A Lutheran and Baptist Discuss Baptismal Regeneration (Part 1)

[@DrJordanBCooper]

The second part of this conversation will be up on this channel next Monday. If you want to access it early, you can sign up to become a Patron.

[@thesipesisrandom4534]

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...

[@amosfetalsana4004]

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

[@amosfetalsana4004]

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

[@kneelingcatholic]

loved your introduction where you define Baptism👍👍👍

[@SpotterVideo]

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 .

[@josephabiti]

Gavin is a pure gift from above. I hope and pray his personality and gifts in articulating the historical faith won't be compromised by the toxicity of fame and social media. I am a great fan of Dr Copper as well. God bless them both.

[@levipatterson1905]

Bro yes. They have allowed me to be proud I am Protestant. I love them both. They debate like they really are brothers in Christ.

[@Lutheran-disguised-as-baptist]

watching videos of Dr Cooper has basically taken me from 1689 Baptist to Lutheran theology. Not fully but I have adopted Lutheran predestination, communion and a lot of the baptism theology

[@Mygoalwogel]

This is the perfect example of what Dr. Cooper is talking about when he says he prefers discussion to debate. They both did their homework which allowed them to define terms AND define what NOT to waste time on.

[@Mygoalwogel]

_“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 KZbinrs. 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

[@zekdom]

5:10 - Ortlund highlights a difference between Church of Christ and Lutherans 7:20 - Cooper talks about the necessity of baptism 14:08 and 16:50 - Ortlund’s coronation metaphor 25:50 - Cooper addresses 1 Peter 3 28:58 - Cooper talks about the water in 1 Peter 3 36:50 - Ortlund’s causes 37:46 - Ortlund’s reference to Thomas Aquinas 38:40 - Ortlund clarifies 39:28 - Ortlund addresses 1 Peter 3 42:05 - Cooper addresses Ortlund’s causes 45:24 - Cooper on justification as a process 52:21 and 53:10- Ortlund elaborates on his skepticism, 54:28 - Ortlund insists on “linguistic complexity” 55:06 - Gospel Simplicity asks a question, Ortlund clarifies his position on 1 Peter 3 56:49 - Ortlund talks about multiple Acts passages (chapters 2, 8, 9, and 19). 58:29 - Ortlund ponders if these passages are really “exceptions” 59:13 - Cooper responds 59:47 - Cooper and 1 Peter 3 1:00:32 - Cooper on the passages about baptism and salvific language 1:02:37 - Cooper addresses Acts 1:02:58 and 1:04:07 - Cooper focuses on Acts 8 1:03:13 - Cooper on Acts 10 1:03:23 - Cooper’s view of Acts

[@TruthUnites]

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

[@zekdom]

@@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*

[@TruthUnites]

@@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.

[@MaltonPsmith]

+

[@he7230]

What an absolutely wonderful conversation. I was riveted the whole time.

[@jbheavenlyfootman]

Great, irenic discussion of baptismal regeneration by two gracious, godly men. A year later and I am still persuaded by Dr. Cooper and the Lutheran view-and practically/pastorally what a comfort it is to remember my baptism!

[@Qhaon]

This conversation was awesome! Can’t wait for part 2!

[@toddvoss52]

Non substantive comment : Kinda cool how the camera angle appeared to join Dr Cooper’s and Ortlund’s bookshelves together

[@jakkistaatmcdonald4555]

I noticed too :)

[@bjw8806]

So what I saw is two great minds in agreement on principle and edification of baptism. But also disagreeing on how it works out. Which I love btw. Because this shows you agree on historic Christian understandings and truths and differ how it works and happens. Because at the end of day. It’s truly a mystery of how / when because God is outside of space and time and human understandings.

[@PenMom9]

Fun convo and great job all. I will say I’ve never heard a Baptist say that baptism saves before today.

[@pjc1832]

I love how respectful they both are

[@AndrewVasel]

another excellent discussion that proved well worth the time to listen

[@zekdom]

I must say, you addressed Acts in a way that I did not anticipate. Great discussion!

[@michaelkistner6286]

I'll chime in and echo what others have said. This is a marvelous conversation, both in terms of content and as an example of how such discussion can be done in a genuinely Christian way. Kudos to all of you! One of the shortcomings of theological education (my own at least) is ignoring linguistics as a precondition for serious study of the text. Dr. Ordman (I hope I got that right) is asking precisely the questions I'm struggling to answer when I look at the text. I have an entire constellation of terms i've memorized without asking the deeper question: 'what exactly is being named here?'. I've found what he alludes to. The nature of language itself limits my ability to know with complete certainty what's going on in the passage. This conversation is a perfect example of that inherent ambiguity. Has this caused me to lose my convictions? No. Not at all. But it has, and continues, to humble me. The text is simply to big to fit perfectly into any box I can create or imagine. I'm not happy about that, but oh well. I'm being forced to learn how to live with uncertainty.

