Very well done! I’ve been compelled by arguments from you, and others to speak to a Confessional Lutheran pastor. Thank you!!

"Guys, it isn't an empty sign. It just doesn't actually do anything. So, it isn't full of nothing, it's full of words like 'regenerate' and 'save,' it just doesn't give what it says. Do you understand?"

Baptists will straight up turn into naturalists when discussing baptism.

It's very easy for "interpret the unclear in light of the clear" to become "interpret what challenges me in light of what matches my expectations". We have to understand that clarity is determined by the grammar and history of the text itself, not by our cultural presuppositions.

Even though I am a Reformed Baptist and hold firm in my convictions, I appreciate and enjoyed your response Dr. Cooper. I like the charitable back and forth between believing Lutherans and Reformed Christians. Btw, you need to do more Eastern Orthodox material! (Still hoping Dr. Ortlund breaks out a bow-tie in your engagements).

A walkthrough of John 3 would be great, you confirmed I wasn't making a random argument out of nowhere when it came to the context of John 3, I thought of what you said contextually about Nicodemus but you helped connect the dots on why it would make sense for that to be the context. Thanks so much Dr. Cooper! Would love to see you go through the Doctrine of Baptism book on a podcast one day heh

Thank you for making these videos. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Sometimes my faith needs a little shoring up.

Great video Dr. Cooper. I remember reading Dr. Horton’s chapter on baptism in his systematic theology book. He went on for pages using many flowery words but in the end never stated baptism does anything. It is in fact an empty sign for our Reformed friends.

Another point about Acts 10: just because the people had received the Holy Spirit before being baptized, that doesn't mean they didn't also receive the Spirit in their water baptisms.

Also Calvin agreed in the efficacy of Sacraments, read the French Confession of 1559.

I think the Acts (Samaritan) situation is not a giving of the Spirit in a regeneration sense... but like you said, in a charismatic anointing / supplementary sense. Likewise, the Apostles (and all subsequent pastors) at their ordination "receive the Holy Ghost" but we are not to understand this in the sense that they didn't already have the Spirit in terms of their individual salvations (as they were clearly regenerate). It's interesting to note that the LCMS 1982 hymnal _Lutheran Worship_ included the laying of of hands with the explicit formula "receive the Holy Spirit" for its Confirmation rite. A tangential connection to chrismation there lol David Scaer has written an article on Confirmation in relation to the Holy Spirit where he addresses the issue, and argues that the Spirit is given for a multitude of reasons (including at the public confirming of one's faith) and not simply for the giving of faith and salvation.

I think the problem in english Lutheran dialogue with baptists is, that using the word "sign" may be wrong. In German we use the word "Symbol", which is the germanized word from greek "symbolon". In modern times it means the same as the english "sign", but the original greek "symbolon" (and I think "Symbol" historically) rather means "counter piece". I.e. baptism is the "symbolon" of circumcision in the old testament. It doesn't merely signify, represent something, it actually IS something together with something else. I don't think "sign" or the moder german understanding of "Symbol" truly shows that. So I do understand why baptists might feel offended/misunderstood if you call it an "empty sign". To me an empty sign is rather something that is supposed to signify something, but doesn't. The way english Lutherans use it, it's not merely to signify something, but BE something. On the other hand I think baptists should have understood this by now, but it might help the dialogue to explain terms

Where can I find the version of "A Mighty Fortress" that you use in your intro? It's beautiful.

Does Just and Sinner have a video or article on the Joint Declaration on Justification by the RCC and the World Lutheran Federation?

You need to read Everett Ferguson's awesome book on baptism in the first five hundred years. It is a great book. It is 900 plus pages. It is the most comprehensive book on baptism.

So why would Jesus say born of water and of spirit instead of baptized in water and then of spirit, since the term baptism was already being used.

You’re gonna turn me Lutheran 😂😂😂

Yes for a walk-through of John 3

When the reformed discuss the means of grace, the amount of qualifying, backtracking, etc (which is so frustrating when you are trying to learn it) that they do I believe is a “sign” no pun intended, that they have a hard time connecting the sacraments to their theology.

Ultimately it's a question of authority. Scripture plainly teaches baptismal regeneration. The Church has, therefore, always taught it. One would only oppose the teaching if one has a priori adopted a system that doesn't allow the teaching in the first place.

Do you believe that baptized adults are always saved at baptism? Are babies different?

This was a great response. The empty sign portion is spot on.

