Can Someone be Saved without Baptism?

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

God is not bound by the means of grace, but we are. Well said, Dr. Cooper.

[@BeauDWaln]

Great teaching. Been sharing Jesus with an old friend and this helps answer a question he's had that I've answered, but not with the clarity. Thank you

[@ro6ti]

The thief received Christ's Word of explicit personal forgiveness and promise of eternal life. This is what Baptism is. The thief believed and was baptized by Christ's Word.

[@DannyLoyd]

how do you know he wasn't baptized by John? The thief also didn't believe in the DBR of Christ and where does it say he was baptized by Christ word? It doesn't

[@ro6ti]

@@DannyLoyd John's baptism wasn't the same as Christ's. If it were, Paul wouldn't have had those who had John's baptism rebaptized again. The point is, it's not the water that brings the benefits, but the Word of Christ Himself. If you have Jesus Himself next to you and He gives you the promise to your face, that's similar to Baptism where we receive Christ's own Word individually. Baptism is not His Word in the Bible given in general to the world, but His Word to us individually.

[@bigtobacco1098]

The thief was under the old

[@ro6ti]

@@bigtobacco1098 Christ is the New and promised the repentant thief Eternal Life. The Promise is what saves us.

[@bigtobacco1098]

@ro6ti so the multiple commands of believe AND be baptized mean nothing... we can forget the second half... 🤔😉

[@critical_mass6453]

Remember this quote. God's word so simple it takes someone else to help you misunderstand it.

[@ThroneofPositivity]

Brother this is so helpful. This necessary word complicates things so much. I feel like that's the wrong question to be asking. Baptism seems "necessary" but not for salvation. Yet this doesn't minimize baptism as if it weren't necessary. We need to be baptized haha sounds so simple yet so complicated. I truly appreciate the distinction of necessary vs absolutely necessary. This seems what's to be missing in most baptism discussions

[@OutcastWriter31]

Dr. Cooper, I so appreciate your channel and ministry. My husband and I have been so blessed by your resources since discovering the Lutheran Church last summer. I am about to have my two very small children baptized, but have not yet told my staunchly Baptist family about that decision. Since we began attending a Lutheran church my husband has died, so I am very much going to be standing alone against my family's protests. I feel prepared to answer most of the objections I anticipate them bringing up, except for the question of, doesn't a person have to willingly choose baptism? I feel quite certain they will ask that, and I don't know for certain how to answer it in regard to my children being too young to willingly choose to be baptized. We can't forcibly baptize an adult against their will and the baptism be valid, so why can we baptize children who are unable to knowingly consent? Any advice in regard to answering that question would be deeply appreciated. ~Mary

[@TimC1517]

Thank you for sharing Mary! I hope Dr Cooper sees this comment and answers. Your family’s objections remind me of a conversation with an agnostic coworker. She told me she feels it is wrong to bring one’s children up in the church at all, as they should have free choice in what religion they chose. Of course I would reject this completely, raising our children in the family of God is the most important work of a parent. And if Baptism is how the child enters the kingdom of God, then it is a necessary responsibility to baptize our children. And of course I would agree we should not baptize unwilling adults, but I think the dynamic changes when comparing adults with the full ability to make their own decisions to a child for whom you have responsibility to care and raise up in the faith

[@timothylethbridge9805]

And all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. “Can anyone refuse water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” Acts 10:45‭, ‬47 They received salvation before being baptized

[@dondgc2298]

@timothylethbridge9805 - you can quote this all day - and you should - but these people reject the clear truth and cling to their heretical beliefs.

[@brucedavenport7016]

Acts 10 45-47 does not say that they were saved before being baptized. Why does it not say that? Because you cannot be saved without full immersion baptism. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[@dondgc2298]

@@brucedavenport7016 you must be using a different Bible than I am. It could not possibly say it more clearly.

[@brucedavenport7016]

@@dondgc2298 Pretty clear: Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Reply

[@flaviusmuntean6391]

This instantly made me think of Lutheran Satire's video on this!

[@Logous]

"Baptism saves?!" 😅

[@flaviusmuntean6391]

@@Logous 😂😂

[@kjhg323]

I think the way to answer this question is that God's promise of forgiveness of sins and eternal life is absolutely necessary for salvation. In the ordinary case, this covenant is made in baptism, but God can use other means to make his promise if he chooses (i.e. baptism of blood, baptism of desire, all of the promises made before the institution of trinitarian baptism, etc.). In unusual or extraordinary cases, God uses means other than the waters of baptism to make his promise of eternal life.

[@KB-gd6fc]

If your argument is that the thief died before baptism was instituted then you have to also acknowledge that John 3:5 isn’t about new testament baptism.

[@toddstevens9667]

Good point. 😁

[@maximilianusofmarchaorient596]

Expecting "Why I am not a Baptist" after this one. Great stuff.

[@brucedavenport7016]

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[@samueljennings4809]

I’ve always thought that regardless of position on baptism, the example of the dying thief was irrelevant to the discussion entirely because he died before Jesus gave the Great Commission regarding evangelism and baptism 🤷🏽‍♂

[@paulblase3955]

Technically, in formal logic, baptism is a sufficient but not a necessary condition. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." As you said, not being baptized is not a condition for being condemned. Let's go back a step: Baptism is a means of grace. It itself does not save, but through it God gives the faith for salvation and the Holy Spirit who begins His work of sanctification. God may give those things in other ways if necessary.

