Bryan Wolfmueller On Baptism (Reaction Video)

FLAME reacts to Bryan Wolfmueller on baptism and his approach to 1 Peter 3:20-21. Along with friend and videographer ‪@cortezwillis‬. This is part 2, as promised. Bryan Wolfmueller is a Lutheran Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller and theologian. Here is the link to the original video by Pastor Wolfmueller: • VOW: 1 Peter 3:21-22, ...
------
When the Christian thought removes the Lutheran contribution on baptism, it becomes a work rather than a gift. Baptism becomes our work as opposed to God's work. May the Lord cause us to rightly understand baptism as His gift to us and not an outward work we perform to earn His favor. Nor our display of piety so as to prove something to God and others. Amen.

[@antonioromano8816]

The depth and detail of this exegesis is so powerful. For over 20 years I belonged to the young, restless, and reformed movement. I believed we were the only ones that faithfully exegeted texts and took the words seriously. By God's grace, I think I understand how wrong I was. Thank you for this video.

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

I can completely relate! Thx for posting! Truly.

[@colton7373]

I’m a former Calvinist as well, and I can relate, I see how plainly wrong I was by God’s grace. Blessings in Christ

[@antonioromano8816]

@@colton7373 you too, brother

[@dzyre420]

I like Bryan Wolfmueler! I watched a few of his videos. He breaks it down for those of us who doesn't have a doctorate in theology. My kids (students) are learning about Noah and this scripture keeps popping up when I talk to them... Hopefully, they would desire to be baptized. I might play this video for them.

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Oh niiiiice!!! Excellent!!! I love how you care for your students!!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 Fr!

[@FrogDad556]

Thought I was good with 116. Then I had to read the only article on Monergism by Luther. His preface to the letter of Romans. I followed you over. My family and are currently in process of joining our local LCMS church. I gotta say thank you brother, from the bottom of my heart. To not have to fit our theology in our theology-shaped boxes. Well, you know.... And I know I'm not the only formerly reformed brother coming over. Your albums were crucial for that process. God Bless! 🙏🙏

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Wow! I’m encouraged by your words, truly! I’ll definitely send up a prayer for you and your family. Thx again. God’s peace.

[@srice6231]

I had seen this video of Bryan Wolfmueller before but I really loved what you two are adding to it!

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Thx so much! Appreciate you watching!

[@caseybrown4370]

Adding to the text is like telling someone a lie. Eventually you speak in circles and get caught when things don’t add up. When you tell the truth of scripture you can test it against itself and it always proves the truth.

[@karinlofgren6359]

Yupp, lutheran theology rules!

[@adampetersen4795]

Pastor Wolfmueller was raised in the ELCA church but became convinced of evangelical teachings in college. He and his wife then later became convinced of confessional Lutheran traditions. I'm sort of a Wolfmeuller groupie😂

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

I love it, ha! 😃 Thx for posting!

[@colesmith3185]

Good stuff! Keep it up!

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Thanks, will do!

[@turnertruckandtractor]

I have watched this video several times and get something new every time.

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Encouraging to hear!!! 🙏🏾 Thx for watching!

[@DALhsm]

God be praised!!! I like these breakdown videos.

[@PastorMikeGibney]

Love this! ❤

[@ChericeGraham]

The appeal part is similar to the rainbow in Genesis and the blood on the doorposts in Exodus. When God sees/saw those things, He remembers/remembered His promise and mercy because He Himself instituted those things for that purpose. So baptism is basically an apeal from God to God, although it's an even more direct means of grace than those other examples.

[@dnoslen6124]

I believe Pastor Wolfmueller was baptized in the ELCA lutheran church but drifted in evangelicalism and enthusiasm then found the LCMS

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Awesome! Grateful for him and his journey! Thx for posting!

[@PastorMikeGibney]

Thanks!

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

No problem!

[@mathete9968]

