Baptismal Regeneration or Covenantal Baptism?

STORE: jonah-m-saller...
merecatholics....
Website: jonahsaller.com/
Email: [e-mail]
-----------------------
MAIN GEAR
Primary Camera: amzn.to/3lMnDwX
Secondary Camera: amzn.to/3G3LAap
Podcast Mic: amzn.to/2ZOLNiw
Audio Interface: amzn.to/31hkgqs
-----------------------
This page may contain affiliate links. All that means is that I get a small commission for all who buy products through the links. This helps my ministry grow! Thanks!
-----------------------

[@Highproclass]

Crushed it. Good job brother

[@timmoody553]

Baptism saves! God be praised for raising up leaders such as you to defend this truth.

[@peacengrease3901]

Just came upon your channel recently. Great job brother!

[@aajaifenn]

Isnt this the classic Lutheran view

[@Zhought3391]

Yes, they are very strong on baptismal regeneration-at least, the ones who aren’t just non-denominational churches in practice (fairly common in the southern U.S., sadly)

[@UltimateCreedFan]

As a Baptist, a lot of these thoughts have crossed my mind because of the “once saved always saved” doctrine… it’s supposed to make you feel secure but actually makes it feel very subjective. I’ve never put that together with baptism. Thanks for your work.

[@cullanfritts4499]

This is great.

[@PepeLeFunk]

Sincere question: on this view, how do we avoid nominalism (which, ironically can ultimately end in apostasy)? Also, what does Peter mean here (2 Peter 1:10): Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to *confirm your calling and election*, for if you *practice these qualities you will never fall*.

[@fiery_hunter3271]

Regarding the Romans 6 passage you quoted ("baptized into Christ"), that is a text worth exegeting. (1) Is there anywhere else in Paul's writings where he uses the phrase "baptized into X"? (Hint: yes) (2) How does Romans 6 compare with those texts? (3) What is the difference between "baptized into" and "baptized in"? (4) In the case of "baptized in X," what is X? What is never X? (5) In the case of "baptized into Y" what is Y? What is never Y? (6) What is the intended meaning of each of these two phrases, especially in Paul's writings? Regarding the topic as a whole, first, I grant you that salvation cannot be reduced to justification, but unfortunately it seems that most Calvinists (and others) only set their minds upon justification. So, when they hear the Apostle Peter speak of "baptism, which saves you," Calvinists have difficulty hearing anything other than "baptism, which justifies you." Further, if we are going to use this terminology of "subjective" and "objective" (which I think is a major problem in this discourse, among others), then the objective reality shouldn't even be my personal baptism. Should it not be on the objective work of Christ, such that his work is "objective" (outside of me, my volition, and my control) and it is _his_ work, meaning that there is that the work of redemption is accomplished by the _Person_ Jesus? Calvinists miss this in their relentlessness about assurance (I speak as one of them), in which I am personally calling those nearby to account for this. You're exactly right: their lack of peace bears witness against them, and they should know better. Also, I grant you that Calvinists at large have missed the ontological and ecclesiological realities of baptism, in much the same way that they have (at large) missed the same realities of the Eucharist. In both regards, they have become both quite Zwinglian and quite Wesleyan, departing from Calvin himself and Puritan forefathers to a large degree (though, these men are not off the hook, either). On the matter of faith, it seems that "Calvinists" and nearly everyone else departs from what Paul and other holy authors state. When Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, (1) this "belief" is more accurately called "trust"; (2) this trust was regarding a reality that was future to Abraham, in which case the comparison with our trust in Christ has a similar forward-orientation (rather than _only_ looking in the past at Christ's previous works); (3) why was righteousness counted to Abraham?; (4) what does it mean to "credit" something to someone?; (5) what does righteousness have to do with salvation and assurance of salvation? (6) what is the relationship between our trust and Christ's previous works? (7) what is the relationship between our trust and Christ's present work? (8) what is the relationship between our trust and Christ's future work?

[@fiery_hunter3271]

@AReformedBeliever Precisely. As one myself, I can say the same.

[@Dragoncurve]

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a Baptist church but only by single immersion. From how it looks currently I’m not so sure the Orthodox Church views my baptism as valid? But from your video it looks like Anglicans feel the opposite

[@Dilley_G45]

It depends. I have talked to various priests from various orthodox churches (including Eastern and Oriental Orthodox). I was asked once if I wanted to join. And firmly said...would you accept my Lutheran Baptism (pouring but in the trinitarian Formula, as a baby) and they said it would be acceptable. And I said because it is. Water and the words make it a valid sacrament not the age of the Baptized, or the amount of water. Today Orthodox baptize in a C hurch but in the 2nd century they baptized in open water

[@apollobetsworth2560]

I have been looking into the divergence on this topic. Was raised Protestant and was always taught "covenantal baptism." Genuinely curious about your opinion on the thief on the cross, whether baptism is necessary or "essential" for salvation. What is your take on this?

[@merecatholicity]

St. Paul says that baptism is a sacrament that unites us with Christ's death and ultimately his resurrection. In the case of the thief of the cross, he was *literally* baptized into Christ's death by sharing in crucifixion with Christ and turning to him in faith.

[@apollobetsworth2560]

@@merecatholicity Makes sense. Another genuine question (genuinely curious, this isn't supposed to be a gotcha or something): what about the saints in the Old Testament? I seems that the concept of baptism came about with John the Baptist. I have read about some Jewish sects that supposedly practiced an early form of water immersion, but it doesn't seem to me that it is talked about in the Old Testament writings.

[@merecatholicity]

@@apollobetsworth2560 Well, baptism is a New Covenant rite, dependant on the death and resurrection of Christ, so looking to try and find it in its sacramental form before Christ wouldn't necessarily be fruitful.