[@HabeshaProdutions]

What an amazing conversation, God bless all of you

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

This two theologians are Giants of our time! It is so refreshing how they stick to the only infallible source of doctrine, the Bible. Not some bishop, council, saint, apparition or church body. Thank you for this tremendous video.

[@thegoldendojoloach6832]

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

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

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

[@thegoldendojoloach6832]

@@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

[@Solideogloria00]

@@thegoldendojoloach6832 you mean Orthodox Church?

[@khoalam888]

​@@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.

[@dbzgtcrazy]

Another fantastic discussion. Loving this. Both views presented so, so well.

[@GermanFreakvb21]

A very good discussion. I will need to review it to get thee deeper points, but I think your semi-initial statement that regeneration isn´t a one-time event in a sense is a very interesting and important point.

[@romans6788]

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

[@kyleolson436]

​@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

[@goblinoide]

It's amazing how so many people don't understand salvation by faith alone.

[@chrismatthews1762]

Very interesting passages from Hebrews and Ephesians mentioning cleansing with water and are both obviously not speaking of water baptism. Haven’t noticed those before

[@rogertrinidad4515]

My fav Protestant KZbinrs in one video!!

[@christianstephens7213]

Totally concur !!!

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Acts 22:16 if that text doesn’t close the subject for people then nothing will.

[@bad_covfefe]

Both speakers speak of how their perspective "makes a lot of sense from the data." The problem here, and the problem with Protestant study of scripture, is that multiple models can "make sense of the data" at the same time. Some models can even NOT make sense of the data and still end up being the correct one down the line. For example, consider that I walk into my house and find my wallet missing. Some "models" to explain the data: my daughter took the wallet. My wife took my wallet to use my card to purchase something. My wife moved my wallet from the counter to a more secure place. My wallet was stolen by someone. Etc. All of these models "make sense of the data." There is no way to tell which one is true without further information. So when it comes to these discussions, yes, it is perfectly fine for Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Cooper to both say "my understanding makes sense of the data," and I would generally affirm that the Bible can be understood in both ways. (To argue otherwise would be to call one of them an idiot, because they certainly are studying scripture.) But this doesn't tell us which one is true, we need a further source of information or authority to decide. What we have in this regard is the testimony if the earliest Christians, who testify unanimously that the Apostles taught baptismal regeneration and not "baptismal expression." This clarifies the confusion as much as the unanimous testimony of several eyewitnesses about the fate of my wallet would clarify that situation.

[@GamerDragoniteCross]

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."

[@beowulf.reborn]

As Noah was saved from the evils of his generation by the flood that cleansed the world of sin. We are saved from the evils that we ourselves have committed, by baptism that cleanses us of sin. Though of course it must be clarified that it is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh by water that accomplishes this salvation, but the appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as we call upon the Name of the LORD in faith.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

That beardless guy with glasses seems like a perfect moderator

[@Dilley_G45]

Which one lol

[@Popular_Novel]

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

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Listening to this a second time. Love all three of you! This discussion format is so much more enjoyable than a debate format. Whenever I see a debate advertised I run. But I'm drawn to a good discussion. This is one of those. Thanks! One request: Orthodoxy is becoming a large enough presence on social media to not be included in these dialogues. These topics in the past may have been strictly Catholic-Protestant concerns, but no longer. The Eastern voice needs to be heard and addressed. I say this as a Protestant. Thanks again!

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Loved it. It is hard for a Baptist not to think salvation is a one time event in his personal history. I was saved from all eternity, at the cross, at the Holy Spirit imparting spiritual life so I could hear, repent and place my God given faith in Christ Jesus, at baptism, every day until I die and also at the Resurrection! All God's gracious work, all from the outside of myself to me, a poor miserable sinner. All praise be to God and God alone.

[@divinityofblackness6330]

took me a while to get out of the whole "one-time event" mindset. but once i did it actually gave me MORE security than the whole "one-time" "eternal security" of the baptist tradition.

[@jg7923]

I like these channels.

[@kjhg323]

I think a key point is whether "regeneration" is a one-time act or continual throughout the Christian life. For Luther, regeneration is something that happens every day as we sin and the Holy Sprit cleanses us from our sinful flesh. The only difference between our daily regeneration and our initial regeneration is that the initial regeneration happened first. Both are accomplished solely by the Holy Spirit, and in this life, if left to ourselves we would only reject God and fall away from the faith. Grace is something that we need not only to convert, but to persevere. Following Augustine, Luther makes it abundantly clear that not only our initial conversion, but our perseverance, is based solely on God's grace and election. The old Adam always works to drive out grace, and only God's grace can keep us in the faith. If you have this perspective, the question of the adult convert who believes before being baptized loses its relevance. He receives the Spirit and regeneration by hearing the Word. Then he receives the Spirit and regeneration in baptism. And then he continues to receive the Spirit and regeneration throughout his life, through Word and sacrament. There is no contradiction between being regenerated through hearing the Word preached and being regenerated through baptism.

