I remember reading the article in hope to find answers as I believed baptism was just a symbol, now I believe baptism saves, as even the Reformed reformers believed in Vermigli, Knox etc..
Hello i just found your channel and as a EO i wanted you to know i respect you and suscribed to your channel and i pray God bless you and your family for many years.
Thanks, Dr. Cooper. I've been considering the Lutheran theology recently and just read through the Augsburg Confession this morning. I took especial issue with the wording surrounding the necessity of faith AND baptism for salvation (esp. the scriptural proof listed in Titus being used as example where it proves baptism is wholly necessary). I appreciate your explanation and find it easier to affirm than what may be my misunderstanding of the confession.
I remember in Bible college we had a list of passages regarding baptism. The hermeneutical question they asked was is this talking about water or spiritual baptism? I couldn’t help but see that it meant the same thing.
Great topic, I'll listen to it again and probably again! Thank you for the video, please keep more coming! Another potential topic is,"since God knows everything, why does He make people that He knows will be going to hell?" Thanks again! GOD BLESS!🇺🇸🙏❤
@Sage of Synergism There are plenty of verses in Scripture showing that God is omniscient and omnipotent. For instance: I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ (Isaiah 46:9-10 NIV). You have searched me, LORD, and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely (Psalm 139:1-4) “How do you know me?” Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.” (John 1:48) Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did .” (John 4:39) Also since God is Holy He of course doesn't sin, but he certainly knows what it feels like for humans to sin. Christ was tempted, but without sinning, so He knows what it would feel like to fall into sin. The Scriptures depict God as learning things and then responding to what He has learned, but no knowledgeable Christian seriously thinks that He didn't already know. In order to describe God's interaction with man in an understandable way He's depicted as a being who operates within our time frame. However for those of us who believe, as the Scriptures teach, that God foreknows and has predestined all things, we know that in reality that nothing is hidden from Him, and He doesn't need to learn anything because He already knows it.
@Sage of Synergism Various Scripture verses describe different facets of His omniscience. There are verses which describe His foreknowledge of future events, others which describe His knowledge of the past histories of people, and others which show He knows present realities like the number of hairs on each person's head, when sparrows fall out of trees, and what people are doing at any point in time etc. The verses all add up to a comprehensive knowledge by God of everything that's happened, is happening and will happen. ___________________ 1 Peter 1:22 NIV Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth …. Of course we ourselves have to believe in Christ in order to be saved, but where I don't agree with you is over your assumption that we can believe in Christ through our own free will. There are more than a few verses which show that unless we're regenerated by the Holy Spirit and enabled to believe in Christ by the Father that we can't believe. You're misinterpreting scripture to mean that God draws everyone to Christ and enables everyone to believe if they want to. I dispute that. John 6:44,64,65 teaches that the Father only grants some people to believe, and that the reason why others don't believe is because the Father doesn't draw them and enable them to believe: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him… But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44,,64,65 ESV) This disproves your notion that God has enabled everyone to believe and all they need do is read the Scriptures and decide to believe. No, the Father must first pour out the Holy Spirit on them, either in baptism or through the Word, so that they're irresistibly regenerated, and then they can and will believe. ___________________ 2 Peter 1:10 NIV Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, All that Peter is saying is that in order to be sure in one's own mind that God has elected one to be saved one should endeavour to lead a holy life. Peter isn't saying that if we choose through free will to believe and lead a holy life God will then elect us to be saved - which is how you appear to understand it. ____________________ 2 Timothy 3:15 NIV and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The meaning is that the Scriptures make those who have been elected to be saved by God from eternity, to be mature in the faith. __________________ Cornelius must have been one of those gentiles who had been previously acquainted with the Scriptures, through which God had regenerated him through the Holy Spirit. That's the only way he could have been a worshipper of the true God. What he lacked was knowledge that Christ was the Saviour of the world. When he heard the Gospel from Peter the Holy Spirit then confirmed that this was true. But one shouldn't imagine that Cornelius didn't previously have the Holy Spirit. He was one of those whom God had elected to save from eternity and had converted through the Word. ________________ John 5:39-40 NIV You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. You're interpreting this to mean Christ is criticising them because they have chosen through their own free will not to believe in Him, but I can't go along with this interpretation. As I've shown above we don't have free will, and we can't believe unless the Father grants us the ability to believe, and that the reason why some don't believe is because He doesn't grant them this ability. Romans 9:18,19,20 says that God only has mercy on some people in order so they can believe, whilst hardening others in unbelief, and that people complain that God is being unjust when He holds them responsible for their unbelief, but Paul answers by saying that they have no right to question God: [18]Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. [19] One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” [20] But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this ?’ (Romans 9:18-20 NIV) So I understand John 5:39-40 in light of these verses in Romans 9. The Jews refuse to come to Christ because they've been hardened in unbelief (i.e. predestined to be damned), but God still holds them responsible for their unbelief. However we have no right to know why He does so when they have no ability to believe.
