They both believe in real presence.

@@chadsteven9334 but differ in the physicality of the presence and if Christ is offered to the unbelievers

@@KainTF Yeah, that would be a good conversation!

@@jameswillison1527 Same here. To borrow a phrase, in a sense if I could be a 4 point Lutheran then that’s what I’d be.

@@jameswillison1527 I may have had a harder time abandoning by Baptist views had I encountered him earlier, but I still think he's doing no more than looking for a few vague comments in the Father's, like the ones he quoted from both Martyr and Cyril, (who both explicitly associated baptism with regeneration) and then trying to build a case of doubt about something that is , seriously, almost unanimous in the Father's. I just find it weak, but far better than the usual arguments I hear on this. I also think it odd that he used the fact that within the Catholic tradition they held to the fact that baptism only forgave sins *up to the point of baptism* as some type argument against holding to baptismal regeneration. Like if Lutherans can argue against that, then it lends merit to the idea that baptists can deny baptismal regeneration on historic grounds. I just don't see how that follows. And lastly, I still have no idea what he means when he says baptism actually forgives sins. The way he qualifies it is vague.

@@ewene2656 4 out of how many points? We don't have 5 points like Calvinism lol.

@@jameswillison1527 You're not quoting my assessment of Dr. Ortlund. I never used those words, and I wouldn't agree that I caricatured him in such a way. I gave specific arguments that I didn't agree with him on. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't put words in my mouth, please. And I'll let the other commenter speak for himself, since your first paragraph was inaccurate in speaking for me.

@@jameswillison1527 The majority of Lutherans would hold that regeneration prior to baptism is the exception. Not the rule. If baptists were consistent and said that salvation is by grace through faith alone, including for infants, then I think pointing to inconsistencies may be a valid argument. Yet baptists are not consistent on that point. They create a separate category of salvation. And Lutherans hold that baptism is the primary means of regeneration. Scripture explicitly gives us examples that show that God *can* regenerate apart from baptism, and we thus allow for that exception (and don't really care if it's consistent since it's biblical), but our confessions do not say that all adults are converted by faith prior to baptism. Anywhere. And neither do most of our theologians. Ortlund quoted two that Cooper responded to by bringing up the contexts they were addressing and stating he may disagree with them on that. The confessional position is that baptism saves. Both adults and infants.

No it's a Christian vs Non-Christian conversation. Christian vs Non-Christian baptism.

@@AlphaOmega888 Where do you find anything non-Christian here. This is a discussion between brothers in Christ who disagree on some things.

Mark Horton No. What makes us brothers is our "one baptism". Over 90% of tue world practice 'catholic baptism' which is one baptism.

@@AlphaOmega888 I can't say i really find your comment helpful nor do i understand what youre saying. who are you suggesting isn't a christian?

​@@fuhd9892 ​ Anyone who follows another baptism (hence "Ana" + "baptist") is of *another spirit,* another baptism, etc. and are not Christian, but one can argue is much worse as they work to destroy the Church. These have Christian baptisms: Cath, Orth, Luth, Ang, 'Scandanavian' Ref (not 'Calvnism'), and all their *daughter churches* worldwide (aka 'mainline protestant' - Methodist, Presbyterian, etc etc) -1 Cor 12:13 For by *ONE SPIRIT* we were ***ALL*** BAPTIZED into *ONE BODY* (this excludes the spirit of another baptism - see below) -Eph 4:4-6 ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM; ONE GOD (implies other baptisms have ANOTHER Lord, God, faith, spirit etc..) 2 Cor 11:4 For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** -(ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν = 'another Jesus') -(ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν = 'another Jesus' - ἄλλον = of *similar* kind, as distinguished from "ἕτερος" "other" of a different/distinct kind) -2 Cor 11:4 "For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** .. or if you **RECEIVE A DIFFERENT SPIRIT** which you have *NOT* RECEIVED BY US.." -(see commentary next..) -2 Cor 11:4 *Commentary:* "a SPIRIT *DIFFERENT FROM* Him whom you received *AT YOUR BAPTISM"* -Expositor's Greek Testament Commentary -So then, we have *Another Jesus, Another Spirit..* umm.. Who does that sound like? ON ANTICHRIST: “He will spurn and *REJECT BAPTISM* and the *GOSPEL.”* -St. Hildegard of Bingen (1150 AD) -EVIL= Mat 27:25 [Jesus accusers] answered and said, “His BLOOD be on US **AND** on OUR CHILDREN!” -GOOD = Acts 2:38-39 let every one of you be BAPTIZED.. This PROMISE is to YOU **AND** to YOUR CHILDREN

Yep. That's the deal breaker that forbids me exploring protestantism past Lutheran/Anglican churches.

