Thank you for saying Yahweh and Israelites instead of "Jews" so few Lutherans actually do what the LCMS (i know you're not LCMS, but you're in official fellowship with them right?) Says when it says: "In our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequant Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament (Israelites or Hebrews being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ." For someone raised in Pre-Trib Rapture, Pre-Millenial "Israelis are saved by birth" MADNESS, that is a fundamental, powerful realization and I'm glad you use those terms tightly instead of loosely. Proclaim Jesus to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc...

I am a Baptist and you are a liar!!!!!

Infants don 't need baptism.Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me for theirs is the Kingdom of God

loved your introduction where you define 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 .

_“To infants Baptism is, primarily, the ordinary means of regeneration and purification from sin. […] To adult believers it serves principally as a seal and testimony of the grace of God. “_ -J. Gerhard, Loci Theologici At first glance, this could look like a challenge to modern Lutheran KZfaqrs. However, it fully agrees with the Lutheran Smaller Catechism. A complete baptism has “the [1.] word of God which is in and with the water, and [2.] faith, which trusts such [3.] word of God in the water.” So an adult who hears the word [1.] and believes it [2.] only lacks the “word of God in the water.” When Lutherans (Yes! Including and especially Gerhard.) call a sacrament a “seal” or “seal and testimony,” we do *not* mean that *we* are giving a public testimony or that *we* are publicly sealing our own faith. Rather, in each instance (search “seal” in bookofconcord dot org) it means that *God* is putting his official seal and stamp on us right in front of the eyes of the devil, the world, and our own sinful doubting. Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water, not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added. For God Himself stakes His honor, His power and might on it. -Luther, Larger Catechism

these labels are so funny. "Ortlund elaborates on his skepticism" 😂😂

@@TruthUnites Hehe 😜 By the way, even though I didn’t read all of it, I just wanted to say you did a great job with your book, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals. Off the top of my head, this is what I learned: - That John Calvin wasn’t against tradition; instead, that he rejected tradition that he believed wasn’t aligned with the early church. That’s an important distinction. - And I **loved** your focus on Gregory the Great. Like, you highlighting how Gregory talked about pushing back against “elation” in areas of success - remaining humble - by focusing on the areas that we have neglected. I know that’s in the context of successful leadership or “pastoral office”, but that flipped a switch in my head. Certainly, as someone who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox, I believe that’s something I can retrieve and learn from. (Also, you highlighting that neat little tidbit about John Calvin’s respect for Gregory the Great was fascinating.) Perhaps the overall lesson in your book could be presented this way: If I can learn from random pastors online, how much more so from those in the past who helped pave the way for Christianity today? In other words, Numbers 6:24-26, my guy. *hugs*

@@zekdom haha thanks so much for mentioning this! That book came out of the overflow of my own benefit from historical theology, so it's great to hear how it rubs off on others. Gregory the Great is fantastic. A true genius in his insight into leadership.

+

I noticed too :)

Are you talking about the bible put together by bishops at church councils?

@@thegoldendojoloach6832 , The Word of God written by the Apostles and the Prophets, Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

@@octaviosalcedo9239 discerned by the bishops of the Catholic Church from a good number of books not inspired according to them ie 1st clement , hermas etc

@@thegoldendojoloach6832 you mean Orthodox Church?

​@@thegoldendojoloach6832 LoL bro we all know that the Lord gave the apostles the names of the 27 books of the NT before his Ascension. This list is definitely not a Church Tradition or anything of such. Totus tuus.

Good afternoon. Would it be considered sanctification if it's continued?

​@romans6788 the declaration of righteousness that is justification is a continual declaration of righteousness. Romans 4 is an example of this. Already believing David and Abraham are declared righteous again even though they were already believing

Totally concur !!!

Which one lol

@@Dilley_G45 the fellow in the bottom left corner. His name is Austin 😊

I'd like to hear that too!

_“To infants Baptism is, primarily, the ordinary means of regeneration and purification from sin. […] To adult believers it serves principally as a seal and testimony of the grace of God. “_ -J. Gerhard, Loci Theologici At first glance, this could look like a challenge to modern Lutheran KZfaqrs. However, it fully agrees with the Lutheran Smaller Catechism. A complete baptism has “the [1.] word of God which is in and with the water, and [2.] faith, which trusts such [3.] word of God in the water.” So an adult who hears the word [1.] and believes it [2.] only lacks the “word of God in the water.” When Lutherans (Yes! Including and especially Gerhard.) call a sacrament a “seal” or “seal and testimony,” we do *not* mean that *we* are giving a public testimony or that *we* are publicly sealing our own faith. Rather, in each instance (search “seal” in bookofconcord dot org) it means that *God* is putting his official seal and stamp on us right in front of the eyes of the devil, the world, and our own sinful doubting. Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water, not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added. For God Himself stakes His honor, His power and might on it. -Luther, Larger Catechism

I haven't. It sounds worthwhile.