Regarding EO chrismation, isn't that analogous to the laying on of hands after Lutheran baptism in the baptismal rite?

Part of their problem here is conflating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38), with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2 & 10), or the laying on hands measure of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8). Every Christian had the indwelling of the Spirit, but only a few were baptized with the Holy Spirit or had hands laid on them by an Apostle to receive miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are greatly mistaken when we conflate these and their purpose.

What microphone do you use? It's really good!

48:00 Explaining baptism of samaritans and why the order of faith, baptism, and the reception of the Spirit is different in certain parts of the book of acts

Do you have a simple video just talking about the mode of baptism and not it's meaning? Obviously the significance is more important than mode but it is a dogma that is held and I believe deserves to be delt with. Apologize if I have missed it.

Listening to this and their point about the "accompanying word of God" sounds like a weak instance of "occasionalism". Interesting.

Two phrases or words that weaken and perpetuate debate are 'in a sense" and 'perspective'.

Thank you Dr. Cooper. I’m curious, what do you think of John Davenant’s Baptismal Regeneration and the Perseverance of the Saints?

Hi where could I get the fathers easy cheap

Dr. Cooper, if you could do a walk through of the Gospel according to St. John in general in reference to the Sacraments, that would be great!

A question came up in our Bible study on baptism: Was the Baptism of John unto repentance sufficient, or did those so baptized have to be baptized again at Pentecost? What about those baptized by the disciples during Jesus’ ministry?

Very helpful.

When Nicodemus came to Jesus that night, Jesus knew Nicodemus and the other Pharisees "rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of John" (Lk.7:30). They rejected salvation. Instead of Jesus responding to Nicodemus opening statement, Jesus went straight to the point of what Nicodemus needed to do to be saved. "Unless you are born again, you can not see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus was already physically born of a woman when Jesus said, "Again." So this knocks out the riduculous and erroneous insertion of Calvins amniotic fluid. It is offensive for people to have Jesus explain to Nicodemus one first has to be physically born, Really! The question Jesus addresses is, "How can a man when he is OLD be born again?" For an OLD man, not a fetus, to be born again, Water and of the Spirit is required. For those who submitted to John's baptism, Jesus promised would "go" into the kingdom (Mt.21:32-32). John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins (Mk.1:4-5; Lk.3:3). Their sins were ultimately forgiven at the cross of Jesus. Therefore, unless Nicodemus stopped rejecting, and submitted to be baptized, he could not enter into the kingdom. When Nicodemus came to Jesus, notice he said "we know (positively know) that you come from God for no man can do these things you do unless God is with him. Though Nicodemus had faith, he "believed on the Lord Jesus," "faith alone, and Christ alone," was not sufficient enough for Nicodemus to be born again. This alone, wipes out the "faith only position. If Nicodemus heeded Jesus warning and was baptized that night or the following day, he was born again. He would enter the kingdom and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost day. Now if you stay in context understanding water referring to baptism, you won't have a problem with understanding "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." When our bodies/flesh is immersed, this is the physical and visible part of our process in being born again. Where "born of the Spirit" is invisible, as the blowing of the wind (vs.8), the reception of the Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and the answer of a good conscience. To understand how one is born of water and of the Spirit, Peter does a wonderful job. "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever" (1Pt.1:22-23). Peter is addressing the saints, everyone who has already obeyed the gospel. First notice our souls are purified when we obey the truth. Not when we believe the truth, but when we >obey< the truth, through the Spirit. Being born again by the Word of God. The Holy Spirit works on our hearts through the Word of God, when we obey the truth, our souls are purified. It is then that we rise to walk in newness of life. "Unless a man is born of water (baptism/obedience) and of the Spirit (through the Word of truth), he cannot enter into the kingdom." Not only does a person have to be baptized in order to be granted entrance into the kingdom, it has to be according the truth. The truth that baptism forgives, and also does save us. Now, what about John's prophecy? "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." John was speaking to a mixed crowd, heaven bound and hell bound. As Dr. Cooper explained. Stay with me. Joel propecised the HS would fall upon all flesh. Now we know that the Holy Spirit did not fall upon every single flesh in the NT. So we need to determine what Joel meant by "all flesh." When the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles, they were already forgiven under John's baptism (Mk.1:4-5; Lk.3.3). So the purpose for the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles was not to forgive their sins. The baptism of the Holy Spirit served a different purpose. The next and final time the Holy Spirit fell (HS Baptism) in the NT was upon the household of Cornelius. About a ten year period between the two events. Every Jew convert from Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Spirit when being baptized (2:38), but not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, the timing God chose served a purpose as well. First, to fulfill Joel's prophecy, 2nd, to convince the Jews that God had granted repentance to the gentile nation. To understand what Joel meant by all flesh, is really pretty simple. When the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, they represented the Jewish nation. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, they represented the Gentile nation, thus fulling Joel's prophecy "all flesh." Joel's prophecy began with the apostles, and was fulfilled on the household of Cornelius. In both cases the ability to speak in tongues, came directly from heaven. For the apostles, so that the crowd could understand the gospel clearly in their own language. As well as to confirm the Word (Mk.16:20). On the household, to show the Jews that it was now time to include the Gentiles, making both one in Christ Jesus. The household were still in their sins, and this point many can not digest. It was also hard on the six Jews present, as they were 'astonished' to see the HS fall upon dogs. For Peter, the vision on the roof top began to unfold, "what I have cleansed do not call unclean." With Peter fully understanding what was taking place, and the scripture stating Peter "shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts 11:14). Peter then asked "can any man forbid water (not amniotic fluid) that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" Peter later explained, "who am I that I could withstand God who gave them the same like gift?" Peter then commanded the household to be baptized. Remember, the household were to be saved by the words they would hear from Peter (11:14). Not by the Holy Spirit falling upon them. The difference between the apostles and the household receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, was that the apostles received authoratative gifts. Such as laying on of hands. The household spoke with tongues for a few moments or minutes, but they did not have the authority to pass on the gift. The reason the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized and saved, was because of being Gentile, God had not yet granted repentance to the gentile nation. Here is a case of folks saved, but no Holy Spirit. And we also have a case of having the Holy Spirit, and not yet saved. In both cases, forgiveness of sins were granted when baptized in water. The one baptism that continues until the coming of the Lord, is the one baptism that puts us into Christ, where forgiveness of sins is granted, converts us from a dead state to a new living state (3:19), by which we are born again.