[@eddiep6369]

Good video. I enjoy learning from different perspectives, even if, ultimately, I disagree with it. I understand your thief on the cross argument, would this logic also apply to everyone baptized before the resurrection of Christ? What about the apostles? The NT doesn't mention if they were baptized at all.

[@restedassurance]

Anyone who believes in Christ is saved, this being absolutely necessary - both before the Messiah and after. The baptisms of John were arguably not the same as what Christ instituted; specifically seen in Acts 19:1-5 where Paul "re-baptizes" those who were only baptized in John's baptism, now in the triune name. It is a point of debate among those believing baptismal regeneration but I would argue no, baptisms before Jesus' did not save. As for the Apostles, we can logically infer they baptized each other. It would be arrogant to be given the instruction by God to make disciples in baptism and completely neglect to baptize each other; especially given it is a Means of Grace. Plus Paul often writes how "we" were baptized into Christ.

[@ZacharyTLawson]

The "thief on the cross" discourse really makes me upset. I have had so many conversations where people will cover up their theological laziness with "thief on the cross". He didn't get baptized! He didn't have a developed systematic theology! He didn't go to church! He didn't read the bible! Can't we just ignore all these things?? It makes me upset so many people use the exceptional as an excuse.

[@LutheranIdentity-uj8yk]

I agree with you. I don't want to sound like a an a*hole, but "makes me upset" is not the kind of language a man should use. It's a female way of speaking. Once again, I don't want to come across like unfriendly in any way, I just thought you should know. Christ's Peace

[@ChiconDent]

Lutherans need to stop using the "necessary" vs "absolutely necessary" distinction because it's wrong and non-Lutherans can be easily confused by it. There is nothing stronger than necessity. That is, "necessary", "absolutely necessary", "super necessary", etc all mean the same thing, which is A is necessary for B means that if B is true, then A is true. So, when a Lutheran says that "baptism is necessary for salvation" every non-Lutheran and everyone who knows logic rightly hears that "if one is saved, then one has been baptized," which is false. Further, on Mark 16: The sentence "if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved" is true because "if you believe, you will be saved" is true. Putting "and are baptized" into the sentence at the end of Mark is evidence that the disputed ending of Mark is not inspired and should not be included. This is because the addition of "and are baptized" adds nothing the sentence because if one believes (whether or not they are baptized), they are saved. (Indeed, "if you believe and are not baptized, you will be saved" is also true!) Why would God inspire Mark to add the logically trivial "and are baptized" in the sentence? Further, on John 3 (just for fun!): "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" means that being "born of water and the Spirit" is necessary to entering the kingdom of God. That is, being "born of water and the Spirit" is necessary to being saved. So, from the first paragraph above, "born of water and the Spirit" is not baptism.

[@jzak5723]

Simply amazing how some people twist the clear straight Word of God into a pretzel.

[@ChiconDent]

@@jzak5723 It is simply amazing how some people refuse to read the clear straight Word of God carefully but instead bring the assumptions into their reading.

[@jzak5723]

@@ChiconDent Just what I said.

[@solafidedeum]

Hebrews 7:25 "He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."🙏 Let God’s Peace and Grace be with you (To The Reader). Praise God always. Amen🙏🙌

[@dave1370]

If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you will most likely die. However, there are probably unique situations where someone can survive somehow by God's grace without a parachute. However, we can consider the parachute a necessity for standard jumping out of plane stuff.

[@aaronh8095]

I’d be very interested to listen to a video on your view of the long ending of Mark. I also tend to accept the long ending as inspired, but I couldn’t articulate my position very well. I think that even if it wasn’t written by Mark, it has been accepted and preserved by the church for so long that it is valid, although I might count it as being on the level of antilegomena.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Would be worthwhile.

[@langstongash9302]

So in the case of an adult who accepts Jesus as their savior and then gets baptized, would the Lutheran position be that they were not saved until the exact moment of baptism? Or would the position be that they have been regenerated, and then baptism confirms/strengthens their faith? I’m still learning when it comes to baptismal regeneration. Also, what about someone who confessed Christ and was baptized but just didn’t agree with the Lutheran view of baptism? Either way they still were baptized

[@collettewhitney2141]

Dr Jordan. B cooper. I always thought that baptism it very important to bring people in to the christdom that why we get baptised as children By the way very good talking points and excellent video. God bless you ❤❤🙏

[@collettewhitney2141]

And food for thought ❤

[@FBCTrona]

Necessary? Not necessary? Ordinary circumstances? In ordinate circumstances? This really does seem like a compromise to try to somehow balance, Lutheran doctrine with what we find in the scriptures. Very confusing.

[@michaelszczys8316]

Wouldn't having to be ' physically ' baptized in water as a requirement for salvation make ' works ' or ' a particular physical work ' necessary for salvation? I use the thief on the cross as example for ' works ' or rather ' no works ' being necessary for salvation. Wouldn't ' not being able to be water baptized ' fall in the same category? I think so.

[@adrianagilar]

No, because Baptism is God’s work, not ours. Luther wrote (translated to English from Swedish by myself 😅): “And although it is done through the hand of a human, baptism is truly God’s own work.”