Salvation with a work?...if your parents baptized as an infant, then isn't their faith for another?

@@maxstrange7606 They shared the gospel with me as an infant and I came to faith. That faith receives the blessings given in baptism that Scripture promises.

@@user-uv9fz5rw4z Newsflash: you DON'T get Faith through Baptism...PERIOD!

​@@MygoalwogelIndependent Baptists are usually the only ones that deny that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians have a much more robust sacramentology.

Hello. Actually there is a reference in Scripture which about baptism as the means of the remission of the sins of all believers without exception. Before that it must be said that when we speak about regeneration, there must be clarified what we understand by regeneration. There is a difference between the purification of the heart and conscience by faith, and the remission of sins. The heart of both the Jewish and Gentile believers is purified by faith:,,So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.“ (Acts 15:8-9, Orthodox Study Bible). The cleansing of the heart includes the cleansing of the conscience:,,Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. † 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.“ (Hebrews 10:19-23, Orthodox Study Bible). The cleansing of the conscience through faith here precedes the washing with pure water which refers to baptism in water. The believer’s conscience is cleansed by faith. The conscience is the part of our mind that makes us aware of our actions as being right or wrong. So one cannot repent without his conscience having been cleansed first because his repentance is dependent on his awareness of the fact that he has what to repent for. So the repentance is a consequence of the cleansing of the heart. It is said that the Jewish believers in Acts 2:37-39 were cut to the heart before St.Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins:,,37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” † 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. † 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39, Orthodox Study Bible). As they were cut to the heart (2:37) before they asked Peter what they should do, therefore they became aware of what they had done to Jesus and so their conscience was cleansed because otherwise they would not become aware of the fact that what they had done was wrong. Therefore that they were cut to the heart (2:37) refers to the purification of faith (Acts 15:9) and the sprinkling from evil conscience through faith (Hebrews 10:22). And therefore they had come to believe before Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And as he told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, their sins had not yet been remitted, although they had come to believe. Dr.Ortlund said that he does not deny that baptism is a means of grace of God and a means of giving forgiveness of sins by God’s grace working in baptism but what he denies is that baptism is the initial means of giving forgiveness of sins by God:,,What I am excluding when I deny baptismal regeneration is the initial act of being made alive to God is delivered through baptism. …All I am denying is that baptism is regenerative, that it makes you alive to God.“ But there is a refence in the Holy Scripture that baptism is not only the initial act of being made alive to God and that is regenerative in the sense . This is because baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity is referred to as the only means for giving the believers forgiveness of their former sins by God. Acts 10:43-48 say:,,And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” The Gentile Pentecost 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. † 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. †“ (Acts 10:43-48, Orthodox Study Bible). When the apostle says that whoever believes in Him, will receive remission of sins, he means the baptism in water in his Name because the Romans that he told it were baptized immediately after those words of the apostle. Yes, they received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking those words and before they got baptized in water in the name of the Lord. But still they were baptized in water in the name of the Lord immediately after Peter told them that whoever believes in Christ, will receive remission of sins through His name. That is in relation with Acts 2:38 where the Jews received remission of sins in the baptism in His Name. The reception of the Holy Spirit by the Romans was the first occasion when Gentiles received Him which to show the apostles that Gentiles could receive Him, too (10:44) which is why He was received by them before their baptism. After that occasion He continued to be received after baptism (Acts 19:6-7) like in the beginning (Acts 2:38, 8:14-17). There is a difference between the baptism for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit after the remission of sins. The baptism is commanded by Jesus for all believers:,,Go therefore a and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, † 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.“ (Matthew 28:19-20, Orthodox Study Bible). Of course, the baptism which is in water (Acts 8:38, 10:48) and in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) refers to the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because when the Ephesians that had been baptized with the baptism of St. John, told apostle Paul that they had not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit, he asked them into what they were baptized, thus implying that the baptism is done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. After that he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus (Acts 19:6), i.e. in the name of the Holy Trinity. In relation with Acts 10:43-48, 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, the cleansing of the Church, i.e. of all members of the Church, by Christ with the washing of water and the word (Ephesians 5:25) refers to the baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, wherefore the word here (5:25) refers to the name of the Holy Trinity which is pronounced in the baptism. Therefore all believers without exception receive remission of sins in the baptism in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. And the cleansing of the whole Church (5:25) of course includes the infants getting baptized (who are baptized for the original sin) because there were not two kinds of baptism - for the infants and for the adults. And the earliest fathers attested that the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. As I had written in a comment under Dr.Ortlund's video about baptismal regeneration, the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century. The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140). St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century. It can be added that it is really only the former sins being remitted in baptism because sins that are comitted after baptism, are forgiven, for example in the unction of the sick:,,Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.'' (James 5:14-15, Orthodox Study Bible).