I had a great breakthrough with 1 Peter 3:21 after realising that Hebrews 10:22 is in fact a sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 and very much parallel. This allows us to apply the inspired Scriptural Rule of Exposition: "Compare Scripture with Scripture" (1 Corinthians 2:13). The other inspired Scripture Rule of Exposition which applies here is 1 Peter 4:11 which holds us to the principle of "Scripture Alone" , and therefore especially to the grammar of the text (See also Nehemiah 8:8). The other truly wonderful thing about the parallel sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 in Hebrews 10:22 is the fact that the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 10:22 makes a direct allusion to the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:25 which happens to be a clear reference to Baptism. Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and YOU SHALL BE CLEAN. From all your filthiness, and from all your idols, WILL I CLEANSE YOU (Ezekiel 36:25) "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies WASHED with PURE WATER." (Hebrews 10:22) Let us observe then the common thread to all three texts: 1) The Hebrew and Greek words translated "CLEAN / PURE" are interchangeably translated. Therefore we find that in the LXX, in Ezekiel 36:25, the same root words are used as in Hebrews 10:22 ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Only the case endings are changed to suit the grammatical purposes of each passage (The LXX uses the accusative case and the NT uses the dative case). But the expression: ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Is a clear example of the Apostolic principle: "We speak ... IN THE WORDS ... which the Holy Spirit teaches" 2) All three texts teach that the body gets the water, but the soul / conscience gets the cleansing - In Ezekiel 36:25 God himself cleanses the sinner of his filthiness, exactly as David teaches in Psalm 51:2, 7 - In Hebrews 10:22 the body has been WASHED (same root Greek word used of Baptism in Acts 22:16) but the conscience has been sprinkled (Cleansed / Purified) - In 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism is the subject of the verb which is active and imperfective. The body receives the water, yet it is not the defilement of physical dirt which is bathed away in baptism but rather sin. For this reason the Apostle uses ἀλλὰ concerning Baptism's relationship to the resurrection of Christ in securing a good conscience for the sinner. Recall that Paul teaches the same thing concerning the resurrection of Christ. The KJV has: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again FOR our justification. (Romans 4:25) But this is not correct. The Greek preposition διὰ is used in conjunction with the accusative case δικαίωσιν Such that: διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν Means: "On account of our justification" Objective Justification is taught everywhere in Scripture (Zephaniah 3:15; Psalm 85:2, 3; Isaiah 12:1, 2; Ezekiel 16:63; and 2 Corinthians 5:19) But that we are justified in Christ's resurrection is also taught in Hosea 6:2. For God accepted his Son and by raising him declares that he accepted his perfect righteousness. Christian Baptism is not Baptism without content. It is founded upon Jesus Christ. And it is for this reason that Peter , preached Baptism. For example: Having stated that God RAISED Jesus Christ from dead (Acts 2:24) Peter preached BAPTISM in the name of this RISEN Lord, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Indeed Baptism now saves us. It saves us on account of Christ and is founded upon his propitiatory death on the cross and his resurrection. Peter can state that Baptism saves in that it is the answer of a good conscience. For Baptism is the work of God, not man and is done by God, in the person of the Son, our Lord and for the sake of man. Notice that in Baptism, our sins are WASHED AWAY: "...Arise, and be baptized, and WASH away thy sins ..." (Acts 22:16) The same root word ἀπολούω is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 where he uses "WASHED" as a peririphrasis for "BAPTISM" And it is the cognate noun of the verbs: ἀπολούω and λούω namely , λελουσμένοι That is used in Hebrews 10:22. Moreover the related cognate noun forms λουτρόν and λελουμένος That are used in Ephesians 5:26 of and John 13:10 . Can you see the picture emerging now? In - Ezekiel 36:25 - John 13:8, 10 - Ephesians 5:25, 26 It is the Lord Himself who MUST BATHE / WASH the church clean of her sins. And this he does in Christ through Holy Baptism. But is Jesus truly present, washing away sins, when we baptize another? Well consider this truth, it takes a minimum of two persons to perform a baptism (cf Acts 8:38). - The baptizer , and - The person being baptized And often there are many present. But has not the Lord Himself promised that: Where two or three are gathered together IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) And were not the triune Baptisms commanded by Jesus (in accord with Matthew 28:19, 20) always done IN JESUS' NAME? (See Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16) To baptize in The NAME of THE LORD means to baptize by his command and according to the form he gave us in The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19,20) So Jesus Christ is present exactly as he promised , and He washes away our sins. And The Name of the Lord is recorded upon each person Baptized, and he, according to His promises, comes to them and blesses them wherever His name is recorded (Exodus 20:24b; Numbers 6:23-27) .................................. But now notice also that in the sister texts of 1 Peter 3:21 and Hebrews 10:22 it is the body that gets the water BUT it is the conscience that receives the cleansing. This explains that curious expression: PURE WATER (ὕδωρ καθαρός) It is not the water that is CLEAN or PURE. Rather it is BY means of WATER that Christ has willed to PURIFY / CLEANSE His church, on the basis of His sacrificial death upon the cross. Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF for it; That he might sanctify and CLEANSE IT WITH the WASHING OF WATER along with The Word" (Ephesians 5:25, 26) Note: ἐν ῥήματι Is in the dative case. It is used instrumental here. It would be precisely the same construction if an ancient Greek were to say "He washed his hands using water along with soap" The natural sense of the text is that Christ gave himself (upon a cross at Calvary) in order to sanctiify and CLEANSE his church using Baptism in conjunction with his Word. And in Baptism we place the triune name of God upon all those Baptized. God truly operates in all places where his name is recorded and he blesses those upon whom his name is placed (Numbers 6:23-27, Exodus 20:24) For this reason Jesus willed that the new birth be a single birth of both WATER and The SPIRIT (John 3:5)

[@ChericeGraham]

Thanks. That's a lot of food for thought there. I've recently realized that these two verses are parallel, too, although I don't know Greek. Do you know what's wild, though? Baptist commentator John Gill admits that the Hebrews verse is talking about the physical body, but still says that "washed with pure water" is symbolic.

