand, or the carpenter that drives the nail into the wood? Protestants say it’s the carpenter. Catholics say all of them play a role in the same action. Because of their theology, Protestants cannot explain the role of the hand or the hammer. All over scripture it makes it sound like the hand and the hammer are essential in driving nails but protestant 2D theology leaves no room for the hand or the hammer. This causes scripture to make little sense to them, then they feel an obligation to assign a better meaning to the passage that what they see. It’s like always living in a box and telling people outside the box how youve figured out the whole world.
@@timboslice980 Welcome home!
That's funny. Welcome home!
This was an amazing explanation!! Me and my family are in the process of converting to Catholicism right now and I’m so thankful for your channel!! ☺️
I converted 20 years ago and I've never regretted it. Welcome home
Welcome home! I'm so thrilled for you and your family.
welcome
Wow, I needed this video, and there it was at the top of my feed. I'm a new convert from Baptist, and my boys are getting baptized into Catholicism Saturday. God's moving through you, and I've seen God's hand everywhere lately. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
Awesome! God is definitely moving. Congratulations to you and your boys!
Praise God! Welcome home 🏠
Wrong, my dear. You're teaching the kids that there is no other way into heaven other than baptism (!!!) and that is a lie. That horrific UNTRUTH is explicitly stated in CCC 1257 and if you believe that, rather than Christ who said HE was the way, then all hope is lost.
Good day.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d It is not a lie that Baptism is necessary for us; it is what Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles taught from the beginning of HIS Church (Refer to the many references in this video). Catholics do not deny that Christ is the way and that we need the merits of HIS atonement to be saved; the only difference is that we accept the way that HE gave us to receive the merits of HIS atonement.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d Who institute baptism of water and the Holy Spirit?
If baptism doesn't save, why does 1 Peter say Noah’s flood prefigures baptism?
People who deny baptism are saying a catastrophic event prefigures something that doesn't do anything. That is not what prefigure means.
Nice.
While reading Genesis, it struck me how much like baptism the flood was. The flood cleansed the earth of all unrighteousness and was followed by a covenant with God.
Crossing the Red Sea. All them Egyptians got baptized 😃 Sorry couldn't resist.
@@IG88AAAI don't get that the flood was a washing. The water brought Death, not life. Without the Ark, Noah would have also perished. The ark is what saved Noah's life. The ark prefigured Christ who is the Ark of our salvation. What does this have to do with water baptism? Answer, Nothing.
@@jeromepopiel388 Go tell Peter that.
once I heard Dr Scott explain the last supper and passion as the Seder meal..... it changed my whole understanding of my faith. Ave Maria.
People are not defining what work is. Work is an action performed. Baptism is not a work because WE are not performing baptism. We are receiving baptism.
The Bible is clear about how faith needs to be active. That means you need work to have an active faith. Galatians says our faith WORKS through love.
Excellent distinctions! What of the possible objection that the choice or consent to receive baptism is a work inseparable from it; thus, if you believe baptism saves, you believe works save?
I'd personally respond by asking what faith is if not a reorientation of the will in light of some revelation, thus desiring baptism is evidence of saving faith if baptism is a core doctrine of said revelation, which I think it clearly is for the Christian. Curious what everyone thinks here.
For support of my definition of faith, an analysis of Hebrews is useful: "faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb 11:1, DRV). Faith is, first, some kind of substance. Second, it pertains to hope. Third, it yields evidence either contrary to or beyond appearances or purely empirical knowledge. Now, hope implies some kind of willing or desire of the thing hoped for, thus faith pertains to the essence behind hopeful desires, and those desires are for that which is revealed to us beyond what our senses are competent to receive.
@@sophia-proskomen As a Protestant, your objection is accurate and is why baptism cannot be your "savior", which is what you are advocating when push comes to shove. If you are receiving B, IN ORDER to be saved, you have essentially put the work of Christ on the same level as the work you RECEIVED in that ritual. Therefore, what you are believing is "another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4.
Scripture says we are born again by the word of God in 1 Peter via the "foolishness of preaching" elsewhere. NOT by the B-word.
@ThornyCrown-l5d I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure I follow that St. Peter's words or any other statement of something that saves in Scripture, e.g. good works, hope, etc. as others have pointed out, is exclusive of any other. There appear to me to be many ways to have all of the above truly save under faith.
I also hope my response to the objection makes sense. If baptism is a critical doctrine present in saving faith, then it saves alongside faith, and a choice or movement of the will towards it is secondary to its salvific character as a part of saving faith, whatever that may be. So, our secondary work of desiring and accepting baptism is not what makes baptism salvific. Baptism itself is salvific through its source (Christ and our faith in Him). If we disagree that baptism is a critical component of saving faith, then that's a different story and is basically a nonstarter for this level of dialogue.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d I'd also add your explanation is fully accurate. If someone believed baptism was their "savior" and was baptized to "strong arm" God into saving them, I'm pretty sure that's an invalid baptism and possibly a very strange kind of legalistic idolatry.
@@sophia-proskomen I understand your view, but I must reject the premise. So you say baptism is salvific due to the SOURCE (i.e., Christ giving instruction to do so), but that is walking a very fine line between heaven in hell. Baptism either saves you or it does not. Christ will not share his glory with a ritual, regardless of the fact he wants us to engage in it, as he wants us to do good works. Speaking of which, when the catechism says we are saved by the good works we do.... with God's grace (#1821), we say, NO WAY. We are not saved by good works that COME FROM grace, or Christ as their source, because we are told he has chosen NOT to save anybody on the basis of any works of righteousness whatsoever, period, case closed (Titus 3:5).
Paul cursed the Judaizers (those early Christians) for adding certain aspects of the law to be saved in ADDITION to Christ, but he would not stand for it, "no, not for an hour", as stated in Galatians. Catholicism is guilty of the very same error.
In the final analysis, what Joe is saying cannot stand because CCC 1257 makes it clear that the RCC cannot imagine ANY MEANS OTHER than baptism that ensures eternal life. THAT, my dear, is crossing the line over into "another gospel" which saves no one (2 Cor 11:4).
NO OTHER MEANS? NO OTHER WAY?
Do I really have to spell it out? Jesus said, "I AMMMM the way"; consequently, I trust in the merits of him alone. His words are as clear as the light of day and demolishes papal claims in the blink of an eye.
I kissed the Pope farewell 30 years ago for this and many other biblical reasons and never looked back.
Good day.
2:15 I was always really struck by this at my old baptist church when I started looking into Catholicism. I was reading through the "what we believe" section on the website. I found it VERY curious that the baptism section omitted a verse like 1 Peter 3:21. You'd think a church that claims to teach based on the Bible alone could simply list every passage from the Bible that contains the word they are purporting to teach about. I think we see the same thing with divorce and remarraige. We have explicit passages concerning that in scripture, yet many protestants like to quote from very general verses that don't touch on divorce at all and then cram their interpretation of those into the divorce passages later.