If you have had children you know children believe whatever you say until they reach the age of reason when they begin to doubt; 1 Peter 2: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
Grace and peace to you in the name of Messiah Yeshua/Jesus. That was great and cleared up a lot for me in terms of Luther's stance on Baptism saving. One quick question for you. Does Luther's doctrine explain the New Covenant as a legal agreement between two parties and if so what is considered the moment of ratification or signing of said agreement? Thank you for your time.
John 3 being saved by water and Spirit is the same as being saved by Word and Spirit. Jesus said in John 15:3, you are already clean because of the WORD that I have spoken to you. Peter says Ephesians 5:26 that he might sanctify her (Church), having cleansed (past tense) her by the washing of water with the word. Lutheran's appear to take verses that speak of the cleansing effect of the Word and turn them into proof texts for baptism.
Hang on, they take water to mean water; shouldn't the burden be on you to prove your position on this one? Normally water = spirit by default, but it doesn't mean that in John 3. The word? Where are the other examples? In Ephesians the word is listed separately to the water. Surely it should just say "the word" with no reference to water if what you are saying is true? I'm not a Lutheran, btw, I'm a Baptist who has been somewhat persuaded by them.
IMHO, the act of baptism is obviously a physical act, but God's involvement makes it a spiritual act as well. When the believer takes this step of faith, God by His grace provides a spiritual benefit to the believer. I believe the early Church understood it this way until the Reformation. All of the arguments against the efficacious power of baptism seem to deny God's involvement in the process. I have listened to many of these "preachers" that think they are so Biblical, but their philosophical assumptions are clearly rooted in the Enlightenment, not in the Scriptures.
For headphones, try Bose. They have small, medium, and large earpieces. You can use the ones that work best for you. I know Bose aren't cheap, but they are worth it.
@@cayetano6547, that is going to be software dependent. The headphone only play what they are being sent. You may be able to find software that you can run at the same time as your as your meeting that echos your microphone to your speakers/headphones.
Please answer, I'm a WELS member and I just found out that they teach, " Universal Objective Justification ", what is that? Do all Lutherans teach that? How does that differ from the rest of Christianity? I'm a Lutheran in PANIC mode...Thank you!
As far as I know, all Lutherans believe this. There is "objective justification": All people have been justified through Christ's death and resurrection. Then there is "subjective justification": Christ's objective justification is received personally through the means of grace, primarily in baptism.
It just means that Christ died for everyone, but individuals still have to have faith in Christ to be saved. It isn’t universalism, it’s just a statement against Calvinist Limited/Particular Atonement.
The logical inconsistency of Lutheran baptism is breathtaking. If your baby is baptized he/she will be with God. If your baby is not baptized it doesn't mean that your baby will go to hell, but he/she could. Adults that don't know they are being baptized (coma) aren't baptized but babies that don't know they are being baptized can be baptized. If you haven't been baptized BUT think you were, you are baptized. If you listen closely every claim has an escape clause, it goes like this; You weren't 'baptized' but that is no matter to God. It's almost as if the real principle is 'God will make salvation happen' but go ahead and get yourself baptized anyway.
Lutherans aren't overly concerned with logical consistency. They prize Biblical closeness more highly. Same for debates with the Reformed re: limited atonement; the Reformed say the Lutherans are inconsistent, the Lutherans say, "What of it? We believe what the Bible says and don't need to interpret things contrary to their plain sense. If God chooses to do things this way, great.". I'd argue that they have John 3 and 1 Peter 3 on their side for baptism, although I am not 100% convinced.
@@SeanusAurelius Logical inconsistency is a sign of logical issues. Unfortunately, Lutherans and of course Luther himself when these logical inconsistencies are pointed out - punt to mystery. Being comfortable with theological inconsistencies, especially as an institution, is not something to be proud of.
Why do we not all say that unbaptized babies go to hell? What's the difference between a baby and an adult in a coma? This can all be answered thusly: adults have had time to learn about Christ and sin in deed, infants have not. We say that faith is a gift, and while we do not limit God to baptism (therefore it is possible for God to grant this to infants), we have faith that baptism gives faith to the infants who have not yet closed off their hearts to the work of the Spirit. For the one in a coma, they have had the opportunity to hear and learn about God. Had they the desire to be baptized before the coma, then they have nothing to worry about in their death. However they, in a way, are guiltier than the infant, in that they have hardened their hearts while the infant only has the stain of original sin. However the promise is that every baptized member is saved through the resurrection of Christ.