[@j.g.4942]

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

[@fielramos3560]

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

[@vngelicath1580]

"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.

[@marianweigh6411]

Well said and helpful, thank you.

[@davidchupp4460]

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

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Holy cow, this is phenomenal!!!

[@hjc1402]

36:06 Gavin’s objection is that when there is a temporal gap between faith and baptism, you have two distinct moments that function as causes for one effect, the one effect being salvation and the two causes being (converting) faith and baptism. Here we can highlight the misunderstanding on Ortlund’s part. These are not two distinct causes for one effect. First of all, if you are putting baptism against faith, you are saying that baptism must be a work as opposed to faith. Gavin said in the beginning that he wasn’t going to take that position though, so this must just be an oversight in Orltund’s reasoning. Baptism is not a work that in itself causes salvation, baptism is a means of grace that brings to an individual the grace that causes salvation, namely the grace that brings regeneration and faith. Second, Ortlund is not carefully thinking about the relationship of faith and regeneration. In the reformed tradition, which he comes from, regeneration is what causes or brings faith to an individual. The view is similar in the Lutheran tradition. See Cooper’s explanation in his video “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” Regeneration and faith are two sides of the same coin, this could also go back to the understanding of total depravity in the reformed tradition and the bondage of the will in the Lutheran tradition. Regeneration is new and spiritual life. Being spiritually dead is what causes us to not be able to have faith on our own. So to have faith requires to have been given new and spiritual life. Likewise, to have new and spiritual life is to now have faith. So again, faith is brought by regeneration. Baptism is simply a means by which God brings grace to us, by which the Holy Spirit works regeneration and faith in us. So it is not “faith or baptism” that brings salvation. It’s “faith” that brings salvation, the difference being faith can either be brought through the means of grace of the Word, or faith can be brought through the means of grace of baptism.

[@thelutheranlayman5981]

My problem with the baptist perspective is that he says that we shouldn’t be too quick to believe what the txt says. The one side says the text means what the text says and we need to believe it, and the other side says the txt doesn’t mean what it says. That’s problematic to me.

[@aGoyforJesus]

I can't hold to *automatic* baptismal regeneration because 1 John 5 says those who are born of God will overcome the world. If the automatic view is correct, then that would mean there's a whole lot of born of God folks who don't overcome the world.

[@Solideogloria00]

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.

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@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.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

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

[@Liminalplace1]

I think alot of the differences can be resolved if you distinguish "giving" and "receiving". Baptism can give saving grace/regeneration/the forgiveness of sin etc but faith receives what is given in baptism, preaching of the word etc. That way faith reception is grounded in what is given in baptism etc. It might be just a misunderstanding of the idea of regeneration, as Lutherans would not see all baptised as saved, though Baptist would see all those who believed and were baptised as saved.. so immediately the idea is different.. this discussion just didn't draw that out.

[@mysticmouse7261]

We have to accept the existence of regeneration on faith since it's nowhere evident otherwise.

[@JesussavesJLL]

Thank you for this debate. I am enthralled !

[@verinamikh7258]

Wow!!! Both views so well explained 💓

[@adeptusjoker7176]

Thanks for the great video!

[@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising]

Salvation is not one event in the past. We were saved, being saved and one day will be saved.

[@Mygoalwogel]

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

[@darkanddryhumour1822]

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

[@goblinoide]

Nice contradictions

[@collin501]

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

[@christianstephens7213]

I dont think the blood of Jesus saving us is a metaphor . For in Leviticus 17 says blood is given for the forgiveness of sins . In the Old covenant it was the blood of the Sacrafices on the Altar that absolved their sins . Its the blood of Christ that washes sin once and for all .

[@nealstafford9063]

The Book of Acts has no pattern concerning the reception of Spirit and Baptism. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8, 19) or during (Acts 2) but nowhere after Pentecost APART from baptism. It was impossible for the Apostles in the book of Acts to associate the gift of the HS without baptism. What is Luke trying to convey here: The gift the HS without baptism is unthinkable. I do slightly disagree with Dr. Ortlund about Paul's baptism. Ananias' statement "Receive the Holy Spirit" and immediate baptism are so closely associated with each other, probably should be seen as one act comprising two activities.

[@Iffmeister]

YEP

[@jakemeuret4075]

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

[@davidchupp4460]

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.

[@nealstafford9063]

@@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.

[@wesmorgan7729]

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

[@ryandawson2877]

I believe baptism could also be a seal for those who are regenerated based on Romans, four versus 11 and following and Colossians, two versus 11 and following. Or you could say that it is a seal of justification, but also regeneration. It’s a really interesting concept.