@YAJUN YUAN No, I'm not a Roman Catholic, so that's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that there are things that have been decided at councils and other things around which a consensus has built on all fronts. Baptismal regeneration is an example. You won't find, I don't think, anything approaching a differing view in the history of the Church. There's consensus on it. No single person speaks for the Church, but a consensus is meaningful.

The problem with your argument is that none of you lutherans get baptized in the Holy Ghost when you pour water on your head or on the heads of infants. There's absolutely no evidence of anything supernatural happening ever. So your appeal to acts 9 shipwrecks. Because in Acts there's evidence when the Holy Spirit comes on the scene, and that is not the case with baptismal regenerationists. One thing is certain, when any catholic, or Protestant pours water on a baby's head, absolutely nothing happens.

@@kingjames5527 First, I'm not Lutheran, I'm Anglican, and we share a view of baptism that the entire Church has held since the beginning. Second, you're right--if you ignore all of the clear baptismal passages in Scripture that say that the Holy Spirit is received in baptism, sins are forgiven, etc., then there is no evidence of that in Scripture.

I could watch hours of this myself

That’s what I was thinking.

Help me understand why you find that frustrating. Do you not think the Eucharist forgives sins but is not regenerative? Or do you think forgiveness of sins is only a one-time event rather than ongoing?

He did us proud. I was impressed with Dr. Ortlund's oratory skill. Each time Dr. Cooper started with, "Yeah... You know... Er" I just thought, "Please don't be stumped!" But he never was. He always had a factual intelligent answer.

@@TruthUnites but the bible doesn't say that baptism does exactly what the Supper does. Baptism is associated with being buried and raised with Christ. Baptism is where we are said to put off the old man and put on the new. Baptism is called the circumcision without hands. Baptism is said to actually save. Where does scripture associate the Supper with these things? Two different functions. And it's frustrating to hear you equating them. And I'm honestly still confused on how you believe that baptism actually delivers what it promises when you deny that new life (regeneration) is a product of it.

@@StBindo you wrote a number of different comments; let me just respond to one point here. The idea that regeneration = forgiveness is at odds with how regeneration was defined at the start of the discussion, as well as reiterated throughout, as well as common Christian usage of the term across traditions (e.g., the Roman Catholic catechism), as well as the meaning of the word in the Bible. Regeneration is the *initial* act of being made alive to God; forgiveness of sins is something we experience continually throughout the Christian life. I did not say the Eucharist and baptism are the same in their symbolism or meaning, but I referenced the Eucharist as an example of how something can be a means of grace, but not regenerative. You can disagree that something can be a non-regenerative means of grace, but I sincerely cannot understand why the concept is difficult to grasp, or why it would make anyone want to tear their hair out. Since Bethany did not respond, I don't know how to to help any further. Trying to be charitable, I would guess that there is some kind of terminological or conceptual impasse that is making it hard for people to understand the idea (hence my attempt to reference the Eucharist as another example of a non-regenerative means of grace). I'm not getting the impression that people are listening carefully to what I actually said, so I probably won't respond further unless there is something specific to clarify.

@@TruthUnites If I've failed to listen to you carefully, I assure you that it hasn't been intentional.

I agree. There’s simply no way to come to baptist conclusions by simply reading scripture without baptist presuppositions. Dr Ortlund is well read and articulate, but ultimately he is busy playing linguistic games trying to deny the most straight forward reading of the word of God.

The written Biblical narrative does reveal baptism in Jesus's name as a part of being saved. The written Biblical narrative does not reveal infant baptism. That is, as well, inferred and allegedly found only in between the lines of scripture.

Do you ​@@Rejoranthink church services should not be with music?

@@tomo5136, I see nothing wrong with music during church services. We use music often. Why?

I do not see where you read in the scriptures that prove infant baptism.

To clarify, I didn’t mention two different modes of salvation, but two different meanings of baptism.