Edit: I was baptized into the Catholic Church in 2023. The issue above came up when I was seeking baptism in my local baptist church and began to read more deeply into the faith.
It is interesting to see verses that have nothing to do with a particular topic used to used to either justify or nullify a teaching.
Read 1 Peter 3:21 does it say baptism saves ? No, what saves is a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's what saves, not baptism.
@@eddyrobichaud5832That’s literally what it says though. You can try to bend the meaning all you want, but the plain reading is clear. Baptism saves.
“And **baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you**-not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
1 Peter 3:21
@@eddyrobichaud5832 Two things.... 1. You missed my point. I was not commenting on how to defend 1 Peter 3:21 in my original comment. I was simply pointing out the peculiarity of churches who claim to teach from the bible alone omitting verses that use the exact word they are purporting to teach about. One would assume that an easy way to teach about something from "the bible alone" would be to just list the verses where that something is mentioned. Failing to do that either means that the Bible isn't clear on something (which runs afoul of the protestant doctrine of perspecuity) or that those churches are not teaching from the Bible alone... or both
2. The verse literally says baptism is that appeal to God for a clean conscience. It isn't a work. It is a physical+spritual thing (a sacrament) that our loving Father gave us (a bunch of fallen physical+spritual beings) as a fitting and beautiful way to be regenerated... born again... by His grace.
@@Ruudes1483 It doesn’t say baptism saves you, what saves is is believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not take away or wash away the dirt of your flesh, meaning it doesn’t take away the sin from you. What saves you and washes away sin is Jesus Christs death and resurrection. And it says having a good conscience towardsGod, babies don’t have a good conscience. So baptism is not for babies.
Always blown away at your ability to bring things to light that I never saw before!
I was raised loosely Protestant (meaning we only went to church on Holy days like Christmas and Easter or when my grandma guilted my dad into it). Been attending Mass and started RCIA a few months ago. Thought I was baptized. Looked for my baptismal certificate and it turns out I was only "dedicated"! Really looking forward to being baptized into the Catholic Church this coming Easter!
Welcome home ⛪️ 📿 may the holy spirit and most blessed sacrament of the eucharist fill your heart with all the treasures of the Catholic church
Welcome home! God bless you. Remember that your education in faith doesn't end with your baptism and confirmation. Study your new found faith by reading the Church Fathers and lives of the Saints (i.e. Magisterium). The understanding of what being Catholic is, is a life long endeavor. Pray, Fast, Read, Go to Mass and Acts of Mercy.
Welcome home, when you do make it in!
My Tuesday and Thursday mornings now consist of me just waiting for the new shameless popery video to come out.
I look forward to them as well.
@@StringofPearls55 Count me in on that, also.
@@andrewlusk8213 same!
You have no idea how much I needed to hear this✨️ Keep up the good work 🎉👍
but NOT good works! ha
I absolutely love how you biblically support our Catholic faith!!! Amazing!!! I have passed on this video to my daughter whose fiancée is taking classes to become Catholic!!! Please pray for him. His parents and grandparents are Baptist and they have been taught that Catholics don’t believe in the Bible or Jesus as their savior. He has been going to Mass with her steady for about two years so he knows that what he has been told is misinformation!!! So grateful for you! Keep up the great work!!! You are reaching many people!! May God’s blessings be upon you!!!
May the Holy Spirit help us live the grace of Baptism every day and make visible to our neighbours the love of Christ, Who died and rose again for us. Amen. 🙏✝️
How did some Protestant sects get so far off track regarding baptism? Is this mostly a feature of American evangelical Protestants? I’m asking as an American. I was raised with almost no religion, especially after my paternal grandmother died. I converted to Catholicism to be in union with my late husband. Some of the things I found out, that Protestants believe or don’t believe, seem so far off base. Another one (I know this is off-topic) is that Jesus had siblings. What?!! As someone raised without religion and was then nominally Catholic for years, I never thought Jesus had siblings. This idea that a person has to know what they’re getting into, regarding baptism, is bizarre. It reminds me of the parents who say “I’m not going to raise my child in any faith because they should decide for themselves”. Or “I’m not going to give my child gender specific clothes, toys, whatever because they should decide for themselves”. It’s absurd
Also, as “bible believing Christians” or bible alone self Interpretation, why do they ignore so many passages in the bible that refer to baptism? Where did they get it so wrong?
Protestantism is a religion of anti-Catholicism. They must deny Catholic teaching to validate their revolt 500 years ago.
It is what happens when you have a loose tradition with no authority to correct you when you start to veer. Veer a little with each generation and soon you have lost touch with all of reality.
List of things that Scripture is less clear on than than affirming the proposition "Baptism saves you":
The divinity of Christ
The Trinity
Which writings *are* scripture
The structure of the Church that Christ founded
That slavery is wrong
Anyone care to add to it?
Great video , thank you from a Protestant.
I'm glad you mentioned Scott Hahn's take on Jesus taking the 'Fourth Cup' on the Cross from the hyssop stick.
I believe the 4th cup will be drank in heaven:
"Ittell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mathew 26, 29
@@Maranatha99Then read Scott Hahn’s book. He was a well-known Scripture scholar as a Presbyterian (a very anti-Catholic one) who became Catholic through Scripture.
@TrueChristianityWithSandra I have listened to 2-3 videos by Dr. Hanh, & there was a lot of doctrinal error in them. Since I became a true Christian at age 25, I have been reading & studying Scripture.
The only way of not being deceived is by reading Scripture regularly.
Do you do it?
Yes, the full one with 73 books.
@TrueChristianityWithSandra "I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mathew 26, 29
It is not either Baptism saves OR Christ saves. It is both. Christ saves by means of Baptism. No need for such confusion. It is like asking: what gets you to Europe, is it the pilot or the airplane? The answer is both. The pilot and the airplane are not mutually contradictory. It is not as if you have to choose only one answer, the pilot as opposed to the airplane. Or another example: where do I go for truth, the Bible or the Holy Ghost? Both are correct. The truth in the Bible is not mutually opposed to the truth from the Holy Ghost. What saves me? Christ, Baptism, grace, faith, repentance, hope ("we are saved by hope"--Romans 8:24), the mercy of God, the cross of Christ? Answer: all of them in their own proper mode. Again, no need for confusion.
You must not be Protestant then😅.
The genius of Catholicism is its BOTH/AND philosophy ie Jesus & Baptism.
Other examples, Jesus & Mary, Sacred Tradition & Scripture, Body & Blood, Faith & Reason etc
Hey Joe. Will we get a video covering Mary’s immaculate conception??
Thanks Joe for fighting the good fight! Carry on and God bless and prosper all you do! ❤
Great video!! Thank you for showing the typology of the Old to the New Testament! This is always great!
Excellent video as always, Joe. It makes sense to ask the viewers who are so immersed in protestant doctrines of sola fide and anti-catholic church beliefs, to view from just on what scripture teaches. If they do, then they will do like so many other protestants who stopped protesting and came home. I say a prayer for you who are on their way home.