[@vngelicath1580]

Lutherans don't baptize unbelievers. I like the analogy that the initial gift of regeneration to faith by the Holy Spirit is the "conception" of the Word of God within us... Baptism is us being "born" again by Water and the Spirit. Faith always precedes baptism. That's why we only baptize the children of believers, not because of a covenantalism but because the children of believers are the only ones we can presume to have been regenerated as they're being taken to church (infant faith).

[@davidgrasch3869]

Tbh this sounds reformed to me

[@markwhite5926]

@@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 !

[@vngelicath1580]

@@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.

[@vngelicath1580]

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?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@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.

[@drummerhq2263]

15:47 not to mention, he’s comparing baptism as an expression to that of the blood as an example, but the blood shedding of Christ. Our Lord, is literally what saved us, whereas baptism did not. I’m talking to my phone. Sorry, what I’m saying is is that that was a false parallel by Dr. Orland. It’s OK to be controversial if it’s the truth, Dr Orland. Baptism in no way saves. That’s just a fact, read the Bible.

[@ab5879]

Has Dr. Cooper read "An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts" by Douglas Judisch and available through CTSFW which exegetes these seemingly odd instances Acts, specifically as it relates to the Holy Spirit?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I haven't. It sounds worthwhile.

[@chrisj123165]

What a wonderful discussion. Dr. Cooper, what exactly would you change about the Gerhard statement that Dr. Ortlund brought up that he agreed with? Would the view of Gerhard be allowed at all within orthodox Lutheran theology? Just curious as to what the exact difference is.

[@wesmorgan7729]

I'd like to hear that too!

[@Mygoalwogel]

_“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 KZbinrs. 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

[@thirdparsonage]

I''m Catholic so I have a view close to Dr. Cooper. But this issue is one of the many reasons I joined the Catholic Churfh: it has often seemed to me that baptism and faith/repentance are two sides of the same coin that may not happen at the same exact moment, but which are united spiritually and actually. So it's not appropriate to pit one against the other. It's not either/or but both/and.

[@renlamomtsopoe]

What's the difference between Lutheran and Rome's view with regards to Baptism?

[@Racingbro1986]

Is the line between justification and sanctification being blurred here with cooper?

[@stephenbailey9969]

The historical context during the Reformation for both Protestants and Roman Catholics was the assumption that all citizens were members of the state church, child baptism was customary, catechesis/confirmation were later. The theology tended to support what was assumed. It was because of this that the persecution of Anabaptists was carried out by both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Similar arguments and responses broke out in England regarding dissenters for hundreds of years. Because of the entanglement between the official church and established governments going back to the late Roman era, dissent was considered not only theologically suspect but also socially disruptive. The extent to which theology was captive to the then existing church/state paradigm, with the official church effectively buttressing the political order, should be taken into consideration.

[@GustAdlph]

Maybe this comment from Alistair Begg will help clear things up. He talked about when the good thief on the cross died and arrived at the pearly gates and the Angel Gabriel asked him why he was there. He asked "Did you attend a Bible study?" "No," the good thief replied. "Well, were you baptized?" "What's that?" "Well, then why are you here?" "Because the Man in the middle said I could come."

[@kyleolson436]

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

[@brandongilman2030]

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.

[@etheretherether]

Baptism is a sign and seal of a Christians participation in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The thief on the cross participated in this by literally dying next to Jesus. Martyrs who die before baptism also do this by literally dying for the gospel of Christ. In other words, I don't think this quote from Alistair Begg is very useful in this discussion. What it IS useful for, is assuring Christians who are baptized of the following: 1) If they live a good life, they should not boast or be prideful. They do not merit their salvation, which is by Gods grace alone. In fact, even the good works they do where prepared by God ahead of time, so they can't even boast in those (Ephesians 2:10) 2) If they are repenting of sin or lack assurance of their salvation, they should not despair. Even the thief on the Cross was forgiven, and he was given a sign of assurance in the form of Jesus directly telling him he'd be in paradise with Him. We are also given a sign of assurance via baptism, and should not despair of "how hard we believed" or "how many good works we've done." The story of the thief on the cross is (among a great many other things) a lesson for all Christians to have humility and to approach Jesus as what He is. The Lord of lords, seated at the right hand of the Father.

[@tannerdavis746]

I like that clip, but that actually doesn't clear anything up and is kind of irrelevant.