@@TruthUnites That's fair. I could have been more accurate there. But your issue seemed to be with what baptism actually does when administered to an infant vs an adult, so I think my comment still stands in terms of pointing out that you also *seem* to have a separate means of salvation for infants and adults. If you disagree, i'd love to hear why. And thank you so much for this dialogue. You've quickly become my favorite baptist. Especially with that video on "till we have faces".

@@TruthUnites How then do families suffering from a SIDS tragedy receive comfort?

@@Mygoalwogel how do you console a family who lost a baby to SIDS one day before baptism?

@@sarahd5341 Jesus accepts the infants of anyone who wishes to bring them. In fact, he calls them to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16 For You are my hope, O Lord GOD; You are my trust from my youth. I have *relied upon you from my birth;* You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb.” Psalm 71:5-6. “You have made me to trust while on the breasts of my mother. I have relied on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9. David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith. “And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16. Since Jesus accepts any infant we bring to him exactly the way he accepts people who come on their own, and even credits them for real faith and righteousness, why may we not baptize them into Christ?

@Michaelherbert5334 Paul in 1 Cor.1:17 was not negating the importance of baptism when he said, "Christ sent me not to baptize...". Paul understood perfectly the essential need for baptism. When Paul met Christ on the road, he was instructed by Jesus to "go into the city and there it will be told you what you MUST do." Paul was commanded to "Arise and be baptized washing away your sins, calling on his name." "Calling on his name" is responding in obedience to Christ's instructions. Notice how Jesus did not save Paul as He did the thief on the cross. But instead, stuck with his gospel plan of salvation, where it "pleased the Father by the foolishness of preaching to save them who are lost." Can you deny Jesus had any intentions of Paul being baptized? Paul was responding to a severe problem where some were dividing themselves according to "who" baptized them. Paul baptized some in Corinth, as he baptized the 12 in Ephesus. When Paul was by himself he did the immersing, when he was accompanied by other disciples, they baptized while he preached. So, the purpose for baptism was not issue with the Corinthians, but placing importance on the immnerser. Paul was so glad he did not baptize these folks who were dividing themselves according to who baptized them, he had enough problems without rumors going around that he baptized in his own name. Also, notice how news reached the pharisees that Jesus baptized more disciples than John (Jn.4:1-2). Though Jesus did not baptize, his disciples baptized. Both John and Jesus were baptizing thousands "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk.1:4-5). Does it appear to you that baptism was not essential to Jesus, simply because he did not personally baptize anyone?

Yes because your religion is basically Pelagianism in violation of Mat 7:1 (the verse that no one wants to translate properly because they are guilty)

@@AlphaOmega888 Well, the Orthodox Church condemned Pelagian in the 5th council, so that would be difficult for us to condemn Pelagianism and also be Palegianists... And you'll have to clarify how we judge others, unless you have a the secret correct translation that I don't know about....

Taylor, while I have a different perspective on these points, I really appreciate you engaging my view with greater care than some have. Thanks. I'll just comment on one thing: I think it's reasonable to see the crowd in Acts as not yet having saving faith since they are enjoined to repent in response to the gospel. My perspective is that saving faith represents the point of response to the gospel. Their question "Brothers, what shall we do?" (verse 37) suggests that they have not yet responded to the gospel, and are asking how to do so. So I don't think you have to read Acts 2 as though the crowd already possesses saving faith while they are hearing Peter preach. Blessings.

@@TruthUnites depends on how we define saving faith (and whether our personal definition of saving faith is actually constituent of what is required for salvation) ! In Catholic theology, saving faith involves supernatural love for Christ. A person can be moved by *actual* grace to faith and repentance in the Gospel, but lack supernatural love for Christ. This is where Sacraments come in.