Grazie.
Prego! Grazie a lei!
"You might be protesting..." (41:30)
Classic
This is fantastic 😊 my new favorite video of yours.
Another another analogy for Mark 16:16.
He who buy a car and fills the tank with gas will be able to drive to Florida but he doesn't buy a car will not be able to drive the Florida.
Why would I include the gas in the second part if the person doesn't own a car?
This was awesome. Shameless Popery is always so good, presented well, and wonderfully narrated.
As always, excellent episode ❤
Again. One of the best videos on this teaching I've encountered, likely the best. Joe...thank you! 🎉
Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
Thank you! (Glad to see it works, you are first!)
20 minutes in and already the content, reasoning and exposed truth surpasses anything posted on this platform. One would have to read a long book for Scott Hahn to adsorb as much content. Nice work Joe!
Confessional Lutheran here. We agree on this one!
Yes, we do! This is one of those things that I really appreciate Luther's stridency on. :-)
This video is great. I feel called to the priesthood and have been spending the last year trying to spread the misunderstood faith in my small town and so I have been making defenses and tiktok post about Catholicism. Your videos are extremely helpful. Will definitely give credit
Would have been great to have a 2 second video saying "yes"
Joe is to kind for that 😂
Love the content and would love to hear your opinion on the following argument I'm working on, where even if you concede that Jesus is using metaphor in the last supper, it still leads to a salvific understanding of the eucharist:
premise 1: Jesus is using metaphor when he says "this is my body/blood."
premise 2: metaphor is a device wherein a predicate nominative acts as a descriptor for the subject
conclusion: Jesus is saying that the eucharist is given for us in the same kind of way that his body would be given for us on the cross, which is to say, for the life of the world and forgiveness of sins.
Thanks!
I think it needs more development, but it seems like it has the potential to be an argument for transubstantiation. I just don't know exactly how to move it there
1. We are not saved by works
2. Baptism saves
3. Baptism is not a work
I think a baptist might counter with the syllogism:
1. we are not saved by works
2. baptism is a work
3. baptism does not save
The problem is that the baptist then has to use an extrabiblical premise for 2, and then premise 3 contradicts the plain text of Scripture. In your syllogism, premise 2 is a direct quote from the Scripture, and premise 3 is therefore completely reasonable and compatible with the Scriptures.
It's easy to refute the "baptism by confession but not needed for salvation" protestants. They will pivot and also add that baptism must be by immersion. If baptism does nothing, then why does it even matter how we baptize? Then they will say "tHe gOOd tHiEf dIdnT nEEd tO bE BapTizEd." Then remind them that we don't know the relationship of the "Good thief" he had with Jesus. Also, how can Christ bring him to heaven that day when Christ didn't even enter heaven until 40 days after the resurrection. The problem is generation after generation of made up anti-catholic "doctrines" that have zero basis in historical or theological reality.
What a great point! If it is only symbolic, who cares about the method of the baptism as it would be the symbolism that matters... So much confusion with them.
@@truthnotlies Yes! Whenever I ask them "so baptism doesn't matter in your opinion, correct? Then why are you saying that our baptisms are invalid because we have different modes?" They just say whatever fits their personal opinions and they have no one to oppose them. Total chaos.
And many require you to be re-baptized as a way to become a member of their church. Did Jesus start individual churches, or ONE Body of Christ?
Yes, they practice "re-baptizing" if you were a Catholic. These are the same people who also think baptism isn't necessary.
So, when Jesus said, "today you will be with me in paradise, was He not telling the truth?
Another banger
I'm only halfway through so perhaps this gets added to the discussion;
In 1 Corinthians; when there is dispute between different groups over who baptised them... St Paul could just say "it is a symbol, it does not matter"
Instead he goes on an *elaborate* defense of why it does not matter who baptised us.
Implying St Paul sees it as more than a symbol
1 Corinthians what chapter & verse?
@Maranatha99 the first chapter explicitly,
The theme is followed into the 3/4 chapters regarding division in general. But it Ch 1 begins with explicit example of baptism
1 Cor 4:6 St Thomas Aquinas interprets (rightly I believe) this to mean that he has substituted these/his names for the actual person's names who are causing divisions.
@RedRoosterRoman But Paul never said there that baptism was necessary for salvation
@@Maranatha99 that was not my point at all.
Joe's video that we are commenting on focuses more on that.
My point is that it if it is purely symbolic that would be the place for St Paul to explain.
This evidence is not against:
"It has a spiritual effect but does not play a part in justification"
Nor do I claim it to be :)
It is against the "purely symbolic " view
@@Maranatha99 are you a JW or SDA?
If so I have an argument based on Revelation that I have seen nobody else use :)
I'd be happy to share it and get your thoughts
Dear Joe, thank you so much for yet another illuminating video! I’ve converted into Catholicism (or better said, I’m in the process of converting) and I keep referring to your channel whenever I have doubts. I’m also doing the confirmation course in my Church (although I’m not baptized yet!) and one of the things my teachers (I’d say incorrectly) have taught us is that following our “moral conscience” is more important when it comes to salvation than baptism and the sacraments. I’d love hearing your view on that. Once again, thank you and a big hug from Uruguay ❤
I would say that there isn't really a comparison to make with the sacraments. Baptism and Confirmation are formative and transformative; helping to form us in Christ and form our conscience is part of that. The Eucharist unites us with Christ in a way nothing else can on earth. Reconciliation restores our union with Christ when we stray from our good moral conscience. Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are blessings given by the Church and direct our moral actions as well. Last Rites is a blessing for those at the end of their life
@ thank you 🙏🏻
God bless you !
1 Peter 3:21 is pretty clear that baptism saves and in addition, baptism is not a 'work' because it's not about what we do, it's about what God does (and here, an infant is a perfect example of doing nothing themselves).
What happens when that infant grows up and rejects God?
@@mattb4249 Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit and protects them from the wiles of Satan (who we know prowls the world looking for souls (1 Peter 5:8). Who would not want that grace and protection for their child?. As a child grows up, their developing faith is nurtured and empowered by the grace of that baptism, their parents, god parents and the whole Church, but we still have free will and some people do sadly, grow up and reject Christ. If the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not effective. It's in abeyance (but we can still hope and pray they come back to Christ. It's never too late).
@@mattb4249Then they fall away from God, and we pray for their return.
@@bearistotle2820 So baptism doesn't save then?
@@mattb4249 Yeah it does. That doesn't mean we can't reject God at a later date.
It occurs to me now that baptism is like being plunged back into the primal waters of the chaos at the beginning of creation, hence from them you are made anew.
I would love to see a video explaining what st. Paul meant by being baptized on behalf of the dead
Which ch/vs?
@@JessieJoseph-y1w1 Cor 15:29
@redcenturion88 1 corinthians 15,29
First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed “they” practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to “we,” his Christian followers, “they” are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:
Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lord’s mercy.
