Hello 👋🏿

I am glad you guys are going to actually call this a discussion instead of a debate like the Roman Catholics keep doing when you come on their shows 🤣

God bless you Brother Cooper!

Dr. Cooper you represent Lutheran’s really well!

So glad to hear that! Thanks for letting me know!

I have also watched Dr. Jordan B Cooper quite a bit. Favorite Lutheran, but reading the Patristics actually lead me to different conclusions than Dr. Cooper had. I am also close to Dr. Ortlund's views after 3 years of studying the sacraments as well.

Thanks so much for this! So glad we are connected!

why do you think there is such a plurality of views in Christianity (and in every other religion)?

You’re absolutely right, "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:21) Being one as the Triune God is one goes far beyond irenic unity, which is why denominations are against God’s desire for the church!

Your phrase the Catholics and Orthodox misunderstand "the power of faith in coming to God in repentance " seems to show a misunderstanding on your part. Catholics and Orthodox both have a penetental portion in the Mass/Divine Liturgy, not to mention the sacramental repentance of confession. Catholics and Orthodox theology and liturgies strongly emphasize daily repentance and faith in the overwhelming gift of God's mercy.

@@jeandoten1510 I understand that. I eas speaking more, of a one off event like baptism that actually changes you from being in darkness to light ie being born again. Protestants generally accept that salvation in a one time distinct event while what you describe and in my understanding is something different. If baptismal regeneration is true and by that I am born again what actually happened when by grace through faith I knelt down and accepted Christ and asked him to forgive my sin?

so glad to hear that, thanks for letting me know Jacob!

Great to hear that!

Acts 22:16 Baptism washes away sins. 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 (burial) 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.

Baptism is salvific as one regains in the soul sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, both lost in the Sin of Adam. Original sin is a deprivation of both. We regain both through baptism, and hence are regenerated and are born again scripturally. My baptismal write up is below *The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.* - Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church. - The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea - The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock *God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:* _25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._ *St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:* _“I baptize you with water for 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 with fire_ (Mat 3:11). _I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33). *St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.* _Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_ *We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.* *Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally* _3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._ *Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)* _when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._ *Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.* _11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._ *Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins* _And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_ *Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit* - _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_ - _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._ - _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace) *Note, I can cite Christian men for this whole time period who taught exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.* “Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181). *Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.* “[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” St. Cyprian, To Stephen, 71: 72 (A.D. 253). “We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9: 9 (A.D. 359). “This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” St. Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).

To be fair, Bouyer's theory would support that much of Hippolytus' Tradition actually draws from early, even archaic practices but from the East not Rome. Long story.

interesting! Sounds like a fascinating book. Will keep my eyes peeled for that one.

@Alex Jurado That is a weird definition of “affirmed” if he discouraged A (paedobaptism). Ortlund’s point is we need to have nuance on what is affirmed and what specifically is denied. The point is paedobaptism was not a requirement and it likely was an ambiguous enough church teaching that one could do with or without it.

Why did tertullian wait ??

Wow, I want to visit Thessalonica! Cool. Not sure if we will get into John 3 or not. Hopefully. On the phrase from the creed, I think it speaks to the ultimate referent of baptism, but the language does not determine, it seems to me, whether baptism is itself the cause of forgiveness. Note that a key influence on this language would be the Cappadocians, and John Chrysostom explicitly denied that infants have any sins to be remitted. So the presence of paedobaptism at the time of the creed would make an interpretation friendly to baptismal regeneration an odd one, it seems to me. Just my take.

@@TruthUnites I was watching Austin Suggs' interview with Jonathan Pageau the other day, where he was relating one of his formative interactions with the Eastern Orthodox, where a deacon said to him (only half-jokingly) regarding real presence: "Catholics believe the Eucharist is real. Protestants believe it's a symbol. We believe it's real, because it's a symbol." (My man!) I have a feeling that's the lens the early Fathers would have viewed baptismal regeneration through, but I have much reading to do, before I dare form an opinion. I look forward to your discussion. (And when you make it to Thessalonica, I will be your guide. The spot from which St Paul is said to have preached to the Thessalonians is one block away from my office.)

@@teletheates interesting perspective! and a tour of Thessalonica sounds great!

I haven’t actually seen that, do you have a link?

@@TruthUnites kzfaq.info/get/bejne/praodJlou8DDnYU.html Here it is. I think he goes into more detail on what he means by baptism of the spirit and why he thinks it coincides with Salvation in a previous video but I don't have the link to that. Let me know what you think.

@@williamkeller5541 though I differ with Craig on terminology and the exact understanding of what happens during baptism, I thought it was a good argument from Acts about the general sequence of salvation and THEN baptism. What do you think?

@@TruthUnites I agree. I am not sure it is a phenomenal argument but I think it definitely puts the scriptural case for baptismal regeneration on the back foot so to speak. I am still deciding what I think Baptism is though. I dont really like a mere symbol view so I lean towards something like what you laid out but then I struggle to see how the grace from baptism is different from the general grace God gives us when we worship and obey him. As you said it is very complicated. You should do a similar series of videos on the Lords supper.