@@TruthUnites Hello, Dr. Ortlund. When we speak about regeneration, there must be clarified what we understand by regeneration. There is a difference between the purification of the heart and conscience, and the remission of sins. The heart of both the Jewish and Gentile believers is purified by faith:,,So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.“ (Acts 15:8-9, Orthodox Study Bible). The cleansing of the heart includes the cleansing of the conscience:,,Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. † 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.“ (Hebrews 10:19-23, Orthodox Study Bible). You mentioned that the cleansing of the conscience through faith here precedes the washing with pure water which refers to baptism in water. Yes, this is so. The believer’s conscience is cleansed by faith. The conscience is the part of our mind that makes us aware of our actions as being right or wrong. So one cannot repent without his conscience having been cleansed first because his repentance is dependent on his awareness of the fact that he has what to repent for. So the repentance is a consequence of the cleansing of the heart. It is said that the Jewish believers in Acts 2:37-39 were cut to the heart before St.Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins:,,37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” † 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. † 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39, Orthodox Study Bible). As they were cut to the heart (2:37) before they asked Peter what they should do, therefore they became aware of what they had done to Jesus and so their conscience was cleansed because otherwise they would not become aware of the fact that what they had done was wrong. Therefore that they were cut to the heart (2:37) refers to the purification of faith (Acts 15:9) and the sprinkling from evil conscience through faith (Hebrews 10:22). And therefore they had come to believe before Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And as he told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, their sins had not yet been remitted, although they had come to believe. You did not deny that baptism is a means of grace of God and a means of giving forgiveness of sins by God’s grace working in baptism but what you deny if I am correct is that it is the initial means of giving forgiveness of sins by God:,,What I am excluding when I deny baptismal regeneration is the initial act of being made alive to God is delivered through baptism. …All I am denying is that baptism is regenerative, that it makes you alive to God.“ There is a refence in the Holy Scripture that baptism is the initial act of being made alive to God and that is regenerative. This is because baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity is refers to as the only means for giving the believers forgiveness of their former sins by God. Acts 10:43-48 say:,,And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” The Gentile Pentecost 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. † 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. †“ (Acts 10:43-48, Orthodox Study Bible). When the apostle says that whoever believes in Him, will receive remission of sins, he means the baptism in water in his Name because the Romans that he told it were baptized immediately after those words of the apostle. Yes, they received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking those words and before they got baptized in water in the name of the Lord. But still they were baptized in water in the name of the Lord immediately after Peter told them that whoever believes in Christ, will receive remission of sins through His name. That is in relation with Acts 2:38 where the Jews received remission of sins in the baptism in His Name. The reception of the Holy Spirit by the Romans was the first occasion when Gentiles received Him which to show the apostles that Gentiles could receive Him, too (10:44) which is why He was received by them before their baptism. After that occasion He continued to be received after baptism (Acts 19:6-7) like in the beginning (Acts 2:38, 8:14-17). There is a difference between the baptism for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit after the remission of sins. The baptism is commanded by Jesus for all believers:,,Go therefore a and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, † 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.“ (Matthew 28:19-20, Orthodox Study Bible). Of course, the baptism which is in water (Acts 8:38, 10:48) and in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) refers to the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because when the Ephesians that had been baptized with the baptism of St. John, told apostle Paul that they had not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit, he asked them into what they were baptized, thus implying that the baptism is done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. After that he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus (Acts 19:6), i.e. in the name of the Holy Trinity. In relation with Acts 10:43-48, 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, the cleansing of the Church, i.e. of all members of the Church, by Christ with the washing of water and the word (Ephesians 5:25) refers to the baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, wherefore the word here (5:25) refers to the name of the Holy Trinity which is pronounced in the baptism. Therefore all believers without exception receive remission of sins in the baptism in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. And the cleansing of the whole Church (5:25) of course includes the infants getting baptized (who are baptized for the original sin) because there were not two kinds of baptism - for the infants and for the adults. And the earliest fathers attested that the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. As I had written in a comment under your video about baptismal regeneration, the baptism of infants is an apostolic tradition. St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) said this at his execution:"Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156). He says that he has served the lord eighthy-six years, therefore he was baptized as an infant in the time of the Apostles, in the 1st century. The Apology of Aristides of Athens(?-134 CE) says:"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Apology,15(A.D. 140). St.Justin Martyr (110-165 CE) says in his First Apology (155-157 CE), 15.6:"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years...". Here he refers to the sixty and seventy-years old Christians who were are disciples of Christ from childhood, i.e. from the first century.

@@TruthUnites love your channel. Perhaps we Methodists have an adequate answer for you: I think we would say that what you are seeing in your experience with pre-baptismal catechumens, as well as the people in Acts 2, Cornelius, and all of those instances that you see as showing pre-baptismal regeneration, are the fruit of prevenient grace working in those people. So rather than them being regenerated, they are simply showing the fruits of God drawing them to the culmination of prevenient grace, which would be the initiatory sacrament of Baptism. Then, they receive justifying grace (regeneration) through Baptism. However, I’m happy just saying that there is an intimate relationship between baptism and regeneration and leaving it at that.