Thanks
You're welcome ... and thank YOU!
Repent, regenerate bath, remain
This is the best video baptism I’ve ever seen. Thank you so much and God bless you.
Around the 40 min mark Joe brushes up against something i’ve noticed when arguing with protestants ALL the time. They will focus on one part of a passage so heavily that the impact of some of all terms lose all their impact or meaning.
For example you “you must be born of water and spirit” the protestant really just believes in the spirit part and so they interpret the ‘water’ part to mean something like physical birth. This way Jesus is really saying to be saved you must be born first and then reborn of the spirit. I like to point out that if “born of water” was removed in this case, how would it impact their theological conclusion from the passage. Clearly it would have zero impact on their theology if he never mentioned water at all. What human hasnt been physically born?
This happens so often with protestants that i dont think they even realize it’s happening. It shows how flexible they think scripture is, how can an ultimate authority be flexible at all on matters of salvation?
...the water part in John 5 means the Word, which cleanses (John 15, 3)
@ No it refers here to water baptism….. the word cleanses, baptism cleanses, fire cleanses, and Jesus cleanses. It’s ok to consider baptism here since we have other cleansing mechanisms listed in scripture. Lets look at the context, what must a person DO to be saved. Be reborn of water and spirit, immediately after this they go and baptize people.
Catholics like the early christians also do not confine our definition of God’s word to mean the holy scriptures. The scriptures are part of god’s word but god also breathed on the apostles, apostolic tradition is god’s word, and so is Jesus himself. So the phrase word of god doesnt only pertain to scripture historically speaking. The Ethiopian church, the coptics, syro malabar, assyrians, and eastern orthodox all agree with the catholic church that this refers to water baptism. So we have modern and historical consensus of all christians.
The first Christians to think baptism was just a symbol are the anabaptists and they were condemned by all historical protestant groups. Specifically for their heretical views on baptism. The Mennonites and amish took up the theology, it wasnt for 100 years that any mainline protestant group would accept credo/symbolic baptism. Finally in the early 1600’s english baptists would emerge blending anglican theology with anabaptism to give us your apparent belief. Imagine 3/4 of christian history goes by before someone agrees with your interpretation of John 5. Ever wonder why every christian who read that passage for the first 1500 years of the faith thought he meant water baptism? Could so many through history be wrong? Could the men who were directly discipled by the apostles all be wrong?
What about the Syro Malabar church that was separated from the main church for 1400 years and had identical theology concerning the eucharist and they had basically NO SCRIPTURE? The truth is we get the teaching from Jesus directly through the apostles and the scriptures just confirm this doctrine. In this modern age, any interpretation seems valid but imagine you were one of those first anabaptists to say you know what, i think every single christian before me was wrong about this. I know scripture says to submit to my elders but i think i can ignore that passage. It says lean not on my own understanding but in this case i think i should. It says the church is the bukwark of truth and it if i wont listen to the church, i should be treated as a gentile and tax collector but ya know what.
Im not gonna listen to the church on this one…. I dont think the church supports the truth like scripture says so ill start my own church. I just cant understand the mentality of the early reformers, to be one, you have to ignore so much scripture just to get to the point where your own interpretation of scripture can be the only infallible authority.
@timboslice980 So, Jesus is talking about water baptism, but He doesn't use the word baptism????
Sorry, no
@ what about Mark 16:16 whoever believes and is baptized will be saved?
@timboslice980 Mark 16, 16: 1. The emphasis is in believing, 2. That part of Mark might not be original, but added later. Mark 16, 9-20 might not be from Mark
I really appreciate this video. 🙏
Thank you so much Joe! My wife has fully agreed for our son to be baptized into the church. She even stated this morning well if the intent was wrong in my baptism in the Baptist church I would like to be Baptized again! I’ve asked before about this I’m sure. But, if she were to become Catholic as well would/could she be baptized again?
A brother Catholic here, my friend. I would recommend you to be cautious. If you say that the sacrament of Baptism does not imprint character (the “seal” or “σφραγίς”, as more usual in the Greek patrology), it would be contrary to the text of Mark 16, 16, if understood in its entirety. As said, _”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”:_ a baptized person can lose faith but a baptized person can never lose the seal of the baptized, if it was valid (regardless of if it was licit).
Not only that. I think it is problematic to take that road without some guardrails because it will enter all over again the problem of rebaptism of heretics and the Donatist crisis: if baptism does not imprint character or the “seal” but only a diffuse episode of grace, whomever feels to arbitrate where grace is (like Donatists and crypto-Donatists of modern day, which tends to be a huge problem among Eastern Orthodox) - meaning heretics can’t offer that nor any kind of seal -, then the position of always rebaptizing heretics that confer baptism as the Church does (correct form and matter, and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) would have prevailed. But it hasn’t. The Donatists were declared heretics and not the other way around. Pope St Stephen of Rome won over the discussion with St Cyprian of Carthage.
The Fathers of Nicea have dealt with that SPECIFICALLY in two of its canons. And they simply attest that the dogmatic position of the Church of Rome prevailed in its canonical regulations.
In *Canon 8* of Nicea, the Ecumenical Council decided that the Novatian heretics (they called themselves the “purists” or the ‘cathari’) - curiously enough, Novatianism was declared a heresy by the Church of Rome using the letters of St Cyprian of Carthage (!) - MUST NOT BE rebaptized when coming to the Church.
In *Canon 19,* on the other hand, the Holy
Ecumenical Council decided that Paulianist heretics (the followers of Paul of Samosata, also known as “Adopcionists”) MUST BE rebaptized when coming to the Church.
What was the difference between one case (Novatianism) and the other (Adoptionism)? Although both groups were dogmatically declared heretics by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils, Adoptionists had to be rebaptized because they rejected the Most Holy Trinity. In this case rebaptism is unavoidably necessary.
For a Catholic, not only it is heresy to rebaptize “heretics” without further distinctions, but it is also sacrilegious and disrespects the canons and the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea. The oneness of baptism is not something to play with: since it is the only sign of sacramental unity amidst the unfortunate disunity, it will eventually lead to the oneness of faith again. Devil or “diablo” comes from the Greek word “dia-ballein”, which means the union of the word “dia”, that means the other side, across (like in ‘diagonal’) and “ballein”, that means to shoot, to aggressively push (like in ‘ballistic’). So the devil is the one to push to the other side what was united before; he is the one behind the multitude of baptisms as theatrical acts or of the Neo-Donatist heresy of these days, honestly. That’s a serious issue. The mere fact that Protestants can have a different doctrine concerning baptisms being regenerative or not is insufficient (“per se”) to indicate the case is for rebaptism. Maybe you should talk to a priest, my friend.
God bless!
The Catholic Church recognizes all Trinitarian baptisms - in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If she was thus baptized, she would not need to be rebaptized. Even if they don’t have perfect understanding, their faith and obedience is cooperation with God’s grace.
@@masterchief8179Wow. Very cool. Thx.
