Yes do the debate!! Do continue the article!! I never get tired of hearing about baptism!

I have been going to a Baptist church for 20 years but have been wrestling with a lot of things over the last five years. Lutheranism and baptism are one of those things, that I’ve wrestled with and you’ve addressed those struggles in this video. I’ve been driving myself crazy trying to understand how baptism wasn’t a work. I was so worried if I embraced Lutheran doctrine, I’d be embracing works salvation. This has helped a bunch. I don’t want to trust in anything but the finished work of Christ but I want all of what God wants for me.

The comparison of baptism to the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt into the wilderness and the Lords Supper as the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites was awesome. Thank you.

Definitly finish the Article, great to hear your thoughts. Btw big thanks for everything you do. I know it must be hard for you as father of (I think 2?), pastor, working at university, doing the weidner Institute, Just and Sinner website, publishings, merch, KZfaq, podcasts, twitter and still keep studying. My deepest respect that you do this much for the Lutheran community and you should know, that we appreciate it. I can't understand how you are not completely destroyed by all of that things already. God bless!

Please continue the article. That article is the best I have read so far disputing the Lutheran view of baptism and your response to it has been great. Thank you for the work you are doing!

Thank you for sacrificing your time to make these videos. Very much appreciated.

Thank you for all you do. God's peace be with you.

Another way to strengthen the "household" argument is to place emphasis on the "Word" being present in the household. Wherever one convert is in the household, the "Word" will be present to create and sustain faith. We baptize household, because the "Word" will continually create faith among all within those living there. I think the same argument can be made I Cor. 7:14 "children made holy" not because one parent is a believer but because the "Word" brought that one parent to faith. This power of the "Word" is present within the family. Enjoy the podcast.

Great video! I'm one of those boogeymen Augustinian-Thomists, but I agree with a lot of what you said!

Please do that debate!

I don't think a debate with Slick would be very productive. I've heard him talk about baptism many times and he brings up two things: 1) in Acts 2:38 he replaces "for" with "because of" the forgiveness of sins. 2) claims baptismal regeneration is incompatible with salvation by faith alone. However, I would like to see more discussion of this article, it is interesting to see someone make an honest effort to interact with what Lutherans believe instead of the tired surface treatment.

I really appreciate the Lutherans and the revival of the truth in faith alone. Why does this have to be so difficult? It seems as though a person has to do a lot of mental jogging to make the puzzle work. I wish i could sit down and chat with you. It seems to complicated to fit it as a work of God. I personally don't disagree or agree. I have been flip flopping on this issue for a long time due to deductive reasoning....... I have been following you for a long time and have a lot of respect for you and Lutheran teachings. Thank you again.

Did medieval catholicism really believe that communion is efficacious even without faith? In Orthodoxy there is a very strong emphasis on partaking of the Holy Gifts in a worthy manner. Our pre-communion prayers state multiple times that you will be "burned" (spiritually speaking) if you commune unworthily. It sounds very similar to the Lutheran view. Also, can we get a list of what exactly qualifies as a "work" and what doesn't, and why? I think it would clear up a lot of the confusion. Thank you!

Thank God for baptism 🙏🏼

11:30: "Does the faith in standing and status... whether or not the priest is regenerate ... Does the faith in the one administering the sacrament have anything to do with the efficacy of the sacrament?" The answer that Augustine and pretty much the rest of the Church came to was: No, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on its Institution by our Lord, in accordance with God's word. As long as the proper Words of Institution and elements for the sacrament are used by the priest/pastor, God's grace is always available through God's promise, not based on the status of the priest. Thanks for this! I had been looking for the Lutheran view to this question for a while now, and you answered it.

Was there any development from Luther to orthodox theologians in terms of whether it is the preached word only that creates faith, as opposed to baptism (the word + water)? It seems Luther was less comfortable saying baptism creates faith than some later theologians were.

Fantastic treatment of the the topic. I think a debate with Matt slick would be an interesting discussion. Also it's not James white 😁

How do you reconcile baptismal regeneration with imputed righteousness?

Does anyone have a link to the Themelios article he references at the beginning?