[@srice6231]

This came off to me as salvation by the work of baptism, not grace in your explanation. I am Lutheran but was baptised at 13 and have struggled because I find the Bible and Luther very clear on things and often Lutheran pastors very complicated and fuzzy.

[@DannyLoyd]

The thief on the cross also didn't believe in the DBR of Christ, so does that mean we do not have to either? Also, how do we know he wasn't baptized by John the Baptist? Also, Jesus said in Luke 24:47 " Remission of sins to be preached in my name would begin in Jerusalem" and this happens in Acts 2 where Peter tells them to " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins", so as pointed out, the thief died way before Acts 2. Also, the thief did not say the sinner's prayer, so for those of you who believe in the sinner's prayer, it is excluded also. Lastly, the people in scripture did not wait to be baptized, they did so immediately when they were told to do so. If you wait as was mentioned here and you die before you are baptized because you choose to wait, then you will be lost. Why would you wait? In Acts 2 3000 people were baptized and they didn't know everything, but they knew about Jesus and his DBR and they were baptized. It then goes on to say they continued in the apostles teaching. In 1 Cor it talks about the milk of the word, when you are first baptized, that is what you are taught, but as you mature you will be taught the meat of the word. Please do not wait as taught here, today is the day of salvation.....

[@PDC-df2de]

why you say the person is lost? if someone believes in Jesus but is not still baptized because churches wants you first to make several of bible lessons before you get baptized and this person dies before she or he is baptized is lost? I make till today experience that even if you say you believe in the lord jesus they first wants to invite you zo make bible curse before getting baptized. I read about the gospel and that is a free gift and for this i want to be baptized but it doesnt seem to be enough for churches because i need to make the biblecurse for listening and being convinced of their doctrines at first. And then finally I could be baptized...for example at the jehowas withnesses you need to be in favour of refusing blood transfusion for getting a member of church and so be baptized. So its not so easy to find people who believes in the simplicitiy of baptisms just after you have listend to the gospel. Dont you think that God doenst know about these confusions of doctrines? Sry i dont know you and its not a personal attac but this topic is for me personally a very debate topic where you find so many judgments of people where someone goes after dead. And of course its not very encouraging listening to such judgements. Greets

[@DannyLoyd]

@@PDC-df2de Jesus said in Mark 16:16 " He that believes and is baptize shall be saved" and when you look at Acts 2:37 you see UNSAVED BELIEVERS, they asked Peter " WHAT MUST WE DO"? and Peter said " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.." and then Peter continues telling them to SAVE THEMSELVES. It says that when they received the word and were baptized, the Lord added them to the saved, v41, v47. Also Gal 3:26-27 says that we become children of God by faith when we have been baptized into Christ, when we put Christ on.

[@bareit98]

I think there are several more responses to the "thief on the cross" argument. The Bible never says that he was or wasn't baptized. He could have been. Also, doesn't the Greek indicate that it could also be "Today I tell you that you will be with Me in paradise" or "I tell you that you will be with me in paradise today." Also, God can easily work outside the sacraments

[@Liminalplace1]

From evaluating the NT author's intention in writing, the question of "baptism necessary to go to heaven when you died" (which is what is usually meant by saving) is just NOT dealt with. It's a medieval question..if the question is made biblical, it would be "is baptism necessary for one to live life in God's kingdom" the answer is of course.

[@RTHenry83]

6:50 Appreciate your work and your conviction. I have gleaned much from your work. At this minute mark you said lack of baptism doesn't damn. Which follows you believe and are justified as Gal and Rom state. Which means baptism doesn't actually save...not water baptism anyway. Otherwise you have a dispensationalism type of "2 people of God" salvation for this group this way. And salvation for that group that way. This Baptist doesn't buy the infant baptism argument. I'm trying. I've listened to many Presbys too...but I don't see it

[@Biblia1]

Baptism doesn’t save. Let us debate it

[@anglicanaesthetics]

1 Peter 3:18-22 CSB For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh h but made alive by the Spirit, i [19] in which he also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison [20] who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. In it a few-that is, eight people-were saved through water. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, *now saves you* (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. 🤔🤔🤔

[@restedassurance]

He has exhaustively debated it before. You can find his debates and counter-arguments here as well.

[@Biblia1]

@@anglicanaesthetics There the verb is in present continuos: are Christian to be under a spring of water continuously to be being saved all the time in an indefinite time?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@Biblia1 The subject of the verb is "Baptism"; "baptism" isn't the verb in this passage. So Baptism itself, for all time and for all generations, saves you.

[@AnaSilva-to1sy]

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by Grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Baptism does not save us, it's showing other people our decision, as well as telling them " Jesus is in my life now"✝). Romans 10:9-10 If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

[@not_milk]

It’s necessary to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. There is grace for those who are mute. God still allows them to come to him without calling upon His name. However, if someone is able to call upon the name of the Lord and goes their whole life without doing so, they probably will not be saved. I’m open to the possibility of exceptions. But are you willing to roll the dice on such exceptions? Baptism operates the same way.

[@michaelg4919]

Thank you for mentioning baptism in blood. I recently came to the conclusion that both (triune/valid)-baptism and faith are (absolutely) necessary to be saved. 1 John 5:5-8 talks about the blood being a valid witness, like water, which means a person who died before they could receive water baptism, had (at death) received baptism by blood and is saved as well.