@@TheGreaser9273 You seem to be cherrypicking what I said without context. That's something I've seen atheists do a lot, and I do not want you to follow the same mistake. I said that the adult is guiltier than the infant and explained that it's due to original sin. If you want to know what that is to a Lutheran, read Article II of the Augsburg Confession.
God Himself has the right to select the initiatory rite that He wants to transfer one from unsaved to saved. Baptism is God's choice for that rite. It is when and where God saves. It assuredly is not some concoction called the "sinner's prayer." That simply is not biblical.
Baptism is "necessary" in the sense that adults and infants are initiated into Christ and the community of faith, but it does not bestow faith. Each person is responsible for their own belief or lack of belief. The promise God gave to Abraham was not regarding salvation. Furthermore, Paul makes clear in Romans 9 that not all who are of Israel are Israel. Similarly, not all who are baptized into Christ are Christians. See Ja 2:14-26.
Jordan B Cooper, Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation. Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save, because we were saved way before we were baptised in water. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation.
1 Peter 3 does say directly: Baptism now saves you. And that bit is preceded by a discussion of coming through water. I don't quite share the Lutheran view but there is a case for it. The Lutheran view is that baptism is received by faith for those who have already believed (I think) and imparts faith to those who have not (but not irreversibly). Cooper spends some time explaining that even those of his view accept that someone who has believed and gets killed is saved by faith.
@@SeanusAurelius 1 Pet 3: 21 doesn't say baptism saves, Peter said it's a figure of salvation, and the Biblical Greek proves it when it says water baptism Is a figure of salvation, NOT the medium by which we are saved. Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation. As anyone who knows the Bible will know.
@@jeremybamgbade in tye Biblical Greek, there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so Acts 2:;38. Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and Plural in number, so remission of sins agrees with Repent, but baptised is the 3rd person and singular in number, so remission of sins doesn't agree with baptised, so you can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, But you can build a doctrine on Repent for the remission of sins, Lk 24: 47. This is how Acts 2: 38 reads in the Greek, and this is how the people would have heard and understood Peter. "Repent for the remission of sins, then when you are saved you can be baptised in water". The Greek emphasis for wash away sins, in Acts 22: 16, is on the calling on the name of the Lord, NOT on baptism. This is how it reads in the Greek. "Arise and be baptised Because your sins have ALREADY BEEN WASHED AWAY when you called on the name of the Lord . Anyone who knows the Bible will know that Paul was saved when he called on the name of the Lord in Acts 9: 6. Paul was saved for three days before he was baptised with the Holy Ghost, but he wasn't baptised in water at that time. A person can't have the Holy Ghost unless they are already saved.
4:55 LIE! Whenever someone says "nuance" I know they are about to lie. "Necessary" by definition means "ABSOLUTE". There is no "normal" necessity that is not necessary in some circumstances and "absolute" necessity that is always necessary. You are fabricating this lie to defend your idol: Martin Luther, in his error.
Its no longer sola fide with this view. Its fide + baptisma. So long sola. Baptism seems to be a means of grace to keep one saved but it shouldnt be tied to or in anyway confused with justification or the regenerating work of God in the new birth (monergistic) as promised in the New Covenant. This Lutheran view of baptism makes salvation synergestic and seems to add grounds for boasting. Plus, its not called holy baptism in the scriptures. This language adds too much muscle to baptism. Baptism is a "being saved" means of grace. Once baptism walks alongside justification, you by necessity have to inject steroids into baptism, making it much more than what it is, and that is why you call it "holy" baptism. Does the Scripture call the Lords Supper the Holy Lords Supper? Because if you did, that would be dancing to close with Rome. The Lutheran's view of baptism is the parallel to what Rome did with the Lord's Supper. They are using symbols and earthly elements as being efficacious. I think the Lutherans need to articulate their views better and and break from Luther's views where he had been obviously influenced by Roman Catholic dogma.