Argument starts at 3:08. In summary: (1) The two points at issue is whether we can call "baptism" a work, and if so, whether it along with faith is efficacious for salvation , in which case sola fide is compromised. (2) To the first point, reformed Baptists would argue that baptism is a non-saving work that is the ultimate sign of a saving faith. (3) Reformed Baptists would say that baptism's use in scripture is symbolic, representing an expression of faith. (1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38) (4) In contrast, Lutherans would argue that baptism is a passive yet objective receiving of regeneration (i.e. the creation of saving faith) which is in the action of being immersed in water, and can be rejected. (5) As for infant baptism, the idea that infants have faith is a logical result of believing three points; (i) that infants should be baptized, (ii) baptism saves through regeneration, (iii) salvation is not possible apart from faith, ergo, infants must have faith. (6) As an example, to a Lutheran baptism is not a meritorious work in the same way that choosing to hear the gospel from someone is not a meritorious work but is (7) The Lutheran view of baptism is correct because a more plain reading of scriptural text points in that direction. Some questions and requests for clarification from a Lutheran's perspective: Q1: Around 36:55, Dr. Cooper says: "Baptism is efficacious in that it regenerates. What is regeneration but the giving of spiritual life, which is faith? So baptism is efficacious unto faith. Baptism brings one faith." In this case, must one have saving faith before the event of efficacious baptism? If so, in what way does baptism save if faith apart from baptism already justifies, or does baptism save only in the case of infant baptism? Or does the event of baptism only create saving faith in a faithless but consenting individual? Q2: Lutherans seem to believe that regeneration through the word alone is efficacious for salvation. So why call baptism other than infant baptism salvific? If because scripture claims so, then how can the world alone truly efficacious for salvation? Q3: At 44:30, Dr. Cooper uses the phrase, "submit to the work of believing the gospel." I think reformed theologians would argue that there is a strong distinction between "belief" and a "work." Commanding someone to be baptized is qualitatively different from commanding someone to believe, as in when Jesus said "repent and believe" he was saying two different things. Dr. Cooper later says that the misunderstanding is in how the "relationship between the law and gospel works." But Baptists would likely say that baptism is a good work done under the gospel following salvation as an expression of faith. And thus unrelated to the process of our salvation. Am I misunderstanding the flow of the argument here? Q4: At 56:00, Dr. Cooper starts to say that we should not interpret baptism a particular way because of the conclusions we draw from other texts, in particular regarding Perseverance of the Saints. But isn't that how we are supposed to interpret scripture, letting scripture interpret scripture while being internally logical and coherent? In which case, the problem is not that we are using scripture to interpret scripture but rather that Perseverance of the Saints is falsely being arrived at as a conclusion. Am I understanding him correctly, or is this again my Calvinist background disabling me from understanding Lutheran teaching? Any response, be it an affirmation or correction, would be greatly appreciated! Kindly reply on KZfaq, or I'm also reachable at iamjoechang@gmail.com

You forgot to put the citation for the article from Themelios in the description. I would prefer to read the article and then listen to the video. I will get far more out of the video this way.

Hello Dr. Cooper, you probably have a lot on your plate, but could you make a video or a response on what majority church fathers agreed on? I’ve heard majority believed in the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, One can loose their salvation, am I incorrect, or are there more doctrines they believe in? And could you give examples? It’s all confusing to me because I’m an evangelical studying church history and I have a strong well studied Roman Catholic friend that claims stuff like Marian dogmas, purgatory, intercession to saints, etc, were all documented in the patristic era. He quotes these church fathers as if their statements are believed by the whole church. So is there a consensus between church fathers on such doctrines or are these just held by a few? There were many heresies going on around during the patristic era, but I don’t see where practices like praying to saints or the belief of the assumption of Mary being condemned, why is that? If this is too much to ask for, my apologies.