I may have missed this part. I'm not trying to ask this in a mean or rude way. But wouldn't it make more sense to reference the 1689 London Baptist Confession in response to Baptists instead of the Westminster Confession?

If the transfer of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Apostles then doesn't that corner us into apostolic succession?

We are not born of amniotic fluid. We are born after amniotic fluid. Grasping at very wet straws.

How many more Reformed Baptist podcasts do we need? Sheesh!

Water baptism isn’t any more effectual than OT circumcision. They are signs of inward, spiritual realities:

I would have to disagree with the empty sign language, as it isn’t empty if it gives some form of grace to the recipient. Just because it doesn’t give regeneration doesn’t mean it doesn’t deliver grace. Is the only grace in Lutheran theology regenerative grace? Thanks

Here’s one Anglican view of Baptism (not the only one), and curious for your thoughts. I would say that the Spirit works through the waters to visibly seal the baby as God’s, to give the baby the forgiveness of sins as a promise they really have (such that if they were to die, they’d be with Jesus), and really brings them into the covenant family. I’d also say that God works through baptism in such a way that the parents and the church can be assured that the child belongs to God and is an heir of eternal life. I stop short, though, of baptismal regeneration, leaving the mechanism a mystery. The family can be assured that God looks at the child as one whom he either has or intends to fully bring in, but certainly not as an unregenerate baby. What do you think? I’m close but not quite at baptismal regeneration.

Often Baptists claim it makes water a savior.. The John 3 born of water = natural birth interpretation is ironic considering some Baptists accuse catholics of making Mary our savior, when their exegesis makes every Christian's mother a savior since the natural birth is a requirement to then receive the new birth by Spirit.

As a presbyterian, your insistence on the "empty sign" language seems to be overly polemical and I just don't understand it. If you say that the reformed view gives baptism LESS meaning, power, etc, I can understand that. But to say it is "empty," as if it is only a word for the Reformed is a poorly justified inference. This comes across clearly when you discuss the baptist podcast, which makes a distinction about the temporal impact of baptism. You put all your Lutheran eggs in that basket, and so if someone denies that baptism is effective temporally, you think that person deems baptism empty and hollow. The efficacy of baptism can be affirmed in different ways, and even if you disagree with the Presbyterian view, it doesn't mean that the view is one of empty symbolism because it doesn't agree with the baptismal over-reliance of your parochialism.

"Be baptized and wash away your sins; calling on the name of the Lord!" Acts 22:16 Words no Baptist would use during a baptism. Ananias, Orthodox church,uses these words to baptize Apostle Paul!