[@Dan-s6s]

Augustine in the city of God says that Confession was all that some of the martyrs had, and they had something of baptism but not by water because they did not have the chance to be baptized

[@katherinepeterson-roberts]

I’ve always held to the Baptist view of baptism and salvation (can’t lose one’s salvation). After much reading and deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that my Baptist beliefs around those 2 points no longer hold. I agree with Dr. Cooper’s view around baptismal regeneration (although I do insist on immersive baptism) and with the stance that one can lose one’s salvation if one does not continue to abide in Christ (we’re cut off like branches from the vine and thrown into the fire as we won’t have yielded fruit). So now my beliefs are interdenominational and I don’t know what church to go to 😁

[@capturedbyannamarie]

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

[@dman7668]

It sounds like you are ready to become Catholic.

[@fujikokun]

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.

[@morganfarrier7658]

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.

[@semper_reformanda]

Noah was saved NOT becaused he passed through water - he was saved because he was obedient to the Lord God. Hebrews 11:7 (NKJV) »BY FAITH Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.«

[@Mygoalwogel]

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.

[@bryanwandel2805]

Dr. Ortlund, at 39:42 you mentioned that in the Flood, there were destructive waters, and this is not the case with baptism. I came across letter 69 from Cyprian today, where he affirms such baptismal destruction, actually. Cyprian considers the baptismal analogy with the crossing of the Red Sea, noting that in fact (like you said with the flood), Pharaoh was judged and destroyed in those waters. Cyprian goes on to say that this happens in our baptism as the devil or evil spirits are cast out. "This is being carried out even today that through exorcists, by means of the human voice and divine power, the devil is lashed out and burned out and tortured out. ... Yet when it comes to the water of salvation and to the sanctification of baptism, we ought to know and to trust that the devil is oppressed there and that the man dedicated to God is freed by the divine mercy. For if scorpions and serpents which prevail in dry land, when hurled into water can prevail or retain their poison, evil spirits also, when are called scorpions and serpents, and yet are trodden under foot by the power given us by the Lord, can remain in the body of man, in whom, baptized and after that sanctified, the Holy Spirit begins to swell." This is not a knock-down of your argument, just something to consider about both judgment and salvation being offered at once in baptism, as they are at the flood, or the Red Sea, or the atonement itself. (That was quoted from the Fathers of the Church translation. It's numbered letter 75 in the Ante Nicene Fathers edition)

[@Mygoalwogel]

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

[@KB-gd6fc]

“By Grace through faith” That means faith is what delivers Grace. God quickens the sinner to faith. And through that, a never ending flow of grace and mercy is poured out to the sinner. If your soteriology requires mental gymnastics to understand you’ve probably put extra complications into it.

[@cristian_5305]

that ended so abruptly

[@DrJordanBCooper]

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

[@FormerTrucker]

I was listening to a Lutheran the other day on KZbin. And he gave many examples of how water as a symbol from Noah's ark and other stories that proved that baptism in water is part of salvation or as some of them like to call it born from above. But my issue with this is that why did Noah build the boat to begin with. If he did not believe God to begin with he would not have been saved and he would not have built the boat. The Bible says he moved with fear to the saving of his household. So I believe that baptism is part of regeneration but I do not believe it's absolutely necessary.

[@beaulin5628]

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.

[@wesmorgan7729]

This is a great discussion as always, thanks for providing it! I have two questions: (1) when exactly would each of you say the Christian receives the Holy Spirit--at the profession of faith, at baptism, or after baptism; (2) Dr. Cooper, would you say that baptism cleanses us from original sin which brings us in communion with Christ and then sanctification cleanses us from sin thereafter because while cleansed from original sin, we are still sinners in our fleshly form while still on Earth?

[@thethikboy]

The so-called differences about regeneration are neither slight nor subtle, they are critical and radical.

[@drummerhq2263]

35:50 you’re really stretching here, Dr Orland. I agree with you and every other respect but you’re stretching trying to meet him where he’s at when the fact is justification comes through faith alone in Christ, Christ, alone by grace and baptism has nothing to do with it.

[@drummersagainstitk]

Gavin is always articulate for the faith.

[@P-el4zd]

Articulately wrong. The Baptist Irony.

[@divinityofblackness6330]

he's very respectful. not a lot of memorialists are that way.

[@MMAD-Rob]

John baptized with water but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Does thar verse effect this conversation at all?

[@ByGracethroughFaithEph.2.8]

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

[@randomdad1234]

I’m confusion about Ortlund’s positions on the verses he cited at the end. . . Hebrews 10:23 - the word “having” (as an active action being taken in the present) which he implies is in the text is not in the Greek. Rather, the text states that the washing and cleaning was something that had already happened to the people who Paul was writing too (note the passive participle ραραντισμενοι). He made it sound like he reads the text as if it’s an instruction being given to already baptized Christians which is odd, unless I misunderstood him. Ephesians 5:26 - the use of “having cleansed” (καθάρισας) is an aorist active participle, implying that it is a factual event of cleansing in terms of the action as opposed to the time of the action. So to say that this text needs a proof text showing at some point the entire church being baptized is again odd, unless I misunderstood him. . . Anyone care to let me know if I’m missing something here or if I’m mistaken? Thanks in advance!