As someone mentioned above, if the baptism was done with the correct Trinitarian formula and with water, then the Catholic Church sees it as valid. Therefore, if that's the case, then she should not be rebaptized.
Echoing the others, all that's needed for intent is that they were intending to do a Trinitarian baptism. It's a relatively low bar to clear. You don't have to fully understand the theology of sacrament (or even recognize it as a sacrament) to intend to do it. (This comes up a lot in marriage: you can be validly and sacramentally married as a baptized Protestant, even if you aren't aware that there's a sacramental nature to your marriage).
This is amazing. Thanks brother!
What’s sad is that a lot of Protestant churches believe that baptism is only symbolic and often times they say it’s not necessary. This is despite the fact that Jesus gave the command to his apostles to baptize. I have a niece whose fiancé is going through RCIA/OCIA right now and apparently there’s a debate whether or not he should be baptized. well if he was not baptized in his previous upbringing then he should be baptized at Easter vigil is my opinion. because otherwise the marriage taking place next summer will not be sacramental.
You should bring up conditional baptism! I’m a former Protestant, now Catholic, and the deacon running RCIA said I didn’t need to be baptized if I already was as a Baptist. That might be true for other Protestant sects that believe baptism IS salvific, but if the sect the person is coming from doesn’t believe baptism saves, then it can be safely assumed that it was not their intention to “do what the Church does,” which is one of the components of a valid baptism.
Me, I was eventually conditionally baptized and conditionally confirmed when I went to a TLM parish, since there was no assurance my first confirmation, which I received without having been baptized, was valid.
It was a whole big headache. But look into your niece being able to be conditionally baptized! Might save her soul, but at the very least it will definitely save time later lol
@@pio1483it's not my niece it's her fiancé. My niece was baptized when she was a baby. She's a cradle Catholic
Hmm, never thought of that. If they don’t believe it saves then they are not doing it with the right intention so it seems it should be invalid.
Well yes it depends on whether he was baptized and IF he was baptized correctly
@@PatrickSteilthat’s not accurate. If he had a Trinitarian baptism then it is valid regardless of what there intention is. This was dealt with in the Church back in the 2nd century when at times heretics baptized people and the Church already answered this question
Thank you for your great service Joe
God bless you
Great! You could do a marriage video too.
Ephesians 2:1-10 is talking about initial salvation via baptism. Initial justification is by Grace alone, and the standard practice of new believers in the New Testament was to be immediately baptized upon conversion. We see that play out in verses 1-4 where Paul talks about how he and the Ephesians were dead in sin but we see in verses 5 & 6 by grace they were moved to baptism and saved, hence initial salvation.
Notice verses 5/6 speak of being dead in trespasses, making us alive in Christ, raised up with him. This is early Christian jargon for baptism. Colossians 2:12-13, which is also written by Paul, refers to baptism in the very same way (dead in our trespasses, made alive with Christ, raised up with him).
I've been railing on this point for a while. I'd even go a little further, that "being dead in trespasses" ought to be translated "being dead to trespasses", looking to Romans 6 as a parallel. It's also significant that Ephesians 2 is an extension of the discussion in Ephesians 1, where Christ dies, is raised, and then seated in Heaven.
@michaelbeauchamp22 I appreciate the insight on this. I will do a re-read of Ephesians 1 and Romans 6. This only furthers the point that Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with faith alone.
@michaelbeauchamp22 Ephesians 1:18- 20 is indeed an allusion to baptism. "Your hearts" in verse 18 is calling back to Deut 30:6 and Acts 2:37. Early theologians like Justin Martyr described baptism as the sacrament of enlightenment, which is a reference to Eph 1:18 (CCC 1216).
11:57 Batism is a good work, it's submitting to the Authority of God, which I have ZERO understanding of how that is controversial. Do protestants think that you are saved without submitting to God's Authority?
Baptists, specifically, get baptized out of obedience. They think they repent/believe and the Holy Spirit enters them and they are saved… then because of their salvation, they obey. So it’s still important, it just isn’t what does the saving.
Where do u get the idea that Protestsnts don't submit to God's authority?
@@Maranatha99 Because submitting is a work.
@@joshuabussell4379 where do you get the idea that Protestsnts teach we should do works????
@Maranatha99 i don't, i get the idea that protestants believe we are saved by "Faith alone", the Bible teaches that we are saved through Faith working through love.
Excellent presentation. Very logical and convincing.
yes. any other answer is simply wrong
Truth and wisdom is a powerful combination
Does making the First Comment on a Shameless Popery video save us?
No, but you can have a partial indulgence, as a treat.
Only if you give him a donation of $500 😜
@ top Patreon reward tier
@@femaleKCRoyalsFanit's not simony as long as you also like and subscribe
Certainly a bishop can grant an indulgence for listening to the Hesch?
Thank you you're amazing at this! God Bless and May Jesus and Our Lady keep you 🙏
Go ye out ta all nations, teaching them baptism doesn't do anything.
Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
You obviously didn't watch the video.
@@classicalteacherI think he was being sarcastic.
@@Ruudes1483 , I was.
Rom 6 is key to everything! Faith, baptism, obedience all of that leads one to the gift of Salvation which I can't accomplish through any deeds of the flesh that I conceived of, but to experience death to sin in baptism of Christ before my body actually experiences physical death. Death is the gift! Get saved by dying to sin. Experience the death of sin in me through faith in Christ's words and commands. Like our blessed mother Mary said, "Do what he tells you to do!" Get into His body the Church and get his body and blood into your self via the Eucharist! Do this! Those are physical things on earth now that have an eternal substance and nature!
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Great work Joe!
Heresy! Joe, clearly you do not understand that it is by Bacon alone that one has a delicious breakfast.
Skipping breakfast on Friday makes things easier for me.
Except for those of us who don't eat meat on Fridays unless it's a special feast day like Christmas then bacon is not allowed because it's a meat
this oughta be a good one
What a lot of Protestants have a hard time with is their presuppositions and assumptions being challenged. There's a whole category of Protestant thought and to some degree Catholic but it's mitigated and within certain guardrails, of presuppositionalism.
The difficulty is getting them to see that what's being discussed and what's being debated is the ground that they're standing on, what they thought was firm is actually what's being debated not what they consider to be their arbitrary list of essentials or non-essentials as one of your previous videos pointed out. They can't even tell us what the essentials are.
Joe,
Would you please consider responding to the video “JD Vance Converted Religions”, on Wretched/Fortis Institute?
Thanks for all you do.
it washes the stain of original sin away, and marks you as a son or daughter of God. Peter says it saves you, Paul says it saves you, and Jesus says it saves you. i don't know how much clearer scripture needs to be.
Excellent
Im a Protestant who has held both views in my life: baptism is essential for salvation, and baptism being an outward sign of an inward decision that you already are saved.
Where I fall now is who cares if it’s technically required or not. Our Lord asked us to do it, so I do it. It’s literally in the great commission. Just get baptized rather than worrying about how little you can do and still be saved.