[@apollobetsworth2560]

Why then, does it become a necessity in the New Covenant? Isn't this saying that the means of salvation is different for those before and after Jesus?

[@Zhought3391]

@@apollobetsworth2560Ultimately, I think the best way to see it is that all people are saved ultimately through the person and work of Christ-either looking towards the promise (Abraham), or looking back at what Christ has done for us (the crowd at Pentecost, Paul). God uses different means to reach people, and under the New Covenant, the Sacraments are a work of God-the gospel made visible, as it were.

[@NoahHolsclaw]

based

[@Highproclass]

I’d also add we can look to God’s promise and His seal in and through baptism - in short looking at His work in Him for us…that’s where our confidence can be.

[@VickersJon]

What practically does it mean to forfeit one's faith? Is that just not living a life of faith or is it more than that? Under baptismal regeneration, it seems like there could be many who believe they are saved but really aren't.

[@merecatholicity]

To forfeit faith is just that, to forfeit faith in Christ; to cease repenting of sin; to cut oneself off from the gathering of the brethren; to stop receiving the sacraments, and to otherwise live as a pagan.

[@VickersJon]

⁠@@merecatholicityThanks. New subscriber to the channel. Appreciate your content and demeanor.

[@NikorouKitsunerou]

That God can have regrets like his did with making Saul king over Israel for me speaks to the plan of salvation.

[@steverentfrow2415]

I like your stress of baptismal regeneration. But I don't think we're on probation. To be saved is a permanent place. None can snatch them out of His hand. That "None" must include ourself. There are temporal ramifications even death which testifies that we are still sinners, still unbelievers according to this body of death. Because of what baptism does and gives, None can take it from us and we cannot lose it, because He will never lose us. I think the scriptures people use to teach that you can lose it are based on false suppositions. Can you be unborn? All who call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That happens at baptism. Gal. Say, did you not know that ALL of you who were baptized have clothed yourselves with Christ. Love to chat about this. I expect disagreement. Tell me where I'm wrong? Thx

[@merecatholicity]

The primary reason I think you're wrong is found in the fact that I cannot find a single Christian writer who believed what you do until after the Reformation. For 1500 years the church warned about the reality of apostasy and its reality. To push back against the question "can you be unborn?" I would say that I agree: one cannot be unborn. However, one can commit suicide. They can, by their own hand, end the life they were given. This is true spiritually too. It doesn't undo the reality of the new birth. It doesn't remove the ontological mark on our soul. But it does end our spiritual life. I simply see the passages warning against apostasy in Scripture as clear as day, and when I see the Church agreeing with me for 1500 years, it seems quite risky to start teaching eternal security while in the midst of still working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

[@steverentfrow2415]

@@merecatholicity, Those are some good points. I will attempt to address them. First, I’m sure you agree that what the scriptures teach must definitively answer this question of one’s eternal security, and not writings of the church fathers that are not canonical. Only what the scriptures teach is what should continually be taught. Whatever leaves the foundation of the inerrant word of God is on bad ground no matter how near the time of the Apostles’ teachings they are. If it’s wrong at its foundation, it’s wrong down the line. I concede that the early church teachings (those whose writings we have that are after the apostles) do have weight in understanding orthodoxy and orthopraxy (doctrine and practice). So I’m the one with the uphill climb, as it seems. I personally lean on the church fathers when it comes to baptismal regeneration and infant baptism; so how can I say they’re wrong on eternal security? Do we have precedent of a teaching going right off the foundation in the scriptures to even give credence to challenge those statements that are after the apostles? When God told Adam, before Eve was, “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die”; We then see this word swiftly corrupted by the teaching of the serpent to Eve to mean “You shall not die, but your eyes will be open and shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” Then she interpreted the serpents words based on what seemed to be true “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen 3:6) Peter confessed “You are the Christ…” but right after he denied His redemptive words and works, saying “This shall not happen to you.” Peter also, after acknowledging the gospel to the Gentiles and the acceptance of all foods, in turn had to be rebuked to his face by Paul, because he was misrepresenting the gospel in his exclusion of the Gentiles while he enjoyed the freedom of the Gentiles’ eating practices. There was of course a prophecy that Paul gave in Acts that said that there would be no loss of life, for God gave him all the souls on that ship. But when some were trying to escape, he later warned that none will survive if these escape. The first was a word from God through Paul the second was a warning that was a means of keeping the prophetic word, but the prophetic word was kept and couldn’t have been otherwise. There was a time when it seemed like the whole world was abandoning orthodoxy and a man named Athanasius defended the faith against the prevailing winds of Arianism. The church dubbed him Athanasius contra mundum , “Athanasius against the world.” That’s all the time I have for now. I’m just making the case that it is worth testing this doctrine with holy writ. I will make the case later that the promise of eternal life and salvation are true and you can have and know you have eternal life. If you wouldn’t mind helping me understand your position, What are the conditions of our being saved? If it can be lost by us, what are the conditions of keeping our salvation? If they are different, please explain the difference? Thanks!

[@steverentfrow2415]

​@merecatholicity , btw, sorry I took so long. I didn't get a notification of your reply. I think because my name (handle?) wasn't in your reply. If you can start with that, that would help, but I will check more often anyway. If you are interested in this discussion, we could do it by email instead, if preferred. Thanks again, and again, grat video!

[@VickersJon]

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Galatians 3:27

[@merecatholicity]

Amen.

[@gregthomas82]

Believers Baptism

[@KevinDay]

Yes, only people who have the faith of an infant can enter the Kingdom of God.

[@gch8810]

Nope. Try again.

[@matthaschanged]

And their children 🙏