"Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration." Martin Luther
Even as a credo-baptist - I recognize Dr. Godfey's excellent explanation and distinctives regarding the administration of water baptism and am fascinated by the distinctives he makes between what Luther taught and how the Lutheran church now teaches about water baptism.
Perhaps if you read Luther's own words you will see that he certainly held that baptism saves, which is true, because it is not man's work, but God's work for man in a sacrament.
As a Dutch Dutch Reformed pastor explained it to me, in baptism we partake in the covenant, pretty simile to how all of Israel went through the Red Sea, yet not all were believers to enter into God's promised.
Lutherans do not believe baptism profts without faith. We do belive that infants can have faith since faith is a gift and this gift is given in regeneration in baptism.
Water baptism does not regenerate. Baptism of the holy spirit yes but water baptism does not regenerate. Born again means born from above in Greek. That's what Christ explained to Nicodemus. You must be born again from above.
@Ben B Water and Spirit often refer symbolically in the Old Testament to spiritual renewal and cleansing (cf. Num. 19:17-19; Isa. 4:4; 32:15; 44:3; 55:1; Joel 2:28-29; Zech. 13:1). In one of the most glorious passages in all of Scripture describing Israel’s restoration to the Lord by the new covenant, God said through Ezekiel, For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek. 36:24-27) It was surely this passage that Jesus had in mind, showing regeneration to be an Old Testament truth (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:18-20) with which Nicodemus would have been acquainted. Against this Old Testament backdrop, Christ’s point was unmistakable: Without the spiritual washing of the soul, a cleansing accomplished only by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) through the Word of God (Eph. 5:26), no one can enter God’s kingdom. Jesus continued by further emphasizing that this spiritual cleansing is wholly a work of God, and not the result of human effort: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Just as only human nature can beget human nature, so also only the Holy Spirit can effect spiritual transformation. The term flesh (sarx) here refers merely to human nature (as it does in 1:13-14); in this context, it does not have the negative moral connotation that it frequently does in Paul’s writings (e.g., Rom. 8:1-8, 12-13). Even if a physical rebirth were possible, it would produce only flesh. Thus, only the Spirit can produce the spiritual birth required for entrance into God’s kingdom. Regeneration is entirely His work, unaided by any human effort (cf. Rom. 3:25).
@@DogSoldier1948so the Laver of regeneration is not the Laver of regeneration? Got it. Furthermore, every Church Father up till the 18th century had it wrong. Okay.
@Dave The Greek word for “washing” is literally “laver” - we enjoy the “laver of restoration”, the washing of regeneration! Being born again is the commencing of a change in our being: the washing of regeneration begins when we receive the Lord, and from then on, the renewing of the Holy Spirit continues!. The laver of regeneration and being born again is an act done by the Holy Spirit. Born again, literally means born from above. It clearly is an act of God .
We are first and foremost baptized with the Holy Spirit. Depending on your view water baptism is a symbol of that (Baptists) or the water baptism is interwoven with it (Lutherans).
They say it like that because “baptism” in whole is too broad. To use just the word “baptism” would include all fire, spirit, water, etc. So, they are being specific in which regard they are using it.
As a Lutheran pastor of 13 years, I have never been taught the words "rejuvenation" regarding baptism and grace, not have I ever used those words with our families.
Luther again: "But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God’s (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, and besides in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation."
Not a single Luther scholar would agree with this gentleman. Read Luther yourself. He is very clear that baptism regenerates, saves, etc. just as the Bible shows and all Christians believed for 1500 years. Luther's small catechism: "What benefits does Baptism give? It works , as the words and promises of God declare." "For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and , as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5-8)
My understanding is that Lutheranism was significantly modified by Philip Melanchthon following Luther's death and reflect his theology more so than Luther.
Just read Philip Cary, the meaning of Protestant theology, and you all would find out what Luther taught about Sacraments. Just stop guessing what he said.