Around 37:45 Dr. Cooper stated things about the Pharisees that I think are contrary to St. Matthew’s testimony; for Dr. Cooper said they were not baptized by John the Baptist. It is true that at least SOME of the Pharisees were not baptized by John, as per Luke 7:30. This is from Mark 1 (NKJV): 4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. This verse 5 teaches that John’s baptism was near universal among people in Jerusalem and Judea. This is from Matthew 3 (NKJV): 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 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. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Verse 11 is what John the Baptist was telling these Pharisees and Sadducees, which means these men were INDEED baptized by John. It seems to me that the baptism of repentance that John the Baptist preached (Mark 1:4) was to promote repentance. Why didn’t he just preach repentance (without water baptism) for the forgiveness of sins? My answer is that baptism is a mechanism that PROMOTES repentance. It is like receiving an invisible Bible that establishes a communications channel from God. It is also likened to enrollment into a God ordained reform school that promotes a spiritual death and resurrection, which is a born again experience. See also Luke 3, where John the Baptist labeled others who came to him for baptism as a brood of vipers.

"In a sense." Lol. 🙄

I'm still going through this but my main objection is this: 1 John tells us that those who are born of God overcome the world. If baptismal regeneration is automatic, there's an awful lot of born of God folks not overcoming the world.

water does not regenerate, the holy spirit does.

If it is not stated in the Bible, then it is man's logic...which Paul writes is fine but unimportant.

You guys are the watchman on the wall looking in the citadel and critiquing the people as the enemy scales the wall and puts siege equipment into position

All the ads for this video were for the Mormon church. Why do you feel the need to use ads?

Born of water refers to natural birth? Only a male born 2,000 years after the fact would say something like this. Can you imagine two women discussing childbirth, and one said, "Back in the day when my son was born of water." Nobody talks this way.

I assume you've never been involved in a birth....

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)

A Baptist is someone who believes baptism is an empty meaningless sign that doesn't actually do anything, but that absolutely MUST be done to believers by immersion.

I think the main problem here on the baptism issue is that people, like this gentleman, argue from an 'ism' like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, catechisms writen by men who are merely men with their own interpretations, as flawed or correct as they are. An important thing to do is read the scriptures on your own without the 'tradition' aspect of whatever denomination you have the most influence from and really open your eyes to see if what you read realllllly says what your denominations traditions or catechisms say. Yes there are wiser people than me but when I comes to some of these issues I want to make sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding my understanding of the Scripures rather than ascribing to the teaching and interpretations of others.

A completely gnostic view in baptism

Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (CSB) They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order. (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (ESV+) but deal only with R5food and drink and R6various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them . ==================================================================== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the KZfaq videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

You can sense the insecurity in these guys in their demeanor. The way they huddle together.. no confidence in their own convictions.

Can you do a video that goes deeper into 1 Peter 3 because you seem to often stop short of “now saves you” but the entire passage is, “Baptism, which corresponds to this [the ark bringing Noah and his family to safety], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:21-22‬ ‭ESV‬‬ In what sense is someone who has no prior faith or who has never heard and understood the gospel able to make an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ? This seems to preclude infants. I’m baptist and wanted to know your thoughts on this, and if you’ve already gone through that elsewhere, my apologies.

I’m writing this barely half way, but after all the ‘empty sign, empty sign, empty sign’ comments...it simply struck me like this: Wedding rings, ceremonies, vows, feasts, dresses.... Empty sign? Hardly!! But a wedding (and all the symbols that go with it)...is definitely not a marriage. Pushing that even further, contrary to what someone might start to think k as they ponder this..,the wedding doesn’t actually make you married (regeneration). No, not even the vows. The *spirit*ual commitment to eachother, that begins (and continues daily) is the marriage. The wedding, and even the vows, are the powerful symbols for the couple - and the community - to look back on.

If Baptism is an empty sign for the ‘Reformed’ then surely it is for the Lutheran as well. In scripture, Union with Christ and regeneration bring about ‘actual’ ‘see it with your own eyes’ change. (Compare Tit 3:3 w/ 3:5). When it’s obvious from scripture (Simon the Magician Acts 8) and experience (most Lutherans I’ve met) that water baptism does not bring this about. Lutherans believe baptism is an empty sign. “Put down Schaff, and pick up Paul! HAYMAN RIGHT THERE!” Lol

Baptism doesn’t save itself. Just Jesus does it.

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)