[@rosannecramer1531]

This is very good and the example of the thief on the cross is some thing I never realized until you explained it so well. I have to say that I believe you are saved by baptism and the Word of the Lord. I was baptized as a Catholic and then had a true conversion experience while I was reading the Word of God later in life. I was totally transformed and from that day on had a hunger for the Word. I believe in both being necessary but not absolutely necessary as Dr Cooper so aptly explained. We can still be saved without baptism depending on circumstances and also desire for it such as the example of someone getting hit by a car before they had the opportunity to be baptized. Thank you Dr Cooper! 🙏🏼

[@donhaddix3770]

absolutely. Jesus was baptized by John (Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21) and taught His disciples to baptize those who repented of their sins, believed in Him, and received salvation in His name (Acts 2:4, 38; 9:17-18; Matthew 28:19). Those who hold to believer’s baptism see it as an important initial act of obedience that a person makes after accepting Jesus as Lord-baptism is a public testimony of faith. And baptism by immersion clearly shows one’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see Acts 2:38-41; 16:29-34; and Romans 6:3-4). Pouring or sprinkling, the method used in infant baptism, fails to illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus was baptized by John (Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21) and taught His disciples to baptize those who repented of their sins, believed in Him, and received salvation in His name (Acts 2:4, 38; 9:17-18; Matthew 28:19). Those who hold to believer’s baptism see it as an important initial act of obedience that a person makes after accepting Jesus as Lord-baptism is a public testimony of faith. And baptism by immersion clearly shows one’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see Acts 2:38-41; 16:29-34; and Romans 6:3-4). Pouring or sprinkling, the method used in infant baptism, fails to illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[@TesterBoy]

5:30 God is not bound by the “means of grace”, WE are bound, but God is not bound. This was the kernel. Even the Saints of the Old Testament were saved by faith (and the children of Israel were “baptized” in the cloud as Paul describes it”. So the thief on the cross recognized himself as a sinner and his guilt, and Jesus as King of a Real Kingdom (his words).

[@bradfleck9458]

Salvation has always been by grace through faith. Adam and Eve and all were saved by grace through faith in God's promise that one day He would send His Messiah to defeat Satan and sin. All OT saints were saved by grace through faith and understood that one day the Messiah would come and fulfill all of the Law. NT saints are saved by grace through faith looking back to the Cross and the finished work that Jesus accomplished there in obedience to His Father. Millennial saints will be saved by grace through faith. Sacraments are not salvific just like sacrifices were never salvific. Lord Jesus, open the eyes and hearts of those who are blinded to the all-sufficient work of Your Son on Calvary.

[@yeyofamoelguerosalvaje6861]

Pastor, thanks for the explanation. In John 3:22, Jesus and his disciples were baptizing others at the same time John was baptizing. Was this baptism an ordinance of the old covenant? I would say this can be taken into account for the case or the thief at the cross, aint it? Thanks in Advance

[@bradleytarr2482]

I have the Common Works of Luther. But is there any way to get access to his lengthier commentaries on Scripture and on the Sacraments? You seem to constantly cite them, and I want em bad!

[@purgatorean]

sola scriptura is absolutely clear that there is absolutely no revealed way to be saved without Baptism. Don't let theologians and wacko egotistical preachers muddy the waters for you. Jesus said that it is Faith PLUS Baptism that saves. Jesus also commanded His Apostles to make Disciples by Baptizing them. You can't be a Disciple without being Baptized. St. Peter said that if you want your sins to be forgiven and if you want to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then you need to be Baptized. St. Paul taught that his own sins were washed away in Baptism. There is not one single verse in the Bible that says that faith alone without Baptism saves anyone. Baptism for Salvation has been the teaching of the Catholic Church in the Bible for 2000 years and has never changed, nor will it ever change. It is good to see that more and more Protestant believers are coming to know the Truth of the Scriptures.

[@EmV-si1eu]

Actually refusing to be water baptized is tantamount to denying the Lord Jesus before others.

[@nealstafford9063]

Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation because the way God instituted it. Certain persons by definition are excluded from being baptized. The unborn. If were baptism were absolutely necessary for salvation, all unborn who die before birth would be excluded from salvation. But while God binds us to observe being baptized, God does not bind Himself to baptism as he does other redemptive events.

[@AnAmericanlinguist]

You mention that what happens before Pentecost is irrelevant to what happens after Pentecost, but Jesus and his disciples were baptizing before Pentecost. Did those individuals need to be rebaptized? I don’t believe so. So I think the example of the criminal on the cross is still relevant. I am newly Lutheran, but I don’t fully understand the “necessity” of baptism for salvation. I believe baptism saves, dying to sin and rising again in the Holy Spirit through Christ’s death and resurrection. But even you mention here other methods of salvation and salvation through repentance and faith seems most vital from the scriptures if we need to point to “minimum necessary” (not that anyone should be aiming for the lowest pass in our spiritual life).

[@AnAmericanlinguist]

Nevermind the second part. I wrote it after you mentioned the thief on the cross. Hearing the whole video I see the point you are making. But I still am curious on your thoughts on the disciples’ baptizing prior to Jesus death and resurrection.