I think at his final analysis, I agree with. There is a very special substance about the Command and act of water baptism: It is a *necessary* command because - A. God calls us to be baptized by water submersion. B. It is a spiritual confession, submission to NT reality of Christ by declaring faith through obedience. C. It prepares the way of Spirit baptism of God. An act of Purification (washing of body to prepare for spiritual baptism. I still struggle to fully understand baptism. I have many questions: Does one Leproused, etc who believes in Christ needs baptism first? No. Can you use OT men and women to convey why water baptism isn't needed? It seems that Prophets were often led to wash themselves and obstain from uncleanness for life. They received the Holy Spirit, but God never remained on them consistently other than Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, David, and maybe Ezekiel and Daniel. If this be proven true, then water baptism is a mandate to specifically allow legal allowance to remain on us and live inside of our being forever.
Water baptism is a work. It cannot take away any sins. Salvation is of grace. The baptism (washing) that is needed is the spiritual baptism that only God can provide in regenerating a person and paying for their sins.
I try to share a link but YT won’t let me. The form starts with these words , you can find it using this: “The principal parts of the doctrine of holy baptism are these three: First. That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, in so much that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again.”
This is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what the Bible teaches. Water baptism can't save anyone. God has to take away a person's sins. That's the only baptism (washing) that counts. Also, OP, who should be baptized, not whom.
Of course God saves. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t choose to save through baptism. 🤷🏽♂️ I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration but just saying…
@@terminat1 that’s irrelevant to my point. Unless you mean to say it would be impossible for God to base salvation on man’s works. Which is an interesting thought/premise but again, irrelevant to my point.
You couldn't have said it better. They want to calvinize Luther, Augustine, Ambrose and everyone they can since no one believed they're novel doctrines for 1600-1700 years
It most certainly is. The Apostles in Acts baptized entire housegolds just as Old Testament believes circumized.all males.when head of the household confirmed. Not baptizing infants is disobedient to Scripture just as letting your unbaptized children take part in Lord's Suppers/,Communin Baptist reverse them It's the Lord's Supper that is for confessing believes only not baptism.
@Al Harris I sympathize with you as a former Baptist myself, and which kind of thoughts come in whenever one hears of infant Baptism. Infant Baptism will become clear when one understands how the covenants work. I would suggest studying Genesis 12, 15 and 17, where circumcision is to be given to children and go from there to Romans 4, and Romans 11. The pattern will become clear, both in the OT and NT, one has believers and unbelievers in the covenant. But not all who are in that covenant are the true Israel (of faith) Romans 9:6. Colosians 2:11-12 is also important as there is a relation between circumcision and Baptism. From there there is should become clear why infant baptism is never mentioned in the NT, it is simply taken for granted that children are to be baptized as they are covenant members, just as they were in the OT. I assume this is a completely new understanding for you, hopefully this might help you in navigating the Paedobaptist position. God bless brother.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration."
Martin Luther
Even as a credo-baptist - I recognize Dr. Godfey's excellent explanation and distinctives regarding the administration of water baptism and am fascinated by the distinctives he makes between what Luther taught and how the Lutheran church now teaches about water baptism.
Perhaps if you read Luther's own words you will see that he certainly held that baptism saves, which is true, because it is not man's work, but God's work for man in a sacrament.
As a Dutch Dutch Reformed pastor explained it to me, in baptism we partake in the covenant, pretty simile to how all of Israel went through the Red Sea, yet not all were believers to enter into God's promised.
Quoting the Belgic Confession :)
I really like Calvin's emphasis that baptism is the visible word. To be more specific, it is the "visible Gospel".
Well Luther didn't believe in perseverance of the saints. So, his view of baptism is consistent with his teaching of regeneration.
No one in 1600 years believed in the errors of Calvinism, no Luther nor Augustine.
Lutherans do not believe baptism profts without faith. We do belive that infants can have faith since faith is a gift and this gift is given in regeneration in baptism.