1. re "just look at the baptistic texts", JBC doesn't do that, because: a) he takes non-baptistic texts such as John 3:3-6/Titus 3:4-6, which mention "baptism" NOT once, but he arbitrarily MAKES them, "baptistic", because "all the Fathers said so", thus violating Luthers (accurate) dictum, that a mere "say-so" from the Fathers was NOT intrinsically adequate, to certify any doctrine, as being Biblical and true; b) any serious student of Scripture knows that "face value" interpretations of texts can lead to denials of core doctrine, thus: Scripture nowhere uses "Trinity" to describe God; on the "contrary", such as "face value" texts, as Deut. 6:4 would "appear" to deny the Trinity, saying, "the Lord our God is ONE LORD" (not "three); re, the current discussion (and closer "to home"), 1 Tim. 2:5 says that woman are "SAVED through child-birth"; are women REALLY "regenerated/justified" via child-birth? Did God get "saved", when He was "justified by the people" (Luke 7:29)? and what about this "foolishness" that Paul says God has (1 Cor. 1:25)?, etc. etc. 2. the Reformed objection to BR is not merely "based upon perseverance", there is MUCH more to it, than that, to wit: a) NO external, physical rite ever produced inward, spiritual realities; not so in Old Israel (Rom. 2:28, 29), and certainly not in Christ's Church; thus, in the N.T, you have i] many examples in Acts, of people being saved, BEFORE their water baptism (the Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8], the Philippian jailer [16:30, 31]); you have ii] a man saved under the "New Covenenant" (John 19: 32-34; Heb. 9:16, 17), yet with NO water baptism (Luke 23:33-43), and iii] you have a man (Simon Magus) water baptized, who received NO salvation, whatsoever (Acts 8:9-24; mind you, with your Lutheran, "loss-of-salvation" doctrine, maybe SM "set the record", for the fastest, to ever "lose" his salvation"?), yet iv] there is NOT ONE clear-cut case of anyone being "saved by water baptism" in the N.T.! 3. re the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance", what is adduced to/against all "loss-of-salvation" schemes remains true, that such schemes (by subtily "subbing" "probation", for "salvation") eviscerate the entirety of Christian theology, in ALL of it's major heads of doctrine; re "baptism", it does so, as follows: according to the Lutherans, water baptism "saves/regenerates/jusitifes/removes sin/gives the Spirit/unites with Christ", and Lord knows what else; yet, due to a totally ironic affirmation of a "free-will" that can "resist God" (and so is NOT "in BONDAGE" after all! LOL!!), ALL of these multitudinous benefits can be "forfeited/surrendered/cast away" at the drop of the "free-will" hat, thus revealing the sub-standard, NON-life-changing "gospel" (?), which is the "hall-mark" of ALL "loss....." religions....thus, Mr. Coopers noble attempts to "prove" BR, ends up as a lost cause, grounding itself out, against a) the "free-will" of Man, and b) the impotency of God, to savingly over-ride "a"....

Quick question, since babies can have faith and we are commanded to give an effectual regenerative baptism onto them, does this mean that every baby of believers have faith before baptism? Or does that baptism creates the faith in them

Anyone who has tried to get free from habitual sin knows that you don't get freedom from your own effort. Consequently, salvation from the power of sin cannot be "of works" - Eph 2:9. If you could get free from sin by your own effort you might be tempted to "boast" as Paul says. So, although we may concede that repentance and baptism involve work, our effort in doing these things is not what saves us. God delivers us from the power of sin through baptism (Rom 6, Col 2:11,12).

I do believe that baptism does save and I also believe God's grace that is given in baptism is able to be rejected, but I also since becoming a Lutheran understood baptism to be effectual at all times, to where every single person that is baptized is given faith by God and becomes a Christian, and then later on after the baptism takes place is when the rejection of God's grace takes place. Does baptism not always save?

I thought that Calvin's view, (and this is based on my reading of Calvin), is that the sacraments do actually bring the reality of God's grace to us, but it's our faith that receives what God has to give us through the sacrament. So just having faith without the sacrament is not enough, (with some possible exceptions like the thief on the cross). I would compare this need for the sacraments to the Israelites in the wilderness, who as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, received baptism, and spiritual food and drink (manna and water from the rock), and yet many weren't brought to salvation. If the sacraments were effectual by itself, then all the Israelites should have inherited the promised land. This is clarified in the first few chapters of Hebrews, the reason they didn't inherit the promise was their lack of faith. However, just because an Israelite had faith, they still needed the provisions given by God(baptism and spiritual food and drink) to bring them to the promised land. I think similarly, it's our faith that will bring us to receive the promise of heaven, but God will still use those provisions he has given us in the sacraments to bring us there. Our faith is still firmly resting in the promise of God, and the sacraments are part of our reliance on God in our journey to get there.

Is this the most recent Themelios issue?

I would be interested in the debate with Matt Slick. Peace.

So does faith, which brings forgiveness, come before baptism?

Pls someone clarify about eastern orthodox understanding of water baptism for infants.do they teach baptismal regeneration

The Augustine position on what donatist believed is incorrect. Is was not about the nature of the priest but the right standing within the church

I need a book. I cant make up my mind on this issue.

It would be MAJORLY helpful to hear a Lutheran theologian engage in a public debate on baptism. I’m sick of talking past evangelicals on this issue.

But when is a person saved according to Lutherans? Say a person comes to faith and repentance and the following Sunday they receive Baptism, at what point was that person saved?