The thief on the cross was before the institution of baptism.

No, this comment is both irrelevant and unhelpful to everyone except an unconverted person at death's door. Not intending to be insulting, but there's a very real discussion/debate to be had on the meaning and relevance of baptism for all who can be baptized.

This is precisely my point. However, they will always go to lengths to deny the early Church fathers. Then, claim that we simply can't understand the scripture as "we don't have the Holy Spirit."

With the added significance of the promises tied to Baptism but not 'initial conversion'

Thank you for this! This gives more insight into what he talks about!

"The only difference is that the initial regen. happened first" I don't know if that's quite right. It's more like initial regeneration is becoming alive and all subsequent regeneration is staying alive (perseverance). There is a slight difference, but maybe just semantic -- this is why I prefer to talk of different kinds of grace rather than of regeneration.

Well said and helpful, thank you.

This is absurd. We are declared righteous by faith. Jesus gift of righteousness is our only qualification to enter into heaven.

I don't know why Ortlund requires a convoluted reading of this, rather than reading it in line with his own assumptions: "You have all been baptized. Therefore, having already been baptized, hold fast to the faith." This reading makes complete sense of the grammar, and doesn't require this clear reference to baptism to be interpreted in a brand new metaphorical way.

I would encourage you to listen to Dr Cooper about your concern. The fact that people can later reject their baptism and faith given to them, and thus live in the world, doesn’t mean that the Bible is wrong about what it teaches about baptism. Read all the passages where the apostles teach about baptism and it’s imposible yo arrive to a baptist view.

@@Solideogloria00 the text says those who are born of God overcome the world. You're saying there are some born of God people who don't overcome the world. What you're doing is prioritizing your interpretation of baptism over verses like this which teach the preservation of the saints. I understand for historical reasons why that happens as baptism was seen as a more important issue. But if I'm collecting the sum total of passages and trying to have a coherent view that explains as much as possible, I can't hold to automatic baptismal regeneration and those passages like 1 John 5 unless you want to water down the meaing of regeneration so much it doesn't make a difference.

Automatic baptismal regeneration would imply either ex opere operato or irresistible grace, both are denied by Lutherans

The laestadians in my area believe having 12 kids gets you a better spot in heaven. that TV, music, sports, jewelry, and makeup are sins. That if you don't go to their particular church you're going to hell.

What's the Lutheran answer?

What is the Lutheran answer?

@@user-ss1xg1se5n From the LCMS website... "There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God" (Romans 11:33). What is the basis of such hope? It is this, that God is not Himself bound by the means to the use of which He has bound us. That is to say that while Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, God can save sinners without Baptism. He did so throughout the entire Old Testament. During the first 2,000 years we know of no special means of grace for little children. At the time of Abraham He instituted circumcision, but He did not thereby provide for little girls. It is for God to determine under what conditions He will receive children into His kingdom. A most encouraging instance for the Holy Spirit's power to influence even unborn infants in a spiritual way is found in Luke 1:15, 41, 44, where it is stated that the unborn John the Baptist leaped for joy within his mother's womb when the unborn Jesus was brought into his presence by His mother Mary. Behind all this is the all-encompassing Gospel pronouncement that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world [including the little children] unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19)."

@@wesmorgan7729 apologies for not responding 8 months ago. See above comment.

Yep. The Lutheran children's catechism says the same "the old Adam in us ... be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires."

Sounds like your views are similar to that of the Church of the Brethern

It sounds like you are ready to become Catholic.

It seems insane to me to insist on immersive baptism, as a truly large number of Christians are not immersively baptized and yet are obviously saved and being regenerated.

if you hold to both immersion and baptismal regeneration then you will be forced to believe that a huge portion of Christianity (Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans, some Prebyterians, some Methodists, Greek Orthodox) are not saved. People like Thomas Aquinas, RC Sproul, and so many other mature people in the faith would not be saved.

What was wrong with the Baptism of repentance or Baptismal regeneration? The Holy Spirit may not be present, we need separation of water and Spirit according to Rom2:28-29 and John3:5

I know. But the rest of the conversation is coming next week!

It's close.