[@stevenreynolds553]

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.

[@jhutchns1]

Where's the Gerhard quote from?

[@ab5879]

I really hope the next part of the conversation touches on what Pastor Ortlund has touched on but not expounded on - if infant baptismal generation is true, does that mean unbaptized children are going to hell? I know the Luthedan answer, but I don't think it is talked about enough.

[@wesmorgan7729]

What's the Lutheran answer?

[@ክቡር]

What is the Lutheran answer?

[@ab5879]

@@ክቡር 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)."

[@ab5879]

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

[@ethanlafont5073]

Dr. Cooper, just curious since this discussion does ultimately hit in things like justification, sanctification, and union with Christ in particular, have you read Tuomo Mannermaa’s work on Luther’s view of justification, and what do you think about it? I think when we understand our justification by faith being a receiving of Christ Himself, we start to see a stronger understanding of baptismal efficacy. Thoughts? Thanks again for the talk, I’m a Presbyterian, but lean towards a higher sacramentology than I used to through your work. God bless.

[@norala-gx9ld]

I feel like I could spend the rest of my life weighing these arguments and never be confident about which side is correct. If only there was some organ of the church equipped to finally settle this…

[@austinlee5340]

I have been a believer of Laestadianism my whole life. I’m also 17 and I find you very knowledgeable of Lutheranism and Christianity. I would really be curious to hear what branch you specifically may believe and why you may or may not believe in Laestadianism if you’re familiar. Thanks, Austin

[@GunnerStJohn-zr5wi]

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.

[@joebrinson5040]

There were 3000 regenerates on the day of Pentecost by repentance and baptism.

[@Dan-s6s]

signs are for the senses. we are senses beings. signs and seals provide proof for the mind. So its not words alone words attached to physical signs. when the things interact with our bodies, the body relays the feeling to the mind and the mind creates a meaning. it is also for a remembrance.

[@Mygoalwogel]

"The water was not the instrument of [Noah's] salvation, the ark was." That's a 20-21st century Sunday school answer for kids. The harsh reality is the *water* saved Noah from men of sin. My baptism saves me from the man of sin--my own sinful old Adam self.

[@leeenk6932]

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

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

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.

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

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.

[@Mygoalwogel]

"delivered through water"

[@romeostojka7232]

@@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?

[@TheDroc1990]

Jordan's channel and books were pivotal to me leaving Calvinism. I appreciate my pitstop in Lutheranism. But my journey to Orthodoxy is very apparent to me to be the pearl of Great Price. The fullness of Christ who fills all in all. I appreciate your charitable demeanor and honest dialogues Dr. Cooper. Best wishes to all. ☦

[@robertnieten7259]

In obedience to the command to repent and be water baptized for the remission of sins, as the result of the shed blood of Christ, the Holy Spirit spiritually circumcises the believers conscience resulting in the removal of the guilt caused by past sins and the restoring of it to its original childlike sensitivity to sin. This makes repentance and water baptism regenerative and part of the new birth. This is forgiveness of sins the Lord provided for us at Calvary on an individual, spiritual level accessed through obedience to the command to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

[@haveagodhug8353]

I would say there are two baptisms for us and for the Earth. First, you talked about the earth being baptized by water, the Earth's first baptism. The next baptism is in fire, coming in the end times. I would also say there are two for men as well, the batism of the spirit and then of water. John the Baptist in John 1 (I believe) says, "he who cometh after me is greater than me, for he was before me. It is he that shall baptize with the spirit and fire. Now, I don't know for sure when spiritual baptism happens. My belief is that it is likely at the first spiritual regeneration that we can point at, the moment of Jesus entering us and dwelling in us. I believe that is being immersed in the spirit, spiritual baptism.

[@beaulin5628]

Abraham was saved by his FAITH in God long before the law was given. "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 He was later circumcised but that is not said to be the cause of his salvation.

[@Mkvine]

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

[@beaulin5628]

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

[@Mkvine]

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

[@beaulin5628]

@@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

[@Mkvine]

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??

[@Naturecraft645]

I feel like when you have to use concepts and abstract ideas to hold your view on the bible, its wholly incorrect. The best interpretation of scripture is scripture.

[@fujikokun]

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.

[@drummerhq2263]

1:00:20 the arc, didn’t save them either, Faith did

[@collin501]

Wasn’t it both?

[@tymon1928]

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.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

Gerhard, you say? I think Martin Chemnitz is the crème de la crème of Lutheran theologians, despite my profile picture

[@DrJordanBCooper]

It's close.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@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.