As an infant baptized and raised in the Lutheran church, I love these discussions!!! The Word of God and the Holy Spirit are essential after baptism at any point in one's life. Dr. Ortland, what do you say about persons who may have no intellectual capacity for understanding the Word nor confessing their faith? I keep being blessed even as an 80+ish Christian who has been the block a few times. The Lord's very best to you all❤❤❤

Is using terminology like “uniform testimony” and “which did ALL believe” accurate? This seems to be the popular thing. Claim all of church history is on “your” side, when in actuality, it is much more complicated.

@@sarahd5341 some things are more complicated. Others aren’t. For instance, I don’t think you’ll find a church father who didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration or the episcopacy. You will find some who differ on the divine will of Christ. So it depends on the issue. But on the question of baptism and perseverance, I think it’s fair to say there was a consensus.

This debate is about Christian vs Non-Christian baptism. -(There is no word-smithing, or mis-understandings about that statement)

@@Reformation1580 why did you waste such a magnificent quote on a reply? This should be a comment in its own right. But don't repost it or KZfaq will think you're spamming.

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Everyone is included unless good exceptions are found. Jesus says that infants who are *brought* to him are actually *coming* to him, and we have examples of infant believers in the psalms and NT. We have no examples of believing unbelievers.

In my opinion the argument "should we just baptize everyone then??" Was kind of silly to begin with, I mean we don't give what is holy to the doigs (The Eucharist to unvbelievers) so why do the same with Baptism?

That's not usually true. This is a debate so tactics matter. I'm happy to be Lutheran, but always found it puzzling why we generally shy away from John 6 as a proof text for the Lord's Supper. Dr. Ortlund, not Lutherans, got me to understand that both Augustine and Chrysostom make no more than passing remarks about the Supper in their sermons and letters about John 6. The DO hold consistently to a Sacramental Union view when preaching directly about the Lord's Supper. They just find too much other wealth in John 6 to get fixated on only one thing.

Hello! I'd encourage you to go back and listen to what I said. To repeat, the issue turns on what he *means* by "regenerated" since he's just said they are already "made new in Christ" and later says they are "illumined" prior to the baptism ("he who is illumined is washed" - not "he who is washed is illumined"). Here is the passage leading up to to what you quoted: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them." There is a lot of online debate about this, as well as the other passages in Justin I mentioned; you could dip into it a bit here: www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/17/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt1/

@@TruthUnites Thank you, Dr. Maybe it just seemed more clear cut than i thought. Thank you for the response.

@@StBindo most welcome, thanks for the many thoughtful comments.

I like this analogy a lot, thank you.

Fantastic analogy thank you for putting it in a way i could not. I was baptized in the Spirit before water like cornelius and it has been a source of confusion for me.

Each Anabaptist (a Gnostic type of Pelagianism) judges himself as 'saved' through his own human imagination. Their religion is prophesied in red letter Matthew 7:1. You will notice most translations purposely *inserts text* into that verse, *mistranslate* it, or *misinterpret* its meaning. But Good commentary explains what it says and means.

A better analogy would be that Elizabeth was born into the royal family, was raised and trained expecting to become queen one day, but was not actually queen until she accepted the role specifically (following her father’s death). She could have declined, and even after being crowned could have abdicated, as her uncle did previously. Infants who are baptized are brought into the family of God, and raised and taught the faith expecting that as they are older they will choose to follow Jesus specifically for themselves.

@@PenMom9 You typed, "Infants who are baptized are brought into the family of God, and raised and taught the faith expecting that as they are older they will choose to follow Jesus specifically for themselves." Does this apply to older persons as well, for when they allow themselves to get water baptized?

@@raykidder906 Same, save that the personal choice to follow Christ would potentially happen at or near the time of baptism. The need and the desire to continually learn is certainly there for adults, and the means of grace through baptism also there.

Forgiveness of sins=regeneration (Titus 3:5)

@@BBarn711 I don’t think Titus 3:5 tells us regeneration is forgiveness of sins. It seems more like it’s saying it’s a saving work of the Holy Spirit where He gives us new life by His mercy.

@@Qhaon What's the difference between that and the forgiveness of subs Sins? That's what the holy spirit works in us. That's what we receive.

@@StBindo I’m not saying that regeneration doesn’t entail forgiveness of sins or that we don’t receive forgiveness of sins at regeneration, but normally, I would tie forgiveness of sins more with justification and the giving of new life (the beginning of sanctification) with regeneration. All I was saying was I don’t think Titus 3:5 tells us regeneration is exactly the same thing as forgiveness of sins; if it includes forgiveness of sins, it’s at least broader than that. If we’re asking the question, does baptism effect regeneration, we better be very clear on our definition of regeneration before answering the question.