Do the debate

Can one have faith, say a fully grown convert, before they have been baptized?

Dr. Jordan Cooper How is it you can go through a discussion on regeneration baptism and not mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mark 16:16 For those who believe and are baptized will be saved....... referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Matthews 3:11 John the Baptist Baptist prepares the way for salvation... “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.

Clarifying question. Are you saying that if someone explicitly did not want to be baptized but was physically forced to do so, then, in that case, objective salvation would be theirs and would be rejected at the same time, thus resulting in simultaneous objective salvation + rejection? This is what I'm understanding you to be saying, but I could totally be wrong, and I want to be corrected if I am.

Trying really hard to understand infant baptism since I have always held the belief in believers baptism. Are you saying that all infants and children who die without receiving baptism are lost?

Can a person be baptised twice? Image a Roman Catholic, born and raised (being baptised as an infant), who abandons the faith, and years later converts to the Lutheran church- will he be baptised a second time?

The author conflates sanctification with justification at 49:18. Sanctification ends at death, not justification. Justification happens in a moment at baptism.

Debate slick

Out of curiosity, would a Lutheran deny that people professing Christ without being baptized are not true Christians? I'm thinking especially about groups like the Quakers, who have historically not done water baptism. I'm sure it is a huge problem, but I have friends from this background, and I'm trying to figure out how intensely I should talk with them about it.

"No doubt that infants have faith?" Don't you think that John the Baptist and Jeremiah are kind of exceptional examples? Would we conclude that because God spoke audibly to Samuel as a child, God will speak audibly to all children? The example that you gave of David in Psalm 22:9,10 is definitely not a clear example that all children have faith in the womb, especially seeing that this is a prophecy of Jesus. Furthermore, when someone reads these verses do they conclude that David had faith as a baby or that David's entire life was being governed by God? Finally, since Timothy has known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:15), are we supposed to understand that this means he understood them as an infant? If I said to someone, "I have been reading books continually since childhood," would they think he means he has been reading books since he was an infant?

I was baptized in a non-denominational Calvary Chapel Church. They teach a symbolic view of baptism and when I was baptized I believed that view. They used the proper Trinitarian invocation and use of water, but I now believe that baptism saves. Do I need to be re-baptized?

If you want to jump to the actual argument, go to 9:48

I think by complete justification he means justification from all ones sin one will ever commit. Including the sin of unbelief which caused one's apostasy. So the infant isn't completely justified from all his sins because God will still impute sin on him

It seems to me half of the babies baptised in my church are resisting. This gives me second thoughts. What if I resisted when I was a baby? What if, when I baptise my children, they resist? Should I force them? Should one force a toddler? At what point does one stop making the decision for another to be baptised?

Hi Dr Cooper, I’m a non-denom Christian. I believe I am saved but I’m not baptised, does this mean I’m going to hell? Im just confused, everyone has always told me baptism means a spiritual baptism

I think the main problem of the interlocutor is that he has a one-dimensional understanding of faith and the means of grace: Baptism is commanded and is therefore a work that cannot save within the Lutheran paradigm of justification by faith and not works. As Dr. Cooper pointed out, faith is also commanded etc. So you couldn't even say that you are justified by faith and not by works because faith is a work. That is why Lutherans have been pointing out the following basic distinctions for the past half millennium. Faith is a work or virtue, commanded by the First Commandment, but it doesn't justify as a work or virtue. It justifies before God only because it receives Christ and his righteousness etc. It is the means by which we receives Christ's saving treasure offered to all by the gospel in word and sacraments, like the hand that receives the golden coin from the king. Hence we are saved by faith in Christ not because of faith. Baptism is certainly also a work the pastor does and that the person being baptized receives or "tolerates" if you will. It fits under the Second Commandment because it is a proper use of the name of the triune God. But it also fits under the third because of God's sanctifying word being the active ingredient in it. Baptism saves because it is the means that objectively conveys what Christ won--salvation, to put it into one term. Not because it is a good work, even though it is also that. We are saved by baptism, not because of baptism. The same is true of the Lord's Supper--it is both sacrament and sacrifice, God's saving gift to us and our sacrifice of praise to God (= a good work we do). We are saved by it, not because of it, because it is viewed in justification as a means that objectively conveys salvation (= a sacrament), to be received by faith, not as our sacrifice. Although it is that, too. Same for reading the bible or listening to a sermon. Saved by these in that they are the means that convey Christ and his saving gifts so we can receive them by alone-saving faith, not because of these as good works. Although reading the Bible and listening to sermons certainly are good works we are told to do by the third commandment, not optional things in some special category by themselves. Once you grasp these basic distinctions and dimensions to faith and the means of grace, you realize the relevant passages of Scripture all fall into place.