[@merecatholicity]

Dr. Cooper, from how I understand it, Reformed theology has popularized the idea that "regeneration precedes faith." This understanding of regeneration being synonymous with conversion seems to have spread past the Reformed crowd, influencing the thinking of many other communions as well. However, it seems to me that there are some major differences between conversion and regeneration. One seems to be a change in disposition towards God, by God, enabling one to respond in faith. The other, (regeneration) is the rebirth, or union with Christ, linked to baptism. I feel it is helpful to frame the "ordo salutis" like this: (a) conversion of heart-the freeing of the will, changing of hardened heart to heart of flesh, (b) faith-justification, (c) regeneration-rebirth, or "incorporation" into the body of Christ. Do you have thoughts on this framework and terminology?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

If you define regeneration as the giving of forgiveness, the bestowal of salvation, the guarantee, pledge, and conveyance of eternal life, then yes! But insofar as baptism is said to be the means through which God *finishes* a work in which he takes out the old heart and gives a new heart, I don’t see that in the New Testament. Rather, baptism places someone into the covenant (thereby making someone an heir of eternal life, and gives the forgiveness of sins), and through baptism God adopts the person baptized into his family. The Spirit works on the life of the individual such that, so long as they persist in holiness, the course of their lives are changed and the Spirit will come to in-dwell them to definitively give them new hearts (which finishes either before, or during, or after baptism). But even if the definitely receive the Spirit after baptism, they cannot be said to have been fully “dead” either, because through baptism they are being made a new creation-the Spirit, in lieu of the gift of the forgiveness of sins and adoption, works to make the person baptized a suitable inhabitant.

[@Iffmeister]

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

[@anglicanaesthetics]

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

[@carltorola716]

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

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@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.

[@carltorola716]

Federal vision?

[@KB-gd6fc]

Romans 10:9&10 should have ended this debate when Paul wrote it.

[@fredirickflores1092]

The word complexity sometimes excuses clarity

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

Is this right? As a calvinist, you can't hold to baptismal regeneration, because doing so would be in conflict with the perseverance of the saints doctrine. If baptism creates or regenerates faith (which means you're saved), then there would be an inconsistency with people who are baptized and then stop believing.

[@Anglochog1]

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

[@collin501]

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.

[@ronfeledichuk531]

Gotta love people saying these 2 gentlemen are putting forth the historical faith, yet neither of their denominations faiths existed before the year 1500. And mysteriously, even though they use the same infallible bible....they come to different conclusions of what that infallible bible says!

[@villarrealmarta6103]

Baptism saves. But that doesn’t mean people can’t fall away. Just as the Hebrews fell away in the desert (Hebrews 3-4) who were circumcised and set apart as God’s elect, so can those who have been elected to be washed by the Lord and set apart to be his own from infancy or even if you were baptized as an adult.

[@Speakingintothevoid700]

Read John Owen's commentary on Hebrews.

[@davidchupp4460]

The only thing that saved you is for us to trust totally and completely in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Baptism has no bearing on your salvation.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

@@davidchupp4460 well you need to keep reading scripture. I don’t get into writing debates on the internet.

[@davidchupp4460]

@@villarrealmarta6103 I’ve studied this out extensively. Paul said Christ send him NOT to baptize. Are you saying that all of Paul’s converts went to hell?

[@wesmorgan7729]

@@davidchupp4460 So Christ lied to the Apostles before he ascended?

[@critical_mass6453]

Ortlund is excellent at defending the Bible and Cooper is excellent at defending tradition. Colossians 2:8

[@Solideogloria00]

That’s interesting given that the baptist view was unknown in the first millennia of Christianity.

[@Iffmeister]

MF Sadler (Anglican) has the best explanation of this. Regeneration and conversion are not the same thing. Baptism regenerates in that it bestows the new life and gives the grace of salvation. But the change to follow Christ in our hearts is distinct. Bishop Ray Sutton of the REC explains this pretty well

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Excellent

[@benpeters4007]

Where do we find Sutton’s comment on this?

[@Speakingintothevoid700]

Nah, stick with reformed theology.

[@Iffmeister]

@@benpeters4007 Signed, Sealed, Delivered: a Theology of Holy Baptism

[@Iffmeister]

@@Speakingintothevoid700 Sadler was a Calvinist actually

[@lukemiller2836]

@Truth Unites begs the question with the Ezekiel passage at 51 mins. Also "sprinkling might be referring to the blood sprinkling ceremonies so they're mixing metaphors" and I'm just over here as a Catholic like "So baptism as sprinkling is being 'washed with the blood of the lamb.' Wow, the Bible is a Catholic book."

[@joekey8464]

Faith alone, messes up Baptism and the other sacraments. Baptism forgives all past sins, after baptism, sacrament of penance forgives sins. Baptism is so important, that the Father and the Holy Spirit showed up at the baptism of Christ. "unless a man be born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

[@DoubleDogDare54]

Matthew 8:5-13 says otherwise.