@@Qhaon Fair enough. I'd agree that it's associated more with justification than regeneration.

Or Ned's accidentally baptizing Homer.

Fascinating. You might find Christopher Malloy's Engrafted into Christ worth reading. It is a catholic theologian's respectful but critical assessment of the Joint Declaration. It touches on some of the same themes from a Catholic perspective (and especially a close reading of Trent including the intra-Catholic debates). Here and there he has a few references to Matthias Scheeben, a great 19th century German Catholic theologian, who perhaps should have been more of a touchpoint. at least for those working on the Catholic side of the Joint Declaration - might have had a lens that was more true to Catholic distinctives but at the same time given an approach that might have been a better bridge of the divide. Still working my way through this dense book

So you would argue (and argue that historical Lutheranism would argue) that sanctification is really part of the justification process?

​@@wesmorgan7729 My point is that the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification that develops pretty much immediately after Luther is really a product of theologians systematizing Luther's theology using Aristotelian categories, which is a bit different from Luther's Platonism. Think of the following question: are we justified by Christ's alien righteousness or an "infused" righteousness within us? 1) For an Aristotelian, where only individual substances exist, this is an either/or question, and the Lutherans answered that justification is a purely forensic act where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Regeneration/renewal/sanctification must therefore be clearly separated from justification. 2) For a Platonist, the answer to the above question is "yes." For Plato, all physical, individual things are what they are by participating in a higher level of reality, and goodness is understood as participation as well. Basically, stronger participation is more goodness. So what does it mean to be made righteous for a Platonist? To participate more fully in a higher level of reality. What is that higher level of reality? Jesus Christ and his righteousness. We come to participate in that reality through faith. Basically, for Platonism, we are justified by participating Christ's righteousness. So are we justified through faith by the alien righteousness of another? Yes. Are we made righteous through that same act of participation, as all things participate in Forms? Yes. Both can be true for Platonists, which is why you don't really see a justification/sanctification distinction in Luther, at least in as strict a way as it develops for, say, the Formula of Concord.

Jordans book Salvation as participation in Christ. I think this is a must read. But I think hes An Aristotelian but im not sure

why do you think an association between baptism and salvation is at odds with a Baptist view?

@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortlund, I would love to hear you expound on the thought that forgiveness of sins is separate from regeneration.

@@TruthUnites i meant to say that even Dr. Orlund admits that baptism saves and that it is a means of grace, which no baptist church teaches in my experience.

How do you reconcile this? I am trying to study this and I don't understand.

You gotta read before and after a verse to get a clear understanding of the text, it's just good practice for reading comprehension. It's clearly speaking of spiritual baptism/union with Jesus. 24The law, then, was our guardian until Christ,a so that we could be justified by faith. 25But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for through faith you are all sons of God in Christ Jesus. 27For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.a 28There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free,a male and female;b since you are all onec in Christ Jesus.

It seems that Gavin doesn’t hold a very typical Baptist position.

😅 I just know this picture is going to pop into my head at the most random time now, lol.

Most don't understand water baptism was only for John the Baptist to identify Jesus as the Son of God john 1:31 to 34 I myself did not know him, BUT ...THE REASON. I CAME BAPTIZING WITH WATER WAS THAT HE MIGHT BE REVEALED TO ISRAEL.” Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” WATER BAPTISM is a stumbling block... THE TRUTH IS JESUS NEVER BAPTISED ANYBODY IN WATER 🤔 ITS THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT SAVES US TODAY.......😇

Credobaptists affirm that children can be baptized. If they are old enough to understand the gospel and believe. But paedobaptists must read their theology into verses like that. And see “infant” whenever a passage talks about children.

There's a difference between infants and children (i.e. all infants are children but not all children are infants). Ortlund is stating that there's insufficient evidence to show that there were infants in these "households" who were subsequently baptized.

@@artistart55 how do you interpret John 3:22 in that case? (I know this is nine months after you posted so no worries if you don’t respond 😅)

@@randomdad1234 John 4:1-4 It was Jesus's disciples who were baptizing..not Jesus. when jesus learned of this he had to go back to Galilee John 3:29-30. The bride belongs to the bridegroom.The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. THAT JOY IS MINE, AND IT IS NOW COMPLETE ( water baptism is over) .He must become greater; I must become less.” John 5:31-34. 31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. 33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.