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 me, it makes sense to view the sacrament of water baptism as being likened to the reception of an invisible Bible. This is for the purposes of enlightenment from God. This can cause the baptized recipient to know Christ crucified (as per I Corinthians 2:2). Denying water baptism to an infant is likened to the denial of a manufactured Bible to an infant. Owning a Bible does not prove Christian faith, but by reading a Bible, this often promotes faith for some, but can result in doubt in others. To me, this explains the efficacy of water baptism. It also points out the great benefits and appropriateness of baptism for the mentally disabled.

hey, when Lutherans "lose their salvation", and then seek restoration, do they need to get re-baptized?

Hi Dr. Cooper. You mention that we have Biblical precedent for infant baptism, but not for pulling someone in off the road. However, you make the jump from household baptism equals or includes infant baptism without proving that point. Please explain. Thank you.

I think Justification is not so much about declaring you righteous as it is about making you righteous (Eph 4:24) - this is what baptism does in making you a new creation.

I think that any form of sacraments is a return under the law. If it's by grace why can it also by by obedience in sacraments ? Water baptism came from the rituals of purifications under the law but only Christ blood now is purifying of all sins. So are we justify by faith + sacraments ? This is not the gospel.

Yay!

Dr. Cooper, I have been steeping myself in Lutheran beliefs, especially on your channel, and like I said in another comment, baptismal regeneration is a real hard thing to accept based on salvific passages that don't include baptism. Here is a link on a debate between Mike Winger and a guy named Dean. (I forgot his last name) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rpiEmaWHs9vZiWw.html I just fixed the link! Don't know what happened. They do a thorough covering of scripture on salvation, and it would be great if you could systematically go through each scripture they reference and give your perspective on them as simply, but thoroughly as possible. I've listened to a few of your other videos concerning this topic, but end up getting lost in your philosophical perspective, or dissatisfied because you have left out the scriptures that I'm referring to. Thanks so much!

So what happens when the infant is kicking and screaming while being presented for Baptism? OK JUST KIDDING. On a more SERIOUS NOTE, circumcision is the sign and seal of of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. The seal (or mark) of faith in the new covenant is the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Paul, not Baptism.

I have a real humble honest question that is detailed I don't know any Lutherans around me to ask. There is only Liberal congregations I think around here.

21:48 😂😂😂

*"Objectivity of the Sacraments"* Love it. #LutheranismFTW

There are five solas let's appreciate the paradox instead of being simplistic.

You lost me when you said that baptism brings about faith. Maybe you have an answer, but why would someone be baptized if they didn't have faith beforehand? Like for example Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. I'm open to the idea of infant baptism, and I definitely believe baptism is a part of salvation, but to me, I can't see it as a hard line beginning to salvation, because I think faith should lead a person(an adult, at least), to baptism, not the other way around. Also, I do believe baptism saves, at least as a part of salvation, but it's interesting, Jesus said one must be born by water AND spirit. There were several times in Acts these things happened separately. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul speaks of the baptism of the sea AND the baptism of the cloud. They may happen at the same time, or one before the other, the water first, or the spirit first in the case of Cornelius. It's also significant, I think, that the effect of the blood of the lamb came before the baptism of the sea in the Exodus narrative, and that the cloud was present before and after the sea. Salvation is a journey of faith that isn't started by baptism, but includes baptism as a necessary component. And sometimes faith comes after in the application of what baptism brings to us, like in Romans 6, where Paul tells the believers to reckon themselves dead to sin based on their baptism which buries them in Christ's death and raises them in his resurrection. That reality, even though it came from baptism, would not come into effect until they reckoned it to be so by faith. This was my experience when learning so many years later what the reality of my baptism was.

Baptism is a sign, no one is saved because they participated in Baptism for 1 hour. The Bible teaches Faith, love and Holiness, their has to be evidence of Salvation, Faith, love and Holiness. You can get Baptized and go to Church on Sundays and the rest of the week be ungodly. Salvation is not 1 hour Baptism or just going to Church. The old testament called it circumcision of the heart, Faith, love and Holiness, love Christ and your neighbor. Mark 12:30-31 this is Salvation.

baptism is a declaration of saving grace. resurrected with Christ.