[@Heythere24561]

I think another point that could be made and that is the true question here is about baptism regenerating a person and that ultimately it is water with the Word and the Spirit that regenerates, not water alone, and therefore the Word itself as a means of grace is sufficient for regeneration. Ultimately the question being asked here is, “when you say baptism is necessary are you saying baptism is the only means of regeneration?” And then of course the answer would be no, the Spirit is always with the Word, and where the Word is, regeneration can take place.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

Isn't it exhausting trying to systematize a book that refuses to be systematized?

[@johnkarpiscak1134]

This is a good explanation of why "baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary." This is why John 6:29 (and similar passages), and the Great Commssion are congruent.

[@AndrewOfBethel]

Seems like the thief on the cross would be judged by his conscious which having just emptied himself before christ would have been filled with his wholy spirit as in a baptisim of the spirit, a committing his execution as a sort of martyrdom, a martyrs baptisim. Certainly of our benefit that we have the confidence inspired by a righeous ordained baptisim, seeing as we have the remainder of our life's with normal human wavering spirits and would be of good cheer to experience the things of the spirit also in our flesh being created in the image of God in his two whole natures.

[@JP-rf8rr]

Shouldn't we just say that people should be baptized, or that it's necessary for the Christian life. Because on first reading of necessary sounds like the extreme version. I mean, I think if the word necessary was changed, but the same description of baptism and why it's normally required, then less people would be opposed.

[@semi2893]

I wonder why people are opposed to baptism anyway. It's not like God asks us to jump from a building in order to be saved, right?

[@daman7387]

very helpful thank you

[@tiptupjr.9073]

"It's not the claim of anyone that prior to the institution of triume baptism that everyone had to be baptised" Jordan, I don't understand how this doesn't demolish baptismal regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus a man MUST be born of water and the Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God. When did he tell him this? Well before the events of Matthew 28. He doesn't put any qualifiers on it so he seems to be making a universal statement which would also apply to Old Testament saints. If OT saints weren't baptized, and if justification was by faith in the old covenant (which it was), and if our covenant is truly better as Paul claims, then it doesn't seem to me that water baptism is necessary for anyone, in any era, to obtain salvation. Considering that Christ immediately after, in John 3:6, delineates between that which is born of the FLESH and spirit (but doesn't mention water) I think it's not unreasonable to argue that Christ was referring to a natural birth with "water", or (and I think this is more likely) that water and spirit are BOTH references to the Holy Ghost, which John likens to a river of water all throughout his writings. I just don't think baptismal regeneration can be reconciled with the message of the New Testament and especially with Paul. I've read some of the entry-level stuff on this and watched your vids and I don't think I'll be convinced but I respect most of your other content

[@restedassurance]

I would say in this instance Jesus is speaking prophetically of the baptism he will institute after the resurrection. All people are born from water if water is to mean natural fluids; it would be redundant to include the mention of water if it didn't mean something else. The reason we understand this verse to be speaking of baptism is because there are dozens of clearer texts joining baptism, water, and spiritual life in the same sentence.

[@tiptupjr.9073]

@@restedassurance There is no verse that explicitly says the act of physical water baptism is what saves a person. There are verses that say faith is what saves a person. In the book of Acts, we see people who believe and receive the Holy Ghost before they are physically water baptised. So what actually saved them? It's the faith, not the water.

[@restedassurance]

@@tiptupjr.9073 No one is arguing people can't be saved apart from baptism. Of course most people receive the Spirit and come to saving faith before baptism. There are also *many* verses talking about how water baptism saves and forgives sins. These benefits are only obtained by faith and faith already saves. So I am saved by my faith apart from baptism, I am also saved in baptism through my faith. The only reason water baptism has any connection to salvation at all is because of Jesus' death and resurrection. If you don't have faith in that, baptism does you no good. If you do have faith in that (which saves), baptism does do you good. First and foremost I am saved by my faith. Now because I accept the gifts of God, I accept another showering of His gifts in baptism.

[@tiptupjr.9073]

@@restedassurance If people can be saved by faith apart from baptism, baptismal regeneration is superfluous. If a believer is regenerate by the Holy Ghost upon belief, there's no need for a second regeneration.

[@restedassurance]

@@tiptupjr.9073 We do not hold to a single moment of salvation in a Christian's life but rather a continuous reality. I am saved when I come to faith. I am saved whenever I confess my sins and receive God's forgiveness. I am saved when I am baptized. I am saved whenever I take the Lord's Supper. Jesus died once for all people yet we receive the benefits of the cross daily. A person who had a deathbed conversion is just as saved as one who was Christian since childhood with a life of confession and absolution. All it means is God worked blessings of forgiveness throughout the latter person's life. Salvation is not merely a drop of water but a continuous spring poured out on us through the Word (Faith, Confession, Absolution) and the Sacraments (Baptism and Communion).

[@jamespong6588]

It's not one or the other both are true depending what was given to you..

[@OriginalWinProductions]

But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7) ~ St. Ambrose of Milan Source: Roy J. Deferrari, translator. “Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valerian.” Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953. 261-299, at 287-289. Retrieved from the Internet Archive, 23 September 2013.

[@robertdelisle7309]

The thief on the cross died under the new covenant because Jesus died before the thief died. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant upon the death of Jesus. “15Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, 17because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive.” (Heb 9:15-17) The thief was saved without baptism under the New Covenant. The word necessary means essential for an outcome to occur. There can be no exceptions. If baptism is necessary for salvation to occur under the New Covenant, the thief could not have been saved. Christ said he would go to Paradise. Therefore, baptism is not what justifies a person, rather it is the blood of Jesus shed for sinners punctuated in his death that justifies the sinner through faith. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[@paulaffainie2030]

The New Covenant began at Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out...Acts 2 and Jeremiah 31:33.