It seems like you have a misunderstanding of the relationship between faith, baptism, and grace. Scripture never pits faith against baptism but shows them as complementary. For instance, in Colossians 2:12, Paul explicitly ties baptism to faith, saying, “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”Baptism isn’t a work that competes with faith-it’s a gift of God received by faith. It’s no more a “work” than hearing the gospel is (Romans 10:17), calling on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13), or even the act of people physically coming to Jesus during his ministry for healing-like the paralytic, where Jesus forgives sins “seeing their faith” (Luke 5:20). Which unarguably was demonstrated in their rigorous efforts to bring that man to Christ through the roof of the house (Luke 5:18-19)! Its does not say when Jesus saw their works (although no doubt such a thing would have been physically demanding); but it says when he saw their faith, that man’s sins were forgiven him (v.20). And as for monergism, recognizing baptism as a means of grace doesn’t make salvation synergistic. Titus 3:5 clearly states that God saves us “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”-a direct reference to baptism. This washing is God’s work, not ours. Just as the apostles laid hands on new believers and they received the Spirit (Acts 8:17), baptism is a physical means through which God works. The human activity in receiving doesn’t negate monergism-just as hearing the gospel and using your brain by the Divine illumination of the Spirit to comprehend the message and responding in faith doesn’t make justification a work of man. For you to be consistent you’d have to argue that the paralytic in Luke 5, and the tax collector in Luke 18 were justified by works. For instance, the tax collector humbled himself (Luke 18:14), went to the temple to pray (18:10), stood afar off, dared not lift his eyes to heaven, continuously beat his breast, and cried out to God for mercy (18:13). We know that Jesus said he went down to his house justified (v.14). Your only option is to admit that the physical/human element is no way contrary to faith, or else be consistent and say that the man was justified by works (he went to the temple, he humbled himself, he engaged in extremely self abasing posture and physical degradation, he prayed). You fail to see that faith doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The claim that calling it “holy baptism” is injecting steroids into it is misplaced. Baptism is holy because God has set it apart as a means of grace. Just like we call the Scriptures “holy” (2 Timothy 3:15), we recognize baptism as something God uses to bring us into His family (Romans 6:3-4). And by the way, the Lord’s Supper is indeed treated with holiness in Scripture too. Paul warns the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:27 not to partake in an unworthy manner, which shows it’s much more than just a symbol-it’s sacred. God has always used physical means to convey grace. From the waters of the Red Sea to the bronze serpent in the wilderness, God uses creation to bless His people. To deny the efficacy of baptism because it involves water is to deny the biblical pattern of God working through His creation to bring about His purposes. In short, the Lutheran view of baptism doesn’t add to faith; it upholds the biblical teaching that faith receives God’s promises wherever He attaches them-whether in the spoken Word or the sacraments. Btw I would add I’m not even Lutheran, however, most classical Protestant traditions affirm this view, with at least some people in every tradition holding this view (though with lesser frequency in baptistic circles). It is your view that’s novel. So this has nothing to do with Rome.
Sorry. You said you are a sinner? But you claim to be a Christian? And you claim to be just? Can you point to the Scripture that says that you should still sin after becoming a Christian, especially so long as you have been and being a Dr. and a leader of sorts among Christians? Or don't you remember Paul's condemnation of hypocrisy by leaders who preach against sins and yet sin, bringing blasphemy on God's name among the unbelievers?
I'm sorry but the explanation gymnastics that have to be used to explain Lutheranism is just silly. It sounds like reading a transcript of a bunch of kids making up rules for a game where they all want to win but each kid puts their own twist on it to try and make it function. Its all so extra biblical in all the weird interpretations of what is actually really clear if you have decent reading compression. Not trying to be rude but I've been trying to listen and understand the perspective of the Lutheran religion and it just seems more and more convoluted the more I here cause it just doesn't jive with what the basics of scripture say.
Water baptism is a proclamation of what happened when you were saved. Babies can't proclaim it. Another thing that continues to bother me is Luther's belief that Christ was actually in the Eucharist. Roman polytheism claimed that Zuse existed in all things. The two sound similar to each other. Nor is the Eucharist a symbol of Christ. The Eucharist is an event believers partake in to remember His redeeming death on the cross.
Dr. Jordan, really appreciate your research and devotion and the way you communicate truth is absolutely as a servant of Christ in humility and love.
I remember reading the article in hope to find answers as I believed baptism was just a symbol, now I believe baptism saves, as even the Reformed reformers believed in Vermigli, Knox etc..
Baptism is a mark that you already belong to Gods kingdom.
@@chicademontana628 Scripture passage?
@@chicademontana628 no verse says this. The Bible actually says baptism is how you enter the kingdom (John 3:5)
Could you give the link to the article??
Hello i just found your channel and as a EO i wanted you to know i respect you and suscribed to your channel and i pray God bless you and your family for many years.
Lutherans would do well to the consider more closely the EO position on baptism, faith and justification.
Thanks, Dr. Cooper. I've been considering the Lutheran theology recently and just read through the Augsburg Confession this morning. I took especial issue with the wording surrounding the necessity of faith AND baptism for salvation (esp. the scriptural proof listed in Titus being used as example where it proves baptism is wholly necessary). I appreciate your explanation and find it easier to affirm than what may be my misunderstanding of the confession.
I remember in Bible college we had a list of passages regarding
baptism. The hermeneutical question they asked was is this talking about water or spiritual baptism? I couldn’t help but see that it meant the same thing.