@@williamkeller5541 I hear ya! I think we can still see the sacraments as “special,” even if not regenerative. But I hear you, it’s complicated!

We’re recording this week, so it should be soon

of course! Help me understand the point you are trying to make...

@@TruthUnites thank you for the reply, Dr! It’s an honor to be able to communicate with you. As a Catholic, I find your content very compelling and I really appreciate the thought you put into each video and the great care that you take with each topic. To clarify my question, would you say that there is a difference in the state of the soul of a believer who is baptized, and that of the soul of a believer who is not baptized?

@@alexjurado6029 Thanks for the kind words! I don't think I can give a universal answer -- I think it depends on the details. I do think baptism is generally a part of the salvation process, such that if someone rejects it, that is greatly worrisome with respect to the state of their soul. I don't think its WHEN salvation strictly occurs. Does that help?

@@TruthUnites yes, Dr. it does. Thank you so much! If I may ask one final question (I know you’re very busy, and I don’t want to take up much of your time) would you say that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not in an absolute sense, of course, but as an ordinary necessity is what I mean.

@@alexjurado6029 yeah, I'd say it's a normal part of the package, but that God can and does save apart from it in certain circumstances. Hope that helps.

interesting, how do I find it?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z8CEa7yJx9qpfaM.html is the link to the video in which he briefly brings up your baptism video. Trent said he was most likely going to make a longer video addressing your baptism video alone. I'm hoping he joins in the baptism conversation you're having in some way because then we would have a Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist all express their views on baptism which would be really beneficial.

@@michaelhodges2391 thanks, I'll take a look!

Did you get a chance to listen to Horns comments? I would love your thoughts on it.

@@Adam-ue2ig Yeah I listened to it today. I think some of the points I made in this video are relevant to his comments, for example concerning the distinction between infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, or concerning the date of Hippolytus. The tomb inscriptions are an argument against paedobaptism yet people treat them as if the matter at hand is baptismal regeneration. I’ll be curious if he responds to the main thrust of my original video. I like Trent and think he’s a reasonable guy.

Great summary! Perhaps you can help me with a question (a sincere one). On such a view, how does one explain the apparent regeneration of a person prior to their baptism? For example, suppose John is dramatically converted in January. He is baptized in October. His life is dramatically revolutionized well before his baptism. Is he regenerate in, say, June? I get different answers on this and I am curious what is the classical Lutheran one.

@@TruthUnites A Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski says that an adult Baptized after conversion receives Baptism as a seal of his regeneration that took place through the Gospel prior to Baptism. Maybe it was Charles Porterfield Krauth. I can't remember. As an adult convert, this was my experience. Nevertheless, I still look to my Baptism as an objective place where the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit occured and where the accomplished work of Christ was distributed. I realize that isn't a clean explanation. But that the Lutheran confesses Baptismal Regeneration it does not mean regeneration cannot occur prior to Baptism because in the Lutheran Confession, it is the Word and Promise of God joined to the water that effects the regeneration, not just plain water.

@@marcuswilliams7448 interesting. What you are describing as your experience is basically my view of what generally happens. I guess what I struggle to see is how to relate such occurrences, which to my mind seem common both in the scripture and in common observation, to the theology of baptismal regeneration. It seems like we’ve got more exceptions than the rule.

@@TruthUnites Perhaps. Regardless of the experience of adult converts, though, Baptism is spoken of as a birth from above is spoken of in salvific and forgiving terms. I'm less interested in working out the kinks and rather just rejoice in what Christ has done through His appointed means

@@TruthUnites Another point is this: In the Smalcald Articles, Luther places Preaching, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution under the heading of the Gospel. God is superabundant in the giving of Grace. There are ways in which these things are distinct, but they all originate with Christ and are given as the means of distributing his finished work. I'll let God work out the details, I suppose.

My argument is not that "Tertullian opposed infant baptism, so score one for the Baptists!" Rather, it is that Tertullian has enormous respect for apostolic practice at the time he writes his treatise on baptism. There is no way he is going to go against an apostolic tradition lightly. And yet his argument against the practice is incredibly brief, almost flippant. Here is how Everett Ferguson, a top scholar in this area, makes the point: “Tertullian refers to the baptism of small children as something already being done and for which a practical and scriptural rationale was advanced (themselves indications of a new practice that needed justification), but in view of Tertullian’s respect for tradition at this period of his life evidently not a practice of long standing. Just as he would scarcely have made reference to an unknown practice, nor would he have rejected a generally accepted one.” Later: “Tertullian’s opposition [to infant baptism] is an indication that the practice was neither long established nor generally accepted.” I think that is right. I cannot imagine Tertullian making this argument if this was the generally accepted practice.