[@mathete9968]

​​@@ChericeGrahamI was a former Baptist and I was determined to prove the Baptist position from Greek text. But the more I studied the Baptist "proof texts" the more I saw each and every one of them unravel at the grammatical level. In short, I refused to defend a doctrine that could not be defended from the original text. What is worse, I saw that many of their arguments are actually derived by a combination of the ambiguity of the English translations + simplistic arguments that they use. Result: I embraced the Augsburg Confession and hold to the Book of Concord which is true to Scripture doctrine. Regarding the history of these developments, I was highly impressed by the work of Dr Daniel Featley who debated the Baptists in 1642 and wrote a book exposing them. Featley was one of the original KJV translators and a true Scholar and a pastor also. The Baptist historian Leon McBeth demonstrates that there were no Baptists in the full sense of the modern term until 1641. And they emerged in London as a new sect holding Calvinist doctrines and having emerged from the Anglican church. By 1642 they began promulgating their propaganda Tracts and Featley debated them the same year. He went on to answer their early tracts. Most notably, Featley also showed that their arguments relied upon a private interpretation of the poor wording of the English upon which they relied. But, he reminded, the Greek texts did not support their arguments. And he further reminded them that translations are subject to error... After recovering from Baptist error and ideology, I made it by business to study in depth every relevant passage. It's rather incredible in fact and much of the Apostolic Doctrine in the epistles depends heavily upon the true concept of Baptism including remission of sins AND actual (not symbolic) union with Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

[@mathete9968]

​@@ChericeGrahamYour realisation concerning Ezekiel 36:25 and Hebrews 10:22 is exactly the point the Apostle highlights: We speak ... using WORDS which the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Corinthians 2:13) This insight is the result of the Holy Spirit who reveals such things, and he does this often by means of key word combinations. You can imagine the importance of accurate translations ! The reformed, like John Gill, are unfortunately given to Zwingli's false principle of: Scripture + Human Reason John MacArthur is another who makes this idea a mere spiritual cleansing in his notes on Ezekiel 36:25. But we must ask: When God used the coal off the altar to cleanse the iniquity of Isaiah (6:6, 7) was it not the means of a real cleansing ? God uses means ..... And was not the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian real when he washed 7 times in Jordan? (2 Kings 5:10, 14) So it is in Baptism (Acts 22:16) God uses means .... The altar was the place where the sacrifice was placed in which it was devoured by the fire which typified God's wrath. It all pointed to our Saviour Jesus Christ who as the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) And that fiery coal was instrumental in that typical altar in pointing to Christ's death. Isaiah's sins were really purged through the blood of Christ for God worked faith in his heart when that coal touched his mouth (Romans 3:24-26). The waters which baptised Naaman and his typical washing also pointed to the Baptism which Christ instituted. And his leprosy was really washed away. Naaman too became a believer for he made a good confession of faith and God gave him another heart (2 Kings 5:15, 18) and in which in type form he was born anew (2 Kings 5:14).

[@ChericeGraham]

@@mathete9968 Thanks for the response. I'll have to look up that book. I was raised in a pseudo-baptist cult (Seventh-day Adventism) and attended baptist and non-denom churches for years after leaving the cult. It was not until fairly recently that I really started examining those presuppositions. God's Word really is clear.

[@mathete9968]

​@@ChericeGrahamWow, you really have been delivered from a great error. It's truly wonderful and only God can do this in our lives. I was particularly amazed and blessed when God delivered me from the chains of Millenialism. The other great danger into which I had talked was the "Once saved always saved" (OSAS) which is a strong delusion for many people

[@PastorMikeGibney]

It's not “magic” its means!

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Amen!

[@constantin3687]

Do roman catholics believe in Ex opere operato by baptism?

[@Carina-Rose]

Literally no one has ever gotten baptized for the purpose of removing dirt from their body. Lol. So, saying then that this cannot mean “water baptism” is kinda nuts.

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Crazy, right?! Praying for God’s Church to embrace the truth of our ancient Faith concerning the Sacraments. Amen. Thx for posting again, Carina!

[@aronllyrwilliams18]

This is super helpful. Watching from Wales (UK) which has Baptist churches on every street corner (mostly dead). It's a breath of fresh air to see baptism as the apostolic church did. Gutted Lutheranism never took root over here!

[@ChericeGraham]

Thanks, Carina. That point is indeed helpful.

[@spjm11]

Do you think that the line “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is a reference to Jewish ritual cleansing? I think it’s worth exploring. Baptism existed in the OT along with ritual washings, and part of that was indeed the removal of dirt from the body for ritual purity and the ability to be in the presence of God (think Leviticus).

[@ExtraNosAcademy]

Thx for posting! 1. Baptism as instituted by Jesus did *not* exist in the Old Testament. The washings in the OT are *not* to be understood as New Testament baptism. Yes, a type or foreshadowing but *not* baptism as Jesus instituted. 2. “Not as a removal of dirt,” means that’s *not* what baptism is. It’s *not* an external ritual. That’s Peter’s point. An external ritual would not accomplish what Peter says baptism does, which is salvation. 3. There’s no need to resist that God uses baptism as another physical means to save from sin. Yes, a person can be saved through preaching or the written word. Peter also says that baptism (which is God’s work & gift to us) saves from sin. That’s overwhelmingly clear in this text. God is kind to deliver His grace in many ways.