I will always baptize people as their next logical step after putting their faith in Christ and then regardless of my doctrinal beliefs they are putting on Christ, they and i are being obedient to Christ, and Christ is doing the work. These aren’t only theological logical questions, these are commands by God our savior and should not be downplayed because of theology
I think the key to reconciling both positions is baptism of desire. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but sacramental baptism is not the only kind of baptism; it's the ordinary sign that we have been saved by dying and rising with Christ. In either case, baptism saves, not faith alone.
@MarkStein-n3r even when Protestants believe it’s an outward symbol of an inward decision, it’s certainly not “nothing” or significant at all. We do it because Christ commanded us to. That’s very significant. Just because we don’t believe you technically need to for salvation, doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean anything to us. There are lots of very important things that aren’t necessary for salvation but are very important to be obedient to God for..
@MarkStein-n3r I don’t believe baptism is essential for salvation. I’m a credo baptist as well. But what I’m saying is this is bigger than theology, it’s a command by Jesus. So just don’t whether it’s essential or not.
And because I don’t believe it’s essential for salvation, it affords me to have a more charitable position on it. I don’t think God is going to reject people from heaven because they got baptized wrong accidentally.
Referring to it as a “bath” for babies is pretty demeaning and unnecessary language.
@ yea you’re completely misunderstanding me. As a Protestant, I completely agree with you about Protestants. Protestants that I know tend to put more weight on their own theological positions than just being obedient to Christ and his commands. For example being so entrenched in sole fide that they almost diminish the necessity of baptism. I think that’s wrong. My comments were targeted for Protestants sir. And I agree with you on the church fathers and councils. I’m becoming more Catholic daily. And no I don’t think theology is just nerdy talk. I love theology and teach theology as well. What I’m saying in this particular case is Protestants put their own theology above just obeying Jesus because they wanna be right. I’m like, just obey Jesus and get baptized.
@MarkStein-n3r I would agree with you if propositions were so easily established as contrary. It's not easy to establish that what one is saying is actually contrary to a position you hold, only that your particular interpretation of the proposition is. To say so without any attempt at reconciliation is almost always presumptuous and not helpful. What seems like a contradiction in a derivative proposition like these is almost always either a misunderstanding or a difference in more fundamental principles. Philosophical hermeneutics is helpful here to appreciate limitations in understanding that make such an apparent clear cut application of classical logic problematic. Feel free to disagree, but we probably won't get anywhere discussing the issue further.
"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
1 Corinthians 10, 2.
This is one of several examples in Scripture where the idea of baptism is used in a metaphorical sense.
"Baptism" means "submersion".
Paul talks often about the idea of us being "submerged" in Christ, meaning that we identify with Him.
Did Jesus need to get baptized to be saved ? Remember that Jesus is an example for every christian.
The Savior did not need to be saved.
@ exactly, it’s the same thing for us baptism does not save.
@@EddyRobichaud So the Bible is wrong?
“And **baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you**-not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
1 Peter 3:21
Eddie, you're weird. Really weird.
@@classicalteacher For you I’m weird because all you see is your religions interpretation and can’t see what the bible really says.
What happened to the theme music? 🎶
Question comes to mind. Can dieing on a cross vexbe considered an act of ‘work’?
If it were merely a passive action, then probably no, dying would not be a "work." However, Jesus considers his death to be something that He is doing, offering Himself up. He says nobody takes His life from Him, but He freely gives it. So that's the sense in which it's Christ's work
@ShamelessPopery Awesome presentation Joe. I've long believed that this one issue is so clear that Protestants are in willful apostasy because they must elevate their own thoughts about the gospel above the clear teaching of the apostles. Baptism is the gateway; (also the gateway out of the mind trap of protestantism).
I’m always amazed how Protestants tend to twist scripture & arrive at dubious conclusions, such as optional baptism in spite of Jn 3:5 1 Peter 3:21 & Acts 2:38-39.
Having personally experienced a darkened intellect, I suspect that Protestants suffer from the same condition when arriving at convoluted ideas
If someone can lose their salvation after baptism and then gain it back, then how did baptism really save that person?
Are you a believer in once saved always saved?
@@andrewlusk8213 yes. i do not believe committing one sin can separate us from God. Romans 8 confirms that
@@jimbob3719. The fruit of personal interpretation! Jesus died for us to open heaven. However, our reparation for our personal sins is still required, which is why Holy Mass, an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary is offered.
2 Thes 2:15 Paul works out his salvation with fear & trembling. Salvation is a work-in-progress!
Sin injures our relationship with Christ. Grave sin. We can reconcile ourselves to God by asking for for his forgiveness. Baptism saves and if you don’t commit
Any grave sins you can be assured of your salvation. It is good we have confession and can reconcile ourselves back to God when we fall away.
If someone can be ransomed from slavery and then go back to slavery, were they ever liberated? Yes. If someone takes a bath and then gets dirty, were they ever cleansed? Yes. If you catch a vase from falling off a ledge, but then it falls off a different one later, was it saved the first time? Yes. So why are we treating the language of cleansing/ransom/salvation in a theological sense any different than every other time we use it? That seems like special pleading.
In Exodus 12:7, the blood being sprinkled on "the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses" (an act by believers in God) is God's edict to signify one's house belongs to God (i.e. dedicated to God). Similarly, baptism which is an edict by God ("Go and baptize" Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16) is a dedication (i.e. covenant) of the body and soul made by/to God. The baptized, cleansed of Original Sin, belongs to God (i.e. under covenant/belonging to God's rulership). Baptism is an efficacious, indelible sign and symbol of God's fellowship/covenant on the soul.
36:24 If one believes and is properly edified/formed in faith, one will want to be baptized.
❤❤crazy fan from the NEC here. Is there a reason to believe that baptism must be done by a priest or follow a specific form? Can someone be washed clean at a rock and roll church dunking?
the "vinegar" (sour wine) was placed on hyssop, in Egypt hyssop was used to spread the blood of the lamb. The sour wine (vinegar) on the hyssop branch embodies the blood of the (new) Lamb of God. And true enough, Jesus said in the upper room that the wine is His Blood.
Can any believer baptise a child secretly against the express wishes of that childs parents?
@@martinlee465 It has happened in one of the Papal states in Italy in the 1850s The Montaro case. If I have the spelling of the name correct
That shouldn't be done. When a person baptises another, especially a child, they are expecting that the child will be taught the Christian faith. If the child will not be brought up Christian it is worse for the child.
Validly, yes. Licitly, no.
@@classicalteacher how worse, please explain
@@classicalteacherWouldn’t it be worse for the one who baptized the child?
The objection to efficacious baptism defines "works" so broadly that any belief and faith itself is a "work". Faith and belief are acts of the will (cooperating with God’s supernatural grace). Any act of the will is not passive and thus would be a "work" by this extremely broad definition of "works".
@shamelesspopery
As Protestant, I have come a long way in seeing how easy it is to pit verses against one another instead of wholistically harmonizing them.