2:58 Baptism

Something I've found interesting about your videos is that you tend to ask what did Luther mean when he said X. I see where Catholics think that if they take down Luther the whole Reformation falls. I would say Sola Scriptura overrides Luther and his catechisms, and overrides Calvinism TULIP, etc, etc.

If infant baptism was supported by Scripture, there would be at least one example in the Bible, and at least a clear command. No verse commands us to baptize infants. We have examples of both for adults, and such examples is being submerged into water.

False dichotomy vs contradiction.

The Holy Spirit is efficacious. He effectually calls the Elect unto salvation. Faith is the instrument granted and wrought unto our justification. Baptism communicates this efficacious work of the Spirit and seals Gods promise that He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved.

Yes more on this please. More evidence thar baptism does save. I am trying to convince people at work of this

The tapestry you try to weave with your handful of baptism verses does not depict the Christ who died for the sins of the world.

Matt Slick recently debated a Church of Christ feller.

I think the infant baptism debate stems more from augustines debate with Pelagius and not the early church. I think churches that came out of the reformation took the word baptism from a 15th century context and not a 1st century context. And for that matter every time we see the word baptize in the bible we should cross it out and put emerse. Luther and Calvin were highly influenced by Augustine. Augustine unfortunately brought in some of his pegan beliefs (manichism and Gnosticism) to Christianity. The Christian church prior to Augustine never believed that people were so depraived that they would never come to God unless he some how irresistibly drew them. Unfortunately Luther and Calvin and ultimately Augustine introduces the idea of prefaith regeneration which is unbiblical.

You need to distinguish between infant and believer’s baptism when you talk about “baptism”. Believer’s baptism is an exercise of faith, so faith and baptism aren’t in any way dichotomous. Infant baptism is an exercise of someone else’s faith, at best, and if you believe in it as an objective means of grace, now we’re talking sacramentalism (as far as I can tell), and that’s a whole different discussion. The fact that you speak without even making this distinction makes me feel, as a non Lutheran, that I’ve walked into very foreign territory, similar to listening to Catholics talk. I don’t think you want to come across like that, but you’re not helping yourself out.

What I don't accept is that the Lutheran perspective on resistible grace was also Luther's position. On the subject of infant baptism Luther didn't say that God willed to grant all infants the faith to believe and that the infant could resist being regenerated, but rather that it was up to God to want to grant faith to that infant. He says for instance in his Large Catechism: “That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. ….. We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith.” (Tappert) The onus is on God to grant faith to a particular individual in order that he may be regenerated not that the recipient in baptism shouldn’t resist being regenerated. This is in conformity with Luther’s position in The Bondage of the Will where he makes a distinction between the outward drawing of the Gospel which doesn’t regenerate anyone and the inner drawing through the Holy Spirit which irresistibly regenerates people: “But the ungodly does not come even when he hears the Word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly, which He does by pouring out the Spirit. There is then another "drawing" than the one that takes place outwardly; for then Christ is set forth by the light of the Spirit, so that a man is rapt away to Christ with the sweetest rapture, and rather yields passively, to God's speaking, teaching, and drawing than seeks and runs himself.” (page 286, Vol 33, Luther's Works). Also this selective choosing by God to grant faith to whom He will is the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in article 5. To interpret article 5 to mean that God wills to regenerate everyone through the Word and Holy Spirit is foreign to the text: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.” (Tappert)

The name of God it's THE FATHER please do not change is name. Water baptism came by John , came from the law and we are no more under the law. It's was given to the Jews it symbolize the one who is coming after John and who will baptize them WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT .Repentance is not from the flesh but it's from the sanctification work of the holy spirit in the born again man. Merci.

Baptism washes away sin, "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins", Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21). Faith alone is not found in Holy Scripture except to negate it, "it is by WORKS and not by faith alone that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24, Matthew 25:35-42, Romans 2:6-8). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

Daniel Willis How are Catholics demonized for the sacramental system when you recognize that there is at least one sacrament (maybe also the Lord’s supper) that is necessary for salvation? -thoughtful Catholic convert

One of the issues I have with infant baptism is a practical one. People who were baptized as infants have no memory of the baptism experience and so the event has no meaning for them. We were planning a baptism service in our church recently and had some young men who were recommitting their lives to the Lord. I asked them if they had ever been baptized and they weren't sure and had to ask their parents if they had been. Their parents told them had indeed been baptized as infants but it was obvious the event had no meaning to them. I believe baptism should be a special day in a person's life and an event they can look back on as when they received Jesus as Savior and Lord.