Modern Baptists have, for the most part, become very divorced from their historic roots in the Reformed Congregationalist tradition. The Reformed have no issue with saying baptism forgives sins. As a Reformed Baptist, Ortlund is perfectly happy with affirming this. Unfortunately, the American Evengelical culture has a terrible sacramentology and a theology of baptism which views it as exclusively a public profession of faith and also as a personal act of obedience rather than a sign from God.

By definition, yes.

All confessional Lutherans. There are probably “Lutherans” out there who have no idea what Lutheranism is.

Don’t be shy. Post the rest of the verse. Literally disproves baptismal regeneration. It says baptism is a like figure of what saves us. By the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because baptism is a figure of the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And what does Paul mention when he talks about the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15? The death burial and resurrection

@@MagvireMafia the figure was the flood. The language of by the resurrection is used in 1 Peter 1:3 also about "born again". Born again=baptism. Similar language in Colossians 2:12-13 The apostle said in baptism we are buried and resurrected with Christ, the old man dies in baptism, not a new man died and is resurrected again

@@OrthodoxCatholic1 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: No. They’re both figures. Baptism is the “like figure”. And this contradicts infant baptism as well. Infants can’t answer with a good conscience towards God.

Your argument largely rests on KJV onlyism. Translations that might imply this are KJV influenced or derived

@@MagvireMafia if you have been following the videos you would know both sides acknowledge infant faith exists

@Yvonne Hi, Yvonne. There were a number of baptisms in the New Testament, but by the time Paul wrote to the Ephesian letter in 63 A.D., he said that there was only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Here's what he said in context: _There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; _*_one Lord, one faith, one baptism,_*_ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all._ That means today there is *only one baptism.* Question:- What baptism do you think that is, and why? Remember, Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are two different baptisms,... so which one is it? In Matthew 3:11 John said to them, _“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, 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."_ Question:- In this passage of Scripture did John tell them *specifically who* Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and *who specifically* He would baptize with fire? Or do we have to go somewhere else to find out? If so, where?

The Father's did make mistakes and were part of their culture as we are of ours. There is what we call the consensus of the Father's but what about the consensus of scripture? There is inspired consensus and consensus that could be from tradition. There are volumes of writings from the Father's over centuries and could take a whole lifetime to fully understand them. God inspired scripture which is enough for faith and practice thankfully not volumes that could fill a whole bookshelf and would need patristic scholars to interpret a consensus for us.

@@jotink1 I am only talking about the consensus

@VDMA LCMS it isn't crystal clear because there are passages which state we are saved by grace through faith or believing in the Lord. These don't link salvation with baptism. Baptism is vital and I can't stress that enough because of its importance for all Christians which is why ALL traditions believe in baptising in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

"Falsifiable"? Plenty of older Christians in my church and family I've watch grow into kinder, gentler, more helpful and selfless people over the years. Lots of times I point that our to one of them, they are always surprised and even a little embarrassed. Either you've had a lot of bad experiences with christians or you are misusing the term "falsifiable." It has a very specific definition.

@Yvonne You are describing self testing in your life. But your self conscious need to prove your holiness is not regeneration. Too much preoccupation on yourself. It has a name in the Lutheran tradition. Pietism.

Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism repentance grants the forgiveness of sins. Luke 7:30 Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you. Acts 2:38 Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus = forgiveness and the Spirit. Acts 10:47-48 Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. Romans 6:3-5 Water Baptism (Spirit baptism does _not_ bury) is death to sin, death with Christ, newness of life in Christ, and resurrection with Christ. Ephesians 5:26 Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in water baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.* 1 Peter 3:21 "In like manner" means Peter is talking about water baptism. This water baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.

Just like historical (by definition written) knowledge, did Plato exist? The only records we have are 'stated in a book' or a plaque and believed. And not falsifiable.

Read Jurgen Habermas (Atheists) about Ontological realms. Your objection would be fitting in an Atheist vs Christian discussion. But this one is intermural. Both parties agree to a "Shared Subjective" assumption.

@@j.g.4942 There is a lot of independently corroborating evidence for Plato . Not just in a book. I'm not objecting to the existence of anybody. Just the abstract claims that have zero evidence. Not the same kind of thing as an historical event or person.

@@Mygoalwogel So?

@@mysticmouse7261 Sorry. I thought you were an adult atheist. Write whatever you want, kid.