The doctine of baptism is no exception, but there are still things that I wrestle with.
How would you understand this passage?:
"Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit."
Acts 8.14-17
They were baptized in the name of Jesus, which means it was not merely the same baptism of John.
They did not receive the Holy Spirit, and therefore could not have been regenerated.
Maybe it wasn’t trinitarian? Or maybe they hadn’t had hands laid on them? This passage is actually the foundation for the sacrament of confirmation, which is the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
That is a difficult one. The best explanation I have seen is that the laying on of hands is the sacrament of confirmation.
What is clear is that it cannot undermine baptismal regeneration in favor of the faith alone doctrine of many Protestants because the Samaritans had also received the word of God with all eagerness.
@vinciblegaming6817
Thank you for your reply. No sooner than I wrote that, I wondered, " Wait! It says in the name of Jesus, but not the Trinity. Perhaps that's why?" XD
I don't know the answer to that definitively, but it is a valid possibility!
@@IG88AAA
Thank you for your reply!
You make a good point worth considering.
I read that since this was the first time that Samaritans were receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter should be present as the special leader (not pope but leader) he was.
Peter was also present the 1st time that Jews & then Gentiles were saved.
Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is a gift that you don't have to accept. If we were all saved simply by Christ's Sacrifice, it would take away from the free will of the people who wish to reject Salvation. Those people might be very ignorant; but their right to reject Jesus is respected by Jesus. Only when you accept Jesus' gift of Salvation can you receive it.
Great teaching, but in Acts 19, the people did not received the Holy Spirit at baptism, they received it after Paul laid his hands on them. The same for the samaritans in Acts 8. When you read Acts 2, Peter says be baptized and you WILL receive the Holy Spirit, meaning not at baptism but baptism being the requirment to have hands laid upon you in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
I think your objection is a misunderstanding of either not having read, or misunderstanding other Scriptures which shine additional insight on less clear Scriptures. You initially mention Acts 19. In that text it is crystal clear the believers in question were baptized with "the baptism of John" [the Baptist]. John the Baptist's baptism was a baptism merely of "repentance" [cf. Mark 1: 4, 5] and did not confer the gift of the Holy Spirit BECAUSE:
"On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, 'Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as scripture says:
'Rivers of living waterwill flow from within him.'" He said this in reference to the Spirit that THOSE WHO CAME TO BELIEVE IN HIM WERE TO RECEIVE. There was, of course, NO SPIRIT YET, BECAUSE Jesus had NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED."
cf. John 7: 37-39
"But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I WILL SEND him to you."
cf. John 16: 7
"While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for ' the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days YOU WILL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.'"
cf. Acts 1: 4-5
Even the Apostles themselves, in their baptism in the Jordan, prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit into the Church on that first Pentecost [cf. Acts 2: 1-4] had not been with the Holy Spirit.
Once Jesus had "been glorified" [in the Resurrection from the dead, and in His Ascension into heaven], His Spirit proceeds forth into the Church in order that it may communicate the Spirit to her children in baptism, strengthen the conferral in confirmation, and to those in holy orders through the "laying on of hands".
At Acts 8, it is obvious there is a difference than at Acts 19. At Acts 19, those believers had only been baptized into the baptism of repentance from sin by John the Baptist, who was a precursor to the coming of Jesus Christ. In Samaria, in Acts 8, it seems the Apostle Philip, in addition to working signs and wonders as a confirmation of his preached message, had been preaching faith in Jesus Christ along with the exhortation to repent of sin in one's life, and had baptized them in "the name of the Lord Jesus". However, when Jesus commissioned the Apostles and charged them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the faith [cf. Matt. 28: 19, 20], the baptismal formula wasn't merely John the Baptist, nor of Jesus Christ alone. The command is to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". At Acts 8, the Apostle Philip seems to have been baptizing only in the name of Jesus [cf. Acts 8: 12]. Since the Samarian Christians also were unaware of the Holy Spirit, they needed to have hands laid on them by the Apostles Peter and John in order to be born again [cf. Acts 8: 14-16].
Yes next question
Calvin said hell was copiously populated with the bodies of infants not a cubit long who burn for eternity in hell because they died without being baptized.
The Bible doesn't explicitly or implicitly say one way or another. And no one, not even Calvin knows the mind of God. The Catholic position is the correct one: Since we don't know the mind of God, we must trust in His justice and mercy without being presumptuous one way or another.
@@alisterrebelo9013 The fact that you can't bring yourself to just say Calvin's opinion was horrible and barbaric and God wouldn't make infants who died without baptism burn forever is truly scary.
@@cultist100 I'm making the Biblically correct point, and speaking truth regardless of your feelings, which I am called to do. Calvin was a murderous thug who Deformed the Church, he was a horrible and barbaric man, during his lifetime.
Everyone is redeemed, but not everyone will be saved. Believe and be obedient.
Also, our protestant brothers and sisters are way too much afraid of „works”.
Grace builds on nature. We cooperate with God’s grace. Ora et labora. Pray like it depends on God, act as if it depends on you.
God bless us all!
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
I have a two-part question.
When Jesus asks the chief priests and elders of the people where John's baptism came from, either heaven or men, why was he asking them that question? This video claims that St. Paul thought John's baptism was different than Christian baptism. When Jesus received this "non-trinitarian baptism" he did receive the Holy Spirit which descended in the form of a dove. I know Jesus didn't need to repent from sin; he tells John to baptize him in order to fulfil all righteousness. I have always believed Jesus indirectly claimed to the chief priests and elders of the people that John's baptism was of heaven. I have always thought Jesus was validating John's baptism and adding to it; i.e., giving his disciples an example of a more complete baptism. This is the first time I come across the idea that it was replaced. Everything John did was to prepare the way for Jesus, so his baptism, which was authorized by God, being replaced sounds contradictory.
I have also always wondered about the way modern baptisms more closely resemble John's baptism and not the type this video calls "Christian baptisms." I have never seen someone get baptized and then a miraculous event immediately follows like speaking in tongues or prophesying like the example of the Ephesus 12.
Also, when Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or in Jesus' name alone as some insist), doesn't this mean the Christian baptism is in Jesus'/the Trinity's authority and not in the authority of any particular church or person? In other words, any disciple/believer can perform this ritual. That's good news to me in light of what is said at 31.46 about baptism being the doorway to the church. Nobody's authority except Jesus' should stand in the way.
Maybe more could've been said regarding the baptism formula.
Good video. I do agree baptism does something: it identifies you as a follower of Jesus and brings you into his flock.
I baptize you with water, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire"
Mathew 3, 11
John's baptism was with water, a symbol of repentance
Jesus' baptism is with the Holy Spirit
@@Maranatha99 Yes, I am aware of those verses. My point is that there are passages where John's baptism and Jesus's baptism are indistinguishable. For example, look at these passages from John chapters 3 and 4:
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized" (Jn 3.22-23).