[@robertdelisle7309]

@@paulaffainie2030 why then? What is the new covenant and why did it begin when the Spirit was sent?

[@robcarr4397]

Jordon, you said once that no one has perfect faith, and everyone, at some time, trusts a bit in themselves. This is more than a little problematic, Jordon. Why? In receiving eternal salvation from hell, faith in God and faith in oneself are oil and water. Don't mix. If you trust in yourself even a bit, you are not trusting entirely in Jesus, which is required. You couldn't say Jesus is my savior--you would have to say Jesus and me are my saviors. Jordon, don't be so nice and generous in this issue, doctrine, reality. God isn't. Don't be more "merciful" than God. It isn't doing anybody any favors. By the way, is it also acceptable to trust mostly in Jesus and also, at the same time, or sometimes, a bit in Mohammed, or Buddha, or Scientology, just because no one is perfect? Me, I trust only in Jesus, a hundred percent. Why? Because I have such pure faith? No. But because only Jesus/God doesn't lie. I lie. You lie. Churches lie. Everyone lies. Except Jesus. I don't trust myself or anyone else, anything else, for eternal life / salvation, the slightest bit, ever. Am I the only one? I doubt it. What about you? Do you sometimes trust in yourself just a tiny bit? Really? What for? And, seriously, what will the result be? God doesn't allow it, when it comes to salvation. He doesn't promise, in John, if you believe mostly in me, or usually in me, you have eternal life, you will never die, you will live forever, you have passed from death to life, you will not come into judgement. He promises something else. You know what it is, of course. And your audience needs to hear it, just as everyone in the world does. Could you tell them?

[@FBCTrona]

Baptism of desire? Where exactly would I find that in the scriptures? This gets very confusing for the Lutheran. And adding Martin Luther’s words only adds more confusion. Luther said himself that a person who believes that they can be saved without baptism is damned. Yet in another writing, he wrote that baptism isn’t necessary, but that a person who refused baptism showed that they were not saved.( I may agree somewhat with that second point). Martin Luther, as well as the Lutheran referred to the salvific nature of baptism, as being a part of the obedient Will of the convert. The problem arises when you have the same Lutheran baptizing children who later than get saved. What do you do then do you ask them to get baptized again? When they were children there, Will was not a part of their baptism. I have asked the same question of several Lutheran pastors and have never received a biblical answer so maybe there is someone in this thread that could help me out with this. Thank you.

[@taylorbarrett384]

I come from a tradition that also struggles with this question. It's extremely spiritually blind and stupid. Yes, my tradition as well. Nothing in Scripture is more clear than that God saves everyone who repents and calls on Him. To in anyway have any misgivings, questions, confusion, hesitation about whether such people will be saved, or to think it requires some sort of loophole, is just plain spiritual foolishness and stupidity.

[@thoughtfulchristianity]

I've always had a problem with hypotheticals....because they are exceptions to the rule as such they would be treated exceptionally by God. The logic does not follow that the ordinary means of salvation should be sacrificed in order to follow the exception.

[@nicoleschmidt6226]

If baptism saves us, why do we need to have faith?

[@raykidder906]

Baptism bring a person into the body of Christ, no matter the age of the recipient. See Galatians 3:26-4:7 about faith, heirs, and water baptism. Being included into the body of Christ moves a person from a realm of darkness into the realm of enlightenment, as Jesus is the light of this world. Baptism and faith go hand in hand as complimentary to promote the faith from enlightenment which causes a death and resurrection experience of rebirth that then produces works through love. Consider also the washing (baptism) of the eyes of the man born blind in John 9.

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

Justin Martyr said that Socrates and Plato were Christians without even knowing it because they percieved the divine Logos and sought to participate in it. Do you think he was right?

[@ZachFish-]

Question: Does sanctification rely on you doing something Answer: No I still don’t see how this question isn’t just works = salvation reframed (yes I know there are ways people try to say it isn’t a work)

[@Juni47054]

Also Cornelius

[@MrKingishere1]

Yes a Christian can be saved without baptism

[@losmcdonald]

The refusal of baptism then is the refusal of grace/forgiveness... thus salvation?

[@charleskramer8995]

Yes.

[@losmcdonald]

My brain exploded realizing your point that the thief on the cross was before Matthew 28 and pre-pentacost. Wow

[@NickMelville-ny2xu]

"Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel" - Apostle Paul

[@timothylethbridge9805]

and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ Acts 11:14

[@ClassicalProtestant]

Pastor can you do a video on whether or not marriage is a sacrament and if not why and how (when) did it change -

[@hpsteuer]

If the trinitarian baptism is the only kind of baptism that saves and if this kind of baptism was only possibly after the resurrection of Christ or after Pentecost, wouldn't that mean that the Apostles and all the other disciples who walked with Jesus had to be baptised too and that they were not saved before their baptism? How do we know if the Apostles baptised each other after Pentecost? And what spiritual effect did the baptism have that the apostles practised when they were with Jesus in His ministry here on earth?

[@bigtobacco1098]

Prior to Pentecost, was the old covenant...