@@DrJordanBCooper I just find Chemnitz is more readable, especially when it comes to Gerhard's Dogmatic works. Gerhard's Devotional Work is second to none.

YEP

@@UltraX34 recently left Twitter… I am happy and not shocked that I will still see you around on the internet… especially on baptism videos lol

Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize. We don’t need water baptism as that’s not for us today. There is only one baptism which is clearly spiritual.

@@davidchupp4460 This is a very common and typical how modern American Evangelicals interpret Scripture. Interpretation according to the THREE "S" SISTERS----signifies, spiritualize and symbolize.

@@davidchupp4460 If you truly hold to that belief, I would love to know how you interpret John 3.

Tbh this sounds reformed to me

@@davidgrasch3869 sound like rubbish to me! The Lutheran church does baptize unbelievers. A baby has NO way of understanding or believing the gospel. Faith is not a gift of God... grace is, and it is received by faith. Baptismal Regeneration is another gospel !

@@davidgrasch3869 This is the theological position of Lutheranism though. Wherever Luther defended infant baptism he did so by arguing for infant faith (of Christian children) -- not that faith wasn't a prerequisite.

The Reformed (paedobaptist) are the ones were argue for baptism of covenant families, irrespective of regeneration in the child. Perhaps you mean Evangelical/Baptist (credobaptist) when you said Reformed?

@@markwhite5926 “Infants cannot have faith” is a mantra you learned from your teachers. You did not get it from the Bible, nor did anyone get it from the Bible. Some late medieval anabaptists invented the notion. Christ warns, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” *John the Baptist had faith from his Mother’s womb.* _And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41 *David had faith from birth.* _For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_ _You are my trust from my youth._ *_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_* _You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6 _ [You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗יwhile on the breasts of my mother._ Psalm 22:9 *Timothy had faith from infancy.* _From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms.] you have known the holy letters._ 2 Timothy 3:15 *The babies of Palm Sunday had faith at their mothers’ breast.* _And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16 Finally, the Son of God did not somehow lose his eternal faith in his Father during his earthly infancy.

A clear explantion of the real issue. People must first "believe" in Jesus Christ for their sins to be forgiven by his shed BLOOD. Without that someone is just giving an unsaved person a sprinkle or a bath. The thief on the cross had no time to be baptized but Jesus assured him of salvation.

were saved διεσώθησαν (diesōthēsan) Verb - Aorist Indicative Passive - 3rd Person Plural Strong's 1295: From dia and sozo; to save thoroughly, i.e. to cure, preserve, rescue, etc. through δι’ (di’) Preposition Strong's 1223: A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through. water. ὕδατος (hydatos) Noun - Genitive Neuter Singular Strong's 5204: Water. And genitive case, hudatos, etc. From the base of huetos; water literally or figuratively.

Didn't Calvin hold to a form of baptismal regeneration?

I think this view would hold that the elect are a subset of those baptized and they will persevere. It can’t be an enduring faith imparted, or possibly there is a false baptism and true baptism where the elect have a different experience than the rest.

Then salvation IS one event in the past, IS presently Christifying us in word and sacrament, and IS one event in the future.

Your wrong. Salvation is made in the past through Christ's death and resurrection. Recant and repent of your statement.

Nice contradictions

True, that is what the Bible says. Each of those “saved” will have to refer to different things though.

Articulately wrong. The Baptist Irony.

If you want it now. It's being uploaded next Monday.

I first read Do you have to pray for part 2?

THIS IS EXACTLY IT. And note - this definition is completely compatible with every view, even full blown 5 point Calvinism

@@UltraX34 great point! This is honestly why I think Peter Leithart should just become an Anglican :P

How would that view mesh with the Old Testament typological events?

@@carltorola716 Through the Exodus, God publicly before the nations claimed the people as his own--but their walk through the waters didn't by itself give them a new heart (i.e. calf worship). So they lost the inheritance via persistent failure to take up the covenant designation as a kingdom of priests. And yet, God really worked a deliverance of his people from the land of Egypt--they were en route to the promise land as a result of their baptism, and only had to stay the course.

Federal vision?

Wasn’t it both?

Not only it saved them but also saved the humanity. So it's both, again, it's ridiculous that you people try to reduce it to a single thing.

It's pretty clear baptism does more that Dr. Ortlund suggests: Matthew 3:15 Jesus insisted that even John's baptism was fitting for them to fulfill all righteousness. A servant is not greater than his Lord. Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son. Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.* Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous. Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.* John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism. Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.* Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded. Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that. Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.* Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.* 1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism. 1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead. Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality. Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in 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.* Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.* 1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So was Abraham’s *faith* counted as righteousness or Christ’s alien righteousness?