"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee" (Jn 4.1-3).
It's not until later after Jesus's ascension that the baptism formula, speaking in tongues and prophesying accompany baptism. I believe that John's baptism was incorporated into Jesus's ministry rather than replaced.
Without speaking in tongues and prophesying, would John's baptism and the "Christian baptism" be visibly distinguishable in the early church? It doesn't seem like it. I've never seen it happen in these modern times either.
@bombastoid I advice you google:
What was the meaning and importance of the baptism of John the Baptist?
Have a blessed day
This is what Paul says in Acts!
“Then calling for a light, he entered. And trembling, he fell before the feet of Paul and Silas. So they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and then you will be saved, with your household."”
Acts 16:29, 31 CPDV
“And bringing them outside, he said, "Sirs, what must I do, so that I may be saved?"”
Acts 16:30 CPDV
“So they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and then you will be saved, with your household."”
Acts 16:31 CPDV
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be Saved!❤️
What does the word "believe" mean, when the verse says "believe in the Lord Jesus"?
@ The Greek word for "believe" is pisteuo. It can also mean "to entrust," "to rely on," or "to cling to". In the New Testament, pisteuo conveys the idea of trusting Christ to save someone, rather than just accepting him as an historical figure.
@@Ebreeze1976 I agree "believe" has all of those other meanings you listed, but listing synonyms doesn't answer the question, of what "belief" means from the Bible.
For example, if I asked you what does "love" mean from the Bible, there is lots you could say, one example could be, love means laying down your life for your friends, John 15:13.
In the same way I'm asking, what does "belief" in Jesus mean? Because right now you're just giving me a circular definition.
@ no I am not giving you a circular answer, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of what he did for you and me, and everyone else to restore man’s relationship to God! There are many parts to the gospel, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has done the gospel! There is nothing for you or me to do in the gospel! The law is the requirement of God for a man to have righteousness before God and the gospel is what Jesus Christ has done to provide righteousness for man before God! There is nothing for you or me or anyone else to do in the gospel of Jesus Christ! What God requires, God provides! We are safe by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone!
@@Ebreeze1976 "There is nothing for you or me to do in the gospel"
How about obedience to Jesus, is that something we need to do?
If baptism really saves and it makes us no longer slaves of sin and also infuses love, faith and love, according to the catechism, why then wait till Easter vigil or a Sunday to be baptized? Can. 856 Although baptism can be celebrated on any day, it is nevertheless recommended that it be celebrated ordinarily on Sunday or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil.
The text you cited literally points out that it can be celebrated on any day (and should be, if there's a fear of death!), but there's something beautiful about entering into Christ's Death and Resurrection on Easter Vigil, and doing it in a way that is public, communal, and liturgical.
@ But if you wait till Easter vigil, you’ll be enslaved to sin until you are baptized, according to the catechism. So Joe sounds like you don’t believe the catechism then that baptism really frees someone of being a slave to sin, if you think you should wait till Easter vigil.
Look up baptism of desire. It explains for those going through RCIA who have not been baptized and
@@jerrodbell-ow7er Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are
"reborn of water and the Spirit."
I get what you are saying. When I was in RCIA, someone asked this very question because they had not been baptized. This is the answer given and it is in the Cathechism. Through no fault of their own, they died before baptism, but they were trying. Also know tuere are baptisms at Pentecost and the Feast of David that happen, but generally at Easter Vigil. I had alteady been baptized, but Easter Vigil is where I came in.
Joe, is it possible the issue is how baptism is carried out? Shouldn't baptism and chrismation be done together instead of separately? We know faith must accompany the sacraments for them to be fruitful. Can you devote an episode to the issue of a "tied sacrament"? I think this gets to the issue other Christians have with infant baptim. If baptism does all these things where are the fruits?
The liturgical sacramental practices have changed when they were administered throughout history. I like how the Eastern Orthodox have kept baptism and first communion together for the infant. I've heard some prolific Catholic apologists say that since Catholics have split baptism and first Eucharist apart we are starving the newly baptized Christian for years of a grace of God until they have their first Eucharist.
The fruits of baptism are the immutable mark by God making the baptized into His child. There is also protection from demonic forces.
@@classicalteacherthe only problem I have with giving an infant the Eucharist is that newborns are not supposed to have solids so it might be more difficult to digest.
@@classicalteacher The Catechism says Confirmation aka Chrismation is "necessary for the completion of baptismal grace." In fact, the Catechism says all three sacraments constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation". So my question is why do we allow them to be separated? Adults who come into the Church receive all three at once. Why are children not offered the same grace? I know the Catechism discusses the practice of infant baptism. However, why not return to the old form?
Children baptized older than infants receive all three… I kinda prefer confirmation being at the age of responsibility as they take on the mantle of responsibility for their own salvation and their parents are no longer responsible
Why did Jesus instruct His apostles to baptize 10:49 in River Jordan IF it does not save?
In Acts 2:38-42 & 1 Peter 3:21, Peter sats baptism saves and he baptized 3,000 who were saved.
Finally, ALL EARLY BELIEVING CHRISTIANS believed in water baptism
I have to ask if Baptism was actually worthless why did they waste so much time, ink and papyrus on the subject? I'm sure there was MUCH more they wanted to write about but simply limited themselves. (some Apostles wrote *nothing!)*
Even the whole story of another chosen by God could have been eliminated> John the Baptist. His story becomes meaningless if Baptism isn't a literal or required or beneficial.
As for all the other things We Catholics do...and are found in the Bible. If they weren't literal, why didn't He speak more clearly then? (I think He spoke quite clearly, and they are literal) Why screw around instead of simply saying that this is figurative?
Or in some people's opinion are _not required_ are _optional_ Again why waste the time on optionals?
And finally...
Why didn't the Apostles get it right when they taught this stuff. If the people were thinking "Oh this is literal" and it, wasn't they had PLENTY of time to make those corrections in their teachings and in the *New Testament!* Yet the early Catholics in the 1st century prove this wasn't the case.
Peter said in Acts 11:13 KJV "and he (Cornelius) showed us how he had seen an Angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell you Words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved. 15 And as I (Peter) began to speak, the HOLY GHOST fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the Word of the LORD, how that HE said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be Baptized with the HOLY GHOST. 17 Forasmuch then as GOD gave them the like gift as HE did unto us, who believed on the LORD JESUS CHRIST; what was I, that I could withstand GOD?"
Immersed in physical water is merely a physical sign that points to the saving spiritual truth of being baptized/immersed by the HOLY GHOST making a true believer HIS habitation forever which makes that believer and all believers the true Church which is spiritual not a palace in Rome.
Romans 8:9 KJV "But you are not in the flesh, but in the SPIRIT, if so be that the SPIRIT of GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT of CHRIST, he is none of HIS.
11 But if the SPIRIT of HIM that raised up JESUS from the dead dwell in you, HE that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken (bring to life) your mortal bodies by HIS SPIRIT that dwells in you."