[@roddumlauf9241]

Baptism signifies dying with Christ, being buried with Christ, and being raised with Christ. Therefore the thief on the Christ was baptized because he died with Christ, was buried with Christ, and was raised with Christ ( "this day you will be with Me in Paradise")

[@restedassurance]

And this is where we disagree. Nearly all the baptism passages in the Word aren't symbolic of faith; they are literally referring to being poured with water.

[@matthewhanke2976]

Baptism does not just signify dying, being buried, and being raised with Christ. God is not using symbolic language. He is speaking a literal truth that transcends space and time. It is people who read God's words as symbolic, but nothing in the text about Baptism tells us to read it as symbolic language.

[@roddumlauf9241]

@@matthewhanke2976 I was referring to Romans 6:2-11

[@roddumlauf9241]

@@restedassurance What about Mark 10:38 ?

[@restedassurance]

@@roddumlauf9241 I said nearly all. This is such an exception where baptism is instead understood as the death of Jesus and suffering of hell.

[@drewpanyko5424]

6:16 ...did you mean _Mark_ 16:16?

[@retrograd332]

You could have just said yes, but thanks for the explanation. Also, I would say a refusal of baptism would clearly indicate someone has not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You saying, it would be seen as refusing God's grace is really the crux of it, not necessarily the baptism itself.

[@restedassurance]

He could just say yes but our understanding of baptism is very difficult for non-Sacramentalists to grasp. You need to thoroughly explain it.

[@Trainspotting_Trips]

I would say, that baptism is necessary for salvation. Because then why even believe it saves? BUT, AND THIS IS KEY, IT HAS EXCEPTIONS. People that don’t have the chance to be baptized can be saved without it (for example: near death conversion it the example you gave at the beginning, Jordan). But if you have the chance to do it, you should, because for that individual it is necessary. Do you understand what I mean?

[@comeintotheforest]

For me, the argument that the “thief on the cross doesn’t count” was thoroughly unconvincing. What aspect of baptism hadn’t already been established beyond just saying it is in the name of the triune God? God was triune through all history, so why is it suddenly a different story after Jesus? I want to be charitable, but my impression was that a category was added without sufficient reason other than to discount the thief’s unbaptized salvation.

[@restedassurance]

Romans 6:3-7 and Colossians 2:12 speak of being buried and raised with Christ through baptism. This would mean baptisms before Christ's death wouldn't apply given he had not died yet. In Acts 19:1-5, we read of Paul encountering those who were only baptized by the baptisms of John the Baptist. He immediately baptizes them in the name of Christ when he learns this. This would again imply that any baptisms pre-crucifixion were substantially different.

[@mohamedaliouat]

So if you reject baptism you go to hell?

[@jzak5723]

I cannot judge anyone, God is the judge. That being said, if you accept Christ and His work on the cross, you need to be baptized according to Scripture, so yes baptism does save you, but not apart from faith. So why would anyone intentionally reject baptism knowing this?

[@carsonbaird3904]

@@jzak5723 exactly

[@nicoleschmidt6226]

Why do some pastors baptize babies who are not old enough to believe in Jesus as their Savior?

[@ralf547]

You mentioned a source on infant baptism, but I couldn't understand what you said. Could you provide it?

[@magpiegyver]

I think it's this, if you hadn't found it. I had to listen a few times and guess on the spelling! "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" Book by Joachim Jeremias

[@bjrinshore]

So would it be correct to formulate the answer in this manner: that though Baptism is not necessary for the Trinity to save, it is necessary for the comfort of the believer?

[@restedassurance]

You could potentially say that but baptism truly does save - it is much more than merely a comfort.

[@bjrinshore]

@@restedassurance Point taken if the term "comfort" will only be allowed to have a post-enlightenment connotation of "comfort" as an experience. But, doesn't the Confessions use the term in a different sense? Now of course I'll need to hit the Scriptures to see what they say about the comfort of the believer vs. the salvation of the believer. My guess is that they are synonymous, but I'll have to get back to you on that. Thanks for the conversation.

[@ralf547]

Thank you for the clarity.

[@paullaymon5746]

The bigger question is can someone be saved without works? No. The thief on the cross “did something”- he confessed Jesus Christ as Lord which is the first requirement to be saved. Romans 9:10 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[@dave1370]

Nah, that's not the bigger question. Because work sorry necessary byproduct of faith that saves.

[@paullaymon5746]

@@dave1370 prove it. Show me someone who has saving faith and no works.

[@restedassurance]

We wouldn't consider believing and confessing a work. Faith itself is purely a gift of the Holy Spirit, we do not conjure it up ourselves.

[@paullaymon5746]

@@restedassurance if one has to do something in order to be saved it’s a work just as James defines it. James defines works as obedience. Paul defines works as following the mosaic law. That’s why Paul says the we are not saved by work (Mosaic Law). James says that we are saved by faith and works (obedience). Paul says that we receive grace through obedience- By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: ( Romans 1:3)

[@restedassurance]

@@paullaymon5746 The Scriptures reveal it is completely impossible for a human, by their own understanding and reasoning, to come to faith. No one causes themselves to come to faith - it is purely the Holy Spirit gifting that spiritual knowledge. If we are doing absolutely nothing to come to faith and it is strictly impossible for us, then we are not performing any works. We argue James is not writing we are saved by works; rather, works will naturally flow out of a saved Christian. A Christian without works has a dead faith - they are not unsaved merely because they have no works but rather because their lack of works shows an inner unrepentance; therefore, they are unsaved due to unrepentance alone.