@@TruthUnites isn't that selective on your part, though? I can understand why infant baptism might not technically be considered Apostolic for some in the early church, as the first generation would largely be concerned with adult Baptisms. I don't see how one can accept Tertullian's rejection of infant baptism, finding that rejection to be a reliable witness of Apostolic Tradition, but at the same time reject his position on Baptismal Regeneration. If he holds to Baptismal Regeneration, doesn't he do so on the basis of it being Apostolic?

@@barelyprotestant5365 it is certainly not required to believe in everything somebody says in order to use them as historical evidence. We are trying to understand what the apostolic tradition was; even if there was a nonChristian who wrote something relevant to that question, we could use that information. That would not require we approve of that person's views. The interpretation of how baptism functions (baptismal regeneration) is different from the more concrete practice of who to baptize, and everyone acknowledges Tertullian has some odd views on the former point and is rather strict.

@@TruthUnites but the point is that you're accepting one view as Apostolic on the basis that Tertullian rejects that view, and one view as not Apostolic despite the fact that Tertullian holds to *that* view. It seems, and I mean no disrespect, like an argument that came after the conclusion was reached.

​@@barelyprotestant5365 I see where you're coming from, but the two are not quite equivalent. There is a difference between opposing a particular practice and simply speaking about baptism as efficacious, particularly when, as I mentioned, the specific practice in question is more concrete and specific than than the interpretation of what baptism is doing. So I think scholars like Ferguson are right to point out Tertullian's relevance on the question of the origins of infant baptism. But I don't place a ton of weight on just this point. You have to look at Tertullian's testimony in the context of the earlier apostolic fathers, the NT, and the later development--on both the question of infant baptism and its meaning. He is one voice among others.

Hey Ify! Thanks for engaging. Curious: are you Lutheran? Would love to get to know you and your perspective better! It seems to me that you are defining “credobaptist” in an eccentric way. Again, you can disagree with the Barthian view, but it does exist, and is typically called “credobaptist.” What label would you use for the Barthian view?

@@TruthUnites Hi! I am in a theological transition from a more evangelical Pentecostal background and would say I am Anglican, affirming the 39 Articles. I guess you can say Barth's view is credo in a sense, but it's not completely true to the OG position. Kind of in the same way that NT Wright has called himself a Calvinist, but his NPP views are outside of the classic Reformed fold. So like, yes, it's credo, but it isn't the standard or even a widely held view.

@@UltraX34 thanks for the reply, and sharing about your views. Two of my siblings are Anglican, and my dad is as well. I have a deep admiration for that wonderful tradition. I’d be curious on what basis you say that Barth’s view isn’t common. Is that claim based on sociological analysis, or is that just an anecdotal observation? The Barthian view is much more common outside the United States in places like Europe and Australia and India. I find it unhelpful when paedobaptists insist on telling credobaptists what is “standard” or “common” about our views when they haven’t studied the global ecumenical Baptist movement. I think each side should be able to define themselves, rather than be told what they believe, and do so in light of the entirety of their tradition, not just it’s expression in America. On the positive side, it sounds like we are in agreement that the question of the proper subjects of baptism is distinct from the question of the meaning of baptism, so that is great to hear!

@@TruthUnites I definitely would need to study that, but I think this is a development in Baptist tradition rather than what it originally held to. I think that view is a little atypical and would probably agree with Leeman that it's like halfway paedobaptist, but I don't want to be unfair to you.

@@UltraX34 there are diverse historical Baptist views as well. It does feel like you’re choosing to focus on the worst of credobaptism. I find it more helpful and more interesting to try to treat an opposing position in its best light, and in terms of all its various iterations. Just my two cents!

But he doesn't. And neither does any evangelical (believe that's his point). We do not believe it's "just a symbol". It's an outward sign of inward change (a pledge of a clear conscious towards God 1 Peter 3). Done to "fulfill all righteousness" Matthew 3:15.

@@wilsonw.t.6878 so a symbol ;)

@@wilsonw.t.6878 Do you know what a winky face signifies?

@@wilsonw.t.6878 sounds like a symbol

on what basis do you arrive upon this definition of regeneration? the term literally means rebirth; it seems to me that it is best defined more broadly than mere forgiveness to include the entirety of the new spiritual life God gives us in Christ.

@@TruthUnites That's what baptismal regeneration means. You can have other definitions of regeneration, thats fine but you can’t use them to refute baptismal regeneration like that.

@@michaelharrington6698 not according to the Catholic Catechism. That’s why I’m asking for the basis for your definition. I’m wondering where you get it from.

@@TruthUnites Hmmm, can you point me to the paragraph you are reading?

@@michaelharrington6698 Check out the section entitled the grace of baptism, which lists not merely the forgiveness of sins but also numerous other benefits accomplished by baptism, including being made a new spiritual creature and given a new nature. I don’t have the entire section to quote right here because I’m on my phone just now. Check out for examples the benefits listed in 1266, eg.

Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”