Water baptism does not regenerate. Baptism of the holy spirit yes but water baptism does not regenerate. Born again means born from above in Greek. That's what Christ explained to Nicodemus. You must be born again from above.
@@DogSoldier1948 he also said you must be born of water and spirit, what do you think the "water" he was refering to was?
@Ben B Water and Spirit often refer symbolically in the Old Testament to spiritual renewal and cleansing (cf. Num. 19:17-19; Isa. 4:4; 32:15; 44:3; 55:1; Joel 2:28-29; Zech. 13:1). In one of the most glorious passages in all of Scripture describing Israel’s restoration to the Lord by the new covenant, God said through Ezekiel,
For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek. 36:24-27)
It was surely this passage that Jesus had in mind, showing regeneration to be an Old Testament truth (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:18-20) with which Nicodemus would have been acquainted. Against this Old Testament backdrop, Christ’s point was unmistakable: Without the spiritual washing of the soul, a cleansing accomplished only by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) through the Word of God (Eph. 5:26), no one can enter God’s kingdom.
Jesus continued by further emphasizing that this spiritual cleansing is wholly a work of God, and not the result of human effort: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Just as only human nature can beget human nature, so also only the Holy Spirit can effect spiritual transformation. The term flesh (sarx) here refers merely to human nature (as it does in 1:13-14); in this context, it does not have the negative moral connotation that it frequently does in Paul’s writings (e.g., Rom. 8:1-8, 12-13). Even if a physical rebirth were possible, it would produce only flesh. Thus, only the Spirit can produce the spiritual birth required for entrance into God’s kingdom. Regeneration is entirely His work, unaided by any human effort (cf. Rom. 3:25).
@@DogSoldier1948so the Laver of regeneration is not the Laver of regeneration? Got it. Furthermore, every Church Father up till the 18th century had it wrong. Okay.
@Dave The Greek word for “washing” is literally “laver” - we enjoy the “laver of restoration”, the washing of regeneration! Being born again is the commencing of a change in our being: the washing of regeneration begins when we receive the Lord, and from then on, the renewing of the Holy Spirit continues!.
The laver of regeneration and being born again is an act done by the Holy Spirit. Born again, literally means born from above. It clearly is an act of God .
Everyone on here saying "water baptism" as if it's actually a different thing from just "baptism."
We are first and foremost baptized with the Holy Spirit. Depending on your view water baptism is a symbol of that (Baptists) or the water baptism is interwoven with it (Lutherans).
@@SojournerDidimusI as a confessional Lutheran can tell you that baptism is a Sacrament according to our confessions.
@@SojournerDidimusn short, the water and the word combined make the sacrament of baptism.
They say it like that because “baptism” in whole is too broad. To use just the word “baptism” would include all fire, spirit, water, etc. So, they are being specific in which regard they are using it.
As a Lutheran pastor of 13 years, I have never been taught the words "rejuvenation" regarding baptism and grace, not have I ever used those words with our families.
Luther again:
"But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God’s (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, and besides in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation."
Where can I read the Dutch Reformed Baptismal Form from the 16th Century?
Not a single Luther scholar would agree with this gentleman. Read Luther yourself. He is very clear that baptism regenerates, saves, etc. just as the Bible shows and all Christians believed for 1500 years.
Luther's small catechism:
"What benefits does Baptism give? It works , as the words and promises of God declare."
"For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and , as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5-8)
My understanding is that Lutheranism was significantly modified by Philip Melanchthon following Luther's death and reflect his theology more so than Luther.
Melanchthon mooved closer to Calvin on the sacraments towards the end of his life but he also became a synergist which I know Calvin was not
@@Ben_G_Biegler Thanks for the details.
Just read Philip Cary, the meaning of Protestant theology, and you all would find out what Luther taught about Sacraments. Just stop guessing what he said.
Or just read Lutheran his own words.