Great topic, I'll listen to it again and probably again! Thank you for the video, please keep more coming! Another potential topic is,"since God knows everything, why does He make people that He knows will be going to hell?" Thanks again! GOD BLESS!🇺🇸🙏❤
@Sage of Synergism
There are plenty of verses in Scripture showing that God is omniscient and omnipotent. For instance:
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ (Isaiah 46:9-10 NIV).
You have searched me, LORD, and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely (Psalm 139:1-4)
“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.” (John 1:48)
Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did .” (John 4:39)
Also since God is Holy He of course doesn't sin, but he certainly knows what it feels like for humans to sin. Christ was tempted, but without sinning, so He knows what it would feel like to fall into sin.
The Scriptures depict God as learning things and then responding to what He has learned, but no knowledgeable Christian seriously thinks that He didn't already know. In order to describe God's interaction with man in an understandable way He's depicted as a being who operates within our time frame. However for those of us who believe, as the Scriptures teach, that God foreknows and has predestined all things, we know that in reality that nothing is hidden from Him, and He doesn't need to learn anything because He already knows it.
@Sage of Synergism
Various Scripture verses describe different facets of His omniscience. There are verses which describe His foreknowledge of future events, others which describe His knowledge of the past histories of people, and others which show He knows present realities like the number of hairs on each person's head, when sparrows fall out of trees, and what people are doing at any point in time etc. The verses all add up to a comprehensive knowledge by God of everything that's happened, is happening and will happen.
___________________
1 Peter 1:22 NIV
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth ….
Of course we ourselves have to believe in Christ in order to be saved, but where I don't agree with you is over your assumption that we can believe in Christ through our own free will. There are more than a few verses which show that unless we're regenerated by the Holy Spirit and enabled to believe in Christ by the Father that we can't believe. You're misinterpreting scripture to mean that God draws everyone to Christ and enables everyone to believe if they want to. I dispute that. John 6:44,64,65 teaches that the Father only grants some people to believe, and that the reason why others don't believe is because the Father doesn't draw them and enable them to believe:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him… But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44,,64,65 ESV)
This disproves your notion that God has enabled everyone to believe and all they need do is read the Scriptures and decide to believe. No, the Father must first pour out the Holy Spirit on them, either in baptism or through the Word, so that they're irresistibly regenerated, and then they can and will believe.
___________________
2 Peter 1:10 NIV
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble,
All that Peter is saying is that in order to be sure in one's own mind that God has elected one to be saved one should endeavour to lead a holy life. Peter isn't saying that if we choose through free will to believe and lead a holy life God will then elect us to be saved - which is how you appear to understand it.
____________________
2 Timothy 3:15 NIV
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
The meaning is that the Scriptures make those who have been elected to be saved by God from eternity, to be mature in the faith.
__________________
Cornelius must have been one of those gentiles who had been previously acquainted with the Scriptures, through which God had regenerated him through the Holy Spirit. That's the only way he could have been a worshipper of the true God. What he lacked was knowledge that Christ was the Saviour of the world. When he heard the Gospel from Peter the Holy Spirit then confirmed that this was true. But one shouldn't imagine that Cornelius didn't previously have the Holy Spirit. He was one of those whom God had elected to save from eternity and had converted through the Word.
________________
John 5:39-40 NIV
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
You're interpreting this to mean Christ is criticising them because they have chosen through their own free will not to believe in Him, but I can't go along with this interpretation. As I've shown above we don't have free will, and we can't believe unless the Father grants us the ability to believe, and that the reason why some don't believe is because He doesn't grant them this ability.
Romans 9:18,19,20 says that God only has mercy on some people in order so they can believe, whilst hardening others in unbelief, and that people complain that God is being unjust when He holds them responsible for their unbelief, but Paul answers by saying that they have no right to question God:
[18]Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. [19] One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” [20] But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this ?’ (Romans 9:18-20 NIV)
So I understand John 5:39-40 in light of these verses in Romans 9. The Jews refuse to come to Christ because they've been hardened in unbelief (i.e. predestined to be damned), but God still holds them responsible for their unbelief. However we have no right to know why He does so when they have no ability to believe.
If you have had children you know children believe whatever you say until they reach the age of reason when they begin to doubt; 1 Peter 2: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
I remember reading that luther actucally preferred immersion he like to see people get baptize by immersion
My problem is that I find no scripture that says that baptism is not absolutely necessary. In fact, I think I find the opposite. (I.e. John 3:5)
Grace and peace to you in the name of Messiah Yeshua/Jesus. That was great and cleared up a lot for me in terms of Luther's stance on Baptism saving. One quick question for you. Does Luther's doctrine explain the New Covenant as a legal agreement between two parties and if so what is considered the moment of ratification or signing of said agreement? Thank you for your time.