[@joekey8464]

@@DoubleDogDare54 The thief on the cross was not baptized but Christ took him to heaven. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. The thief on the cross is not responsible for his ignorance of his baptism and he is not held accountable. Non-baptized individuals who are not responsible for their ignorance can be saved. Invincible ignorance, however, is not the only condition for salvation apart from the sacrament of baptism. The Church also teaches that such individuals must “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”

[@jerseyjim9092]

As with so many biblical doctrines there is no black and white answer.

[@Mygoalwogel]

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.

[@drummerhq2263]

24:57 My gosh, I’m a Lutheran in the Missouri Synod and now I need to ask my pastor. He is saying that baptism is what provides justification. is what provides salvation. Baptism of the Holy Spirit does, you’re confusing the two Baptism of the Holy Spirit, received when you truly believe and put faith in Jesus Christ, you will be saved Baptism does not also provide this Then it really could be an either or In addition, I want this question answered. If an individual did not say a word during the baptismal ceremony, he’s a known Satanist, but the pastor says, in the name of the Trinity, I don’t wanna say the whole thing out of reverence, and then water is sprinkled, would he be a saved, blood bought Christian fully justified? NO. He has professed no faith.

[@eliegbert8121]

Hi drummer, I hope you have been well. Historically and scripturally, a distinction between baptism of water and a baptism of the holy spirit is a very new Idea Ephesians 4:5 states that there is *one* baptism, not two Acts 2:37-38 states that those who are baptized *will* receive the holy spirit. The idea of "holy spirit baptism" being apart from baptism is a very recent, pentecostal school of thought. God bless!

[@drummerhq2263]

@@eliegbert8121 hey brother, appreciate the sentiments. Hope everything is going well for you. Holy Spirit baptism is not a new thought. It’s in the Bible clearly. God bless brother

[@k88keyzk]

There are two types for this reference- physical water baptism and then spiritual Baptism. Water baptism provides NO justification as it is an act. Any ACT even done in earnest does not and can not save you. Justification is being declared not guilty or righteous in God’s eyes. We are justified through faith alone in Jesus. No physical act can spiritually cleanse you. We obey the command of water baptism as an act of obedience post our confession of Christ. Only those who are already saved should be baptized. it not necessary to receive salvation. Baptism requires man….anything that hinges on man’s ability is a work. Righteous works do not save you. If you denounce sin and confess the Lord sincerely on Friday and you are alone…you are saved. Immediately. You don’t have to wait until “next Tuesday” for a man, to baptize you to have salvation. It is immediate.

[@fujikokun]

I really don’t understand Gavin’s reasoning and metaphors in regards to his view on baptism being symbolic and public yet also something that “saves you.” It just doesn’t make any sense.

[@drummerhq2263]

12:11 it is symbolic. The scripture is clear. Profession of faith is all that is need for justification. All other requirements are secondary

[@richinHisKingdom]

With out God's grace, there could be no faith in Jesus's gospel, and baptism would be just be a washing of our bodies.

[@fernandoperez8587]

Christ literally commanded baptism and discipleship how hard can it be? There is no other example of conversion in scripture other than water baptism. There are also tons of scripture that speaks of baptism saving, washing away sins and the like.

[@shilohplatt789]

Cornelius?

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@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.

[@shilohplatt789]

@@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.

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@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.

[@shilohplatt789]

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

[@ryandawson2877]

About 37 minutes in. We should not be waiting in between repentance, faith, and baptism. That is part of our problem. We see in the book of acts that people repented/believed on the Lord Jesus, were baptized in his name, and received the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t this separation between repentance, faith and baptism. You don’t get converted in January and get baptized in October. We got a stop this. If at all possible, we need to get them asked to: 38 all the same day, and then we might not need to be having these kinds of discussions as much. While I do believe that, if someone is repenting and believing and dies 30 minutes later, goes to be with the Lord, I believe that when Peter says that baptism saves, that that means exactly that baptism saves. When baptism is said to be in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, he means it is for the remission of sins. When Ananias told Paul to wash away his sins, he meant to wash away his sins and baptism, calling on the name of the Lord, act 22:16. I believe regeneration can begin before then, but it’s still being affected during baptism. I am not an extremist, but I believe that anyone who refuses baptism has not fully put on Christ, Galatians 3:27, so we need to continue to get people fully initiated as quickly as possible. David Pawson wrote a good book entitled “the normal Christian birth “which is a great book. I love Gavin, but we don’t have to wonder what the word is means. Lol depends on the definition of what the word “is “is. That was funny.

[@ryandawson2877]

The churches of Christ to my knowledge have no exceptions on the baptism thing. If you are not baptized, you absolutely positively unequivocally are… Not… Saved. There could be some exceptions to that, and I would love to be corrected, but I have never heard of church of Christ mention any kind of exceptions about baptism interestingly enough.