@@dave1370 yeah that's a great advice, tell them that.
I think at his final analysis, I agree with. There is a very special substance about the Command and act of water baptism:
It is a *necessary* command because -
A. God calls us to be
baptized by water
submersion.
B. It is a spiritual
confession, submission
to NT reality of Christ by
declaring faith through
obedience.
C. It prepares the way of
Spirit baptism of God.
An act of Purification (washing of body to prepare for spiritual baptism.
I still struggle to fully understand baptism. I have many questions:
Does one Leproused, etc who believes in Christ needs baptism first? No.
Can you use OT men and women to convey why water baptism isn't needed? It seems that Prophets were often led to wash themselves and obstain from uncleanness for life. They received the Holy Spirit, but God never remained on them consistently other than Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, David, and maybe Ezekiel and Daniel. If this be proven true, then water baptism is a mandate to specifically allow legal allowance to remain on us and live inside of our being forever.
Water baptism is a work. It cannot take away any sins. Salvation is of grace. The baptism (washing) that is needed is the spiritual baptism that only God can provide in regenerating a person and paying for their sins.
Where can I find that baptismal form?
I try to share a link but YT won’t let me.
The form starts with these words , you can find it using this:
“The principal parts of the doctrine of holy baptism are these
three:
First. That we with our children are conceived and born in sin,
and therefore are children of wrath, in so much that we cannot
enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again.”
@@Lena.9 Thanks so much! So it is from #1 in the old psalter hymnal. That's what I was wondering. Thanks!
This is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what the Bible teaches. Water baptism can't save anyone. God has to take away a person's sins. That's the only baptism (washing) that counts.
Also, OP, who should be baptized, not whom.
Of course God saves. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t choose to save through baptism. 🤷🏽♂️ I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration but just saying…
@@elkellenhabla No. Salvation is based on grace, not something a person does.
@@terminat1 you said baptism can't save anyone. My point is that if God intended baptism to save people then it would save people.
@@elkellenhabla Then salvation would be of works.
@@terminat1 that’s irrelevant to my point. Unless you mean to say it would be impossible for God to base salvation on man’s works. Which is an interesting thought/premise but again, irrelevant to my point.
These Reformed guys have no understanding of Luther. They like him so much that when Lutheran distinctions come up they Calvinize him!!! LOL!
You couldn't have said it better. They want to calvinize Luther, Augustine, Ambrose and everyone they can since no one believed they're novel doctrines for 1600-1700 years
a rcc doctrine they melded into and 1999 totally went with the rcc
The Dutch Reformed here in South Africa practices infant baptism, that is not Scriptural...
It most certainly is. The Apostles in Acts baptized entire housegolds just as Old Testament believes circumized.all males.when head of the household confirmed. Not baptizing infants is disobedient to Scripture just as letting your unbaptized children take part in Lord's Suppers/,Communin
Baptist reverse them
It's the Lord's Supper that is for confessing believes only not baptism.
Why come to a Reformed page and then be surprised when you first Reformed beliefs? Weird
@Al Harris I sympathize with you as a former Baptist myself, and which kind of thoughts come in whenever one hears of infant Baptism.
Infant Baptism will become clear when one understands how the covenants work.
I would suggest studying Genesis 12, 15 and 17, where circumcision is to be given to children and go from there to Romans 4, and Romans 11.
The pattern will become clear, both in the OT and NT, one has believers and unbelievers in the covenant.
But not all who are in that covenant are the true Israel (of faith) Romans 9:6.
Colosians 2:11-12 is also important as there is a relation between circumcision and Baptism.
From there there is should become clear why infant baptism is never mentioned in the NT, it is simply taken for granted that children are to be baptized as they are covenant members, just as they were in the OT.
I assume this is a completely new understanding for you, hopefully this might help you in navigating the Paedobaptist position.
God bless brother.
well they're both wrong! 😉 Believers' baptism is the right form, by immersion. Discuss!