Dr Cooper in the time stamp you put "Charles Crowd" it should be "Charles Krauth"!
John 3 being saved by water and Spirit is the same as being saved by Word and Spirit. Jesus said in John 15:3, you are already clean because of the WORD that I have spoken to you. Peter says Ephesians 5:26 that he might sanctify her (Church), having cleansed (past tense) her by the washing of water with the word.
Lutheran's appear to take verses that speak of the cleansing effect of the Word and turn them into proof texts for baptism.
Hang on, they take water to mean water; shouldn't the burden be on you to prove your position on this one? Normally water = spirit by default, but it doesn't mean that in John 3. The word? Where are the other examples? In Ephesians the word is listed separately to the water. Surely it should just say "the word" with no reference to water if what you are saying is true?
I'm not a Lutheran, btw, I'm a Baptist who has been somewhat persuaded by them.
This is a watering down of Justification
Can you drop a link for when your new book comes out.
IMHO, the act of baptism is obviously a physical act, but God's involvement makes it a spiritual act as well. When the believer takes this step of faith, God by His grace provides a spiritual benefit to the believer. I believe the early Church understood it this way until the Reformation. All of the arguments against the efficacious power of baptism seem to deny God's involvement in the process. I have listened to many of these "preachers" that think they are so Biblical, but their philosophical assumptions are clearly rooted in the Enlightenment, not in the Scriptures.
For headphones, try Bose. They have small, medium, and large earpieces. You can use the ones that work best for you. I know Bose aren't cheap, but they are worth it.
can you hear yourself when you do Zoom or Skype? Been looking for those kind of headphones for ever
@@cayetano6547, that is going to be software dependent. The headphone only play what they are being sent. You may be able to find software that you can run at the same time as your as your meeting that echos your microphone to your speakers/headphones.
Please answer, I'm a WELS member and I just found out that they teach, " Universal Objective Justification ", what is that? Do all Lutherans teach that? How does that differ from the rest of Christianity? I'm a Lutheran in PANIC mode...Thank you!
I believe LCMS believes that too.
As far as I know, all Lutherans believe this.
There is "objective justification": All people have been justified through Christ's death and resurrection.
Then there is "subjective justification": Christ's objective justification is received personally through the means of grace, primarily in baptism.
It just means that Christ died for everyone, but individuals still have to have faith in Christ to be saved. It isn’t universalism, it’s just a statement against Calvinist Limited/Particular Atonement.
The logical inconsistency of Lutheran baptism is breathtaking. If your baby is baptized he/she will be with God. If your baby is not baptized it doesn't mean that your baby will go to hell, but he/she could. Adults that don't know they are being baptized (coma) aren't baptized but babies that don't know they are being baptized can be baptized. If you haven't been baptized BUT think you were, you are baptized. If you listen closely every claim has an escape clause, it goes like this; You weren't 'baptized' but that is no matter to God. It's almost as if the real principle is 'God will make salvation happen' but go ahead and get yourself baptized anyway.
Lutherans aren't overly concerned with logical consistency. They prize Biblical closeness more highly. Same for debates with the Reformed re: limited atonement; the Reformed say the Lutherans are inconsistent, the Lutherans say, "What of it? We believe what the Bible says and don't need to interpret things contrary to their plain sense. If God chooses to do things this way, great.". I'd argue that they have John 3 and 1 Peter 3 on their side for baptism, although I am not 100% convinced.
@@SeanusAurelius Logical inconsistency is a sign of logical issues. Unfortunately, Lutherans and of course Luther himself when these logical inconsistencies are pointed out - punt to mystery. Being comfortable with theological inconsistencies, especially as an institution, is not something to be proud of.
Why do we not all say that unbaptized babies go to hell? What's the difference between a baby and an adult in a coma?
This can all be answered thusly: adults have had time to learn about Christ and sin in deed, infants have not. We say that faith is a gift, and while we do not limit God to baptism (therefore it is possible for God to grant this to infants), we have faith that baptism gives faith to the infants who have not yet closed off their hearts to the work of the Spirit.
For the one in a coma, they have had the opportunity to hear and learn about God. Had they the desire to be baptized before the coma, then they have nothing to worry about in their death. However they, in a way, are guiltier than the infant, in that they have hardened their hearts while the infant only has the stain of original sin.
However the promise is that every baptized member is saved through the resurrection of Christ.
@@Chulama-qk9fo So you believe infants are guilty. How did infants become guilty?
@@TheGreaser9273 You seem to be cherrypicking what I said without context. That's something I've seen atheists do a lot, and I do not want you to follow the same mistake.