@@Mkvine What do you mean by "alien" righteousness?

@@beaulin5628 Alien as in otherworldly, foreign, outside, external.

@@Mkvine Salvation in both the Old and New Testament is applied to people by "faith". Abraham was considered righteous by God because he believed what God said instead of doubting, and acted upon it. God established that lambs would be sacrificed to temporarily atone for the sins of the people until the final "Lamb of God", Jesus Christ, would be born into the world and die on the cross to pay for our sins once for all time. God's people who sacrificed the lambs were doing it in "faith" of what God said it would accomplish for them. Their sins were transfered to the animal instead of killing the people. In the same way Jesus is the "Lamb of God" who became "sin for us" and died the death we deserve to die, to give to us his eternal "life". Those who believe this are considered as being "in" Jesus Christ, connected to him by faith forever. In this way Jesus' perfect righteousness is applied to believers. It is "faith" in what God promised that saved people in the Old Testament and saves them in the New Testament. "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God IN him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 "But of him are ye IN Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" 1 Corinthians 1:30 "For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephes. 2:8-9 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." James 2:23 "Therefore it is of FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all," Romans 4:16

So it seems like you believe that faith itself is what God considered righteous. But I thought you are righteous not because faith, but because of Christ righteousness credited to your account externally??

Thank you. You have explained what the NT plainly teaches about how our "sins are washed away" and it is not complicated. All of this talk of "confessions", "covenants" "creeds", "church councils", and "church fathers" has drowned the way of salvation in the murky waters of confusion.

Indeed, and it also washed all the evil away off the earth, thus cleansed the earth

You're performing eisegesis stating something that isn't there. The ark is specifically mentioned as the vessel of what actually saves. "In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water". If Peter wanted to say water saves he could've used the Exodus.

Ultimately what the antitype of the ark is, is Baptism. But it saved in a way that it did not cleanse as the ark did not cleanse and thus baptism does not cause the forgiveness of sins. but the ark "saved" in a way that it while being built it was declaring to the evil people that Noah and family were on God's side. Baptism, being greater, declares to the Devil and the demonic forces that we are on God's side because it is an oath taken of trust. So it "saves" in a sense not that it confers grace or regeneration but because it is an oath of trust and that trust saves.

"delivered through water"

@@wilsonw.t.6878 u cannot say it’s ark since 1 Peter 3:21 says they were saved by or through water. Which is the flood therefore how did the flood saved Noah?

Cornelius?

@@shilohplatt789 Yeah but that was a special event. God moved in an unusual way to show that the gospel was to go beyond the nation of Israel and to the rest of the nations of the world. Even then they were immediately baptized in water.

@@fernandoperez8587 That is not a sound theological explanation. You say "there is no example of conversion in scripture other than water baptism". Now, since you want your theology to be based on scripture, you must admit, that faith precedes baptism. That was the case with the jailor and Cornelius entire household and many other people in scripture. Now, your answer does not provide a good explanation or exegesis on this. You simply do it away with shrug and do not face the actual problem; that is the same things the papists do unto this day. Do I say that baptism does something in the believer? Yes, of course! Anyways, I do not make any soteriological issue out of it, since that would clearly contradict Sola Fide and Solus Christus, since we say that only Christs atonement is necessary for ones salvation. Anyways, this explanation of yours is insufficient and not theological. Now, I clearly stated that there are dozens of examples in scripture where people started believing and THEN got baptised, meaning, they were converted and were regenerated BEFORE baptism.

@@shilohplatt789 There is no need to seperate faith and baptism when scripture doesn't do it but does the opposite it joins them together. Baptism is still needed. Remember the crowd in Acts 2 believed Peter's message and ask what they must do to be saved and Peter say to them repent and be baptized. Paul believed when Christ appear to him and yet Ananias says after praying for his sight to return "rise be baptized and wash away your sins." Scripture says in baptism we are buried with Christ (Romans 6:1-8), put Christ on (Galatians 3:27), saved by it or through it (1 Peter 3:21), and enter a covenant with God by it (Colossians 2:11-12). FYI I dont know that it matters but I haven't even finish watching this discussion.

@@fernandoperez8587 So you deny justification by faith alone? Woah, thats a wild claim. Really seems like dozens of people were not saved then...

I also think we as Christians need to be very careful about using our own experiences to justify our view of scripture when it requires us to ignore, or explain away, a lot of plain teaching.