I said that the adult is guiltier than the infant and explained that it's due to original sin. If you want to know what that is to a Lutheran, read Article II of the Augsburg Confession.
Would it be fair to say that for the most part Luther's emphases change but not so much his theology?
That would be great if you could do an exegesis on John 3 in a video.
God Himself has the right to select the initiatory rite that He wants to transfer one from unsaved to saved. Baptism is God's choice for that rite. It is when and where God saves. It assuredly is not some concoction called the "sinner's prayer." That simply is not biblical.
What’s the name of that bookstore
Baptism is "necessary" in the sense that adults and infants are initiated into Christ and the community of faith, but it does not bestow faith.
Each person is responsible for their own belief or lack of belief.
The promise God gave to Abraham was not regarding salvation.
Furthermore, Paul makes clear in Romans 9 that not all who are of Israel are Israel.
Similarly, not all who are baptized into Christ are Christians. See Ja 2:14-26.
That's not what romans 9 means lol it means literal Israel
Jordon,
would you mind NOT slurping your coffe/drink. It interupts my concentration. I apologize, I struggle with OCD at times.
Sorry.
@@DrJordanBCooper No..I'm sorry. I should be more thoughtfull. Please forgive me
I think it's gross when people eat while their presenting on line. That includes coffee slurping.
LOL! Come on folks, how important is this in the grand scheme of things?
Jordan B Cooper, Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation.
Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save, because we were saved way before we were baptised in water. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation.
1 Peter 3 does say directly: Baptism now saves you. And that bit is preceded by a discussion of coming through water.
I don't quite share the Lutheran view but there is a case for it. The Lutheran view is that baptism is received by faith for those who have already believed (I think) and imparts faith to those who have not (but not irreversibly). Cooper spends some time explaining that even those of his view accept that someone who has believed and gets killed is saved by faith.
@@SeanusAurelius 1 Pet 3: 21 doesn't say baptism saves, Peter said it's a figure of salvation, and the Biblical Greek proves it when it says water baptism
Is a figure of salvation, NOT the medium by which we are saved.
Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation. As anyone who knows the Bible will know.
@@alanhales6369 If you are going to say the Greek proves your point, you should actually prove from the greek grammar that it does.
@@jeremybamgbade in tye Biblical Greek, there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so Acts 2:;38.
Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and Plural in number, so remission of sins agrees with Repent, but baptised is the 3rd person and singular in number, so remission of sins doesn't agree with baptised, so you can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, But you can build a doctrine on Repent for the remission of sins, Lk 24: 47.
This is how Acts 2: 38 reads in the Greek, and this is how the people would have heard and understood Peter.
"Repent for the remission of sins, then when you are saved you can be baptised in water".
The Greek emphasis for wash away sins, in Acts 22: 16, is on the calling on the name of the Lord, NOT on baptism.
This is how it reads in the Greek.
"Arise and be baptised Because your sins have ALREADY BEEN WASHED AWAY when you called on the name of the Lord .
Anyone who knows the Bible will know that Paul was saved when he called on the name of the Lord in Acts 9: 6. Paul was saved for three days before he was baptised with the Holy Ghost, but he wasn't baptised in water at that time. A person can't have the Holy Ghost unless they are already saved.
@@alanhales6369it literally says those things about Baptism all over the New Testament
Lw:3, 274
4:55 LIE! Whenever someone says "nuance" I know they are about to lie. "Necessary" by definition means "ABSOLUTE". There is no "normal" necessity that is not necessary in some circumstances and "absolute" necessity that is always necessary. You are fabricating this lie to defend your idol: Martin Luther, in his error.
Calm down, man.
11:25 yes, the insane monks from vaticancatholic
Its no longer sola fide with this view. Its fide + baptisma. So long sola. Baptism seems to be a means of grace to keep one saved but it shouldnt be tied to or in anyway confused with justification or the regenerating work of God in the new birth (monergistic) as promised in the New Covenant. This Lutheran view of baptism makes salvation synergestic and seems to add grounds for boasting. Plus, its not called holy baptism in the scriptures. This language adds too much muscle to baptism. Baptism is a "being saved" means of grace. Once baptism walks alongside justification, you by necessity have to inject steroids into baptism, making it much more than what it is, and that is why you call it "holy" baptism. Does the Scripture call the Lords Supper the Holy Lords Supper? Because if you did, that would be dancing to close with Rome. The Lutheran's view of baptism is the parallel to what Rome did with the Lord's Supper. They are using symbols and earthly elements as being efficacious. I think the Lutherans need to articulate their views better and and break from Luther's views where he had been obviously influenced by Roman Catholic dogma.
No, because they believe that baptism is only efficacious by faith, not of its own accord.
Martin luther didn't even teach these modern lutheran stuff imo
It seems like you have a misunderstanding of the relationship between faith, baptism, and grace. Scripture never pits faith against baptism but shows them as complementary. For instance, in Colossians 2:12, Paul explicitly ties baptism to faith, saying, “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”Baptism isn’t a work that competes with faith-it’s a gift of God received by faith. It’s no more a “work” than hearing the gospel is (Romans 10:17), calling on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13), or even the act of people physically coming to Jesus during his ministry for healing-like the paralytic, where Jesus forgives sins “seeing their faith” (Luke 5:20). Which unarguably was demonstrated in their rigorous efforts to bring that man to Christ through the roof of the house (Luke 5:18-19)! Its does not say when Jesus saw their works (although no doubt such a thing would have been physically demanding); but it says when he saw their faith, that man’s sins were forgiven him (v.20).
And as for monergism, recognizing baptism as a means of grace doesn’t make salvation synergistic. Titus 3:5 clearly states that God saves us “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”-a direct reference to baptism. This washing is God’s work, not ours. Just as the apostles laid hands on new believers and they received the Spirit (Acts 8:17), baptism is a physical means through which God works. The human activity in receiving doesn’t negate monergism-just as hearing the gospel and using your brain by the Divine illumination of the Spirit to comprehend the message and responding in faith doesn’t make justification a work of man. For you to be consistent you’d have to argue that the paralytic in Luke 5, and the tax collector in Luke 18 were justified by works. For instance, the tax collector humbled himself (Luke 18:14), went to the temple to pray (18:10), stood afar off, dared not lift his eyes to heaven, continuously beat his breast, and cried out to God for mercy (18:13). We know that Jesus said he went down to his house justified (v.14). Your only option is to admit that the physical/human element is no way contrary to faith, or else be consistent and say that the man was justified by works (he went to the temple, he humbled himself, he engaged in extremely self abasing posture and physical degradation, he prayed). You fail to see that faith doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
The claim that calling it “holy baptism” is injecting steroids into it is misplaced. Baptism is holy because God has set it apart as a means of grace. Just like we call the Scriptures “holy” (2 Timothy 3:15), we recognize baptism as something God uses to bring us into His family (Romans 6:3-4). And by the way, the Lord’s Supper is indeed treated with holiness in Scripture too. Paul warns the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:27 not to partake in an unworthy manner, which shows it’s much more than just a symbol-it’s sacred.
God has always used physical means to convey grace. From the waters of the Red Sea to the bronze serpent in the wilderness, God uses creation to bless His people. To deny the efficacy of baptism because it involves water is to deny the biblical pattern of God working through His creation to bring about His purposes.
In short, the Lutheran view of baptism doesn’t add to faith; it upholds the biblical teaching that faith receives God’s promises wherever He attaches them-whether in the spoken Word or the sacraments.
Btw I would add I’m not even Lutheran, however, most classical Protestant traditions affirm this view, with at least some people in every tradition holding this view (though with lesser frequency in baptistic circles). It is your view that’s novel. So this has nothing to do with Rome.
Sorry. You said you are a sinner? But you claim to be a Christian? And you claim to be just? Can you point to the Scripture that says that you should still sin after becoming a Christian, especially so long as you have been and being a Dr. and a leader of sorts among Christians? Or don't you remember Paul's condemnation of hypocrisy by leaders who preach against sins and yet sin, bringing blasphemy on God's name among the unbelievers?
Dude what when did he say he should still sin? Romans 7:14 to the end of the chapter
I'm sorry but the explanation gymnastics that have to be used to explain Lutheranism is just silly. It sounds like reading a transcript of a bunch of kids making up rules for a game where they all want to win but each kid puts their own twist on it to try and make it function. Its all so extra biblical in all the weird interpretations of what is actually really clear if you have decent reading compression. Not trying to be rude but I've been trying to listen and understand the perspective of the Lutheran religion and it just seems more and more convoluted the more I here cause it just doesn't jive with what the basics of scripture say.
My friend told me lutherans distorted luthers views
@@Boxing_Reviewsyou’re friend is wrong and could benefit from learning Reformation history and how we got the Unaltered Augsburg Confessions
Water baptism is a proclamation of what happened when you were saved. Babies can't proclaim it.
Another thing that continues to bother me is Luther's belief that Christ was actually in the Eucharist. Roman polytheism claimed that Zuse existed in all things. The two sound similar to each other.
Nor is the Eucharist a symbol of Christ. The Eucharist is an event believers partake in to remember His redeeming death on the cross.
On point.
so you're a Baptist?
Spoken like a true Baptist! 😉
Did John the Baptist have faith in the womb?
Baptism is blood not H20, water baptism was a proselyte baptism!