[@raykidder906]

Where does the Bible teach that the repentant thief on the cross was never baptized; by neither John the Baptist nor the disciples of Jesus?

[@toddstevens9667]

He wasn’t baptized. He was neither a disciple of John nor Jesus. He was not living the repentant life that both John and Jesus demanded.

[@raykidder906]

@@toddstevens9667 Broods of vipers were baptized by John the Baptist. This was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This baptism was to promote repentance for such sinners, but there are still issues of free will after baptism. Being crucified with Christ is associated with the sacrament of baptism, as per Romans 6. A sinful viper needs baptism for conversion. The baptism of a sinful man who was later crucified with Jesus is an illustration of how the meaning of Romans 6 was evident in his repentance unto salvation.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@raykidder906 That’s just silly and argumentative. He was not baptized by John and he was not a disciple of either. Matthew 27:37-44 KJV And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. [38] Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. [39] And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, [40] And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. [41] Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, [42] He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. [43] He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. [44] The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. So he was railing against Jesus, just like everyone else. But he heard these accusations that Jesus was the King of Israel, the Son of God, and a savior. At some point he believed these accusations. Luke 23:38-43 KJV And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. [39] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? [41] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. [42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The scripture clearly says that he did not believe in Jesus at the beginning of the crucifixion, but changed his mind (repented) after hearing the railing accusations against him and hearing what Jesus Himself had to say. The thief admits his sin and the justness of his situation. He admits that Jesus did nothing wrong. He confesses the Lordship of Jesus. He expects this man that is dying on a cross next to him to be a king that will have a kingdom. And he wants to be in that kingdom. I have no idea why anyone would even want to suggest that this man was a disciple of either John or Jesus. But there’s nothing in any of the Gospels to suggest that he was a disciple of either or had been baptized. The only reason to even suppose he had been is to make the scriptures fit into your little doctrinal box. And that’s silly. I have now watched about 10 of Jordan’s videos. They’re all full of this sort of unsupported supposition. I think he is doing a grave disservice to his viewers in teaching them bad habits of biblical interpretation.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@raykidder906That’s nonsense. He didn’t baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees that he called a brood of vipers. He was not a Pharisee or Sadducee anyway. There’s no evidence he was ever baptized.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@raykidder906The thief railed against Jesus earlier in the day (Matthew 27). Later in the day he called Him Lord and King. (Luke 23). The change while on the cross. He believed the testimony of those shouting insults and accusations at Jesus. All the rest about baptism is just spurious guesses that amount to nothing.

[@solochristo491]

The other problem with the argument of the thief on the cross is that people merely assume he wasn't baptized, but there isn't a single verse which says that he wasn't baptized, nor one which says that he was. What information can we learn from Scripture? According to Matthew 3:5-6: 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, so that's obviously the region where the thief on the cross was from. How did the thief on the cross know Jesus was the Messiah if he had never heard the preaching of John the Baptist and received his baptism? It's actually pretty reasonable to conclude that perhaps the thief on the cross had been baptized by John. But the truth is we simply don't know either way, and therefore for anyone to claim the thief on the cross wasn't baptized is inserting something into the text which simply isn't there.

[@restedassurance]

Well, the baptism we are referring to is the one instituted by Christ - and that happens after the resurrection. The thief could have been baptized by, say, John although it wouldn't be the same as baptism into Jesus.

[@solochristo491]

@@restedassurance So you're saying the baptism of John for the remission of sins was not a valid baptism?

[@restedassurance]

@@solochristo491 The question is if John's baptisms forgave sins in and of themselves or if people were forgiven by the confessing of their sins as certain verses write. Either way the fact stands for either interpretation: the baptisms of John are not the same as the baptisms of Jesus.

[@solochristo491]

@@restedassurance As Mark, chapter 1, verses 4 through 5 state: John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Let's also look at John, chapter 4, verses 1 through 3: "Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee." We could here very easily speculate the thief on the cross was perhaps baptized by Jesus' disciples. Neither one of these baptisms, even the baptism of Jesus in John chapter 4, are the "triune baptism" of the Great Commission, but they're still perfectly valid baptisms. No one baptized by John or Jesus' disciples had to be rebaptized after Pentecost. So again, we simply don't know if the thief on the cross was baptized or not, and to claim as a matter of fact that he was not baptized is inserting something into the text which simply isn't there.

[@restedassurance]

@@solochristo491 In Acts 19:1-5 we do read of Paul "rebaptizing" those who were only baptized into John's baptisms.

[@j.athanasius9832]

People I’ve talked to have found it helpful to compare baptism to another sacrament like marriage: Think of it like an engagement vs a wedding. If you and your fiancee are engaged, you are not "married" in the objective sense that a wedding brings. But if the two of you were to die tomorrow in a car accident, you could still be buried together as though you were indeed married. (In the Jewish context, a betrothal had the same binding character as a wedding to begin with, such that breaking off the engagement required a divorce!) So even if you and Christ are not indeed "married", as baptism is the official ceremony of, might Christ still accept your faith, as he did for the thief on the cross? Sure, but you want to get married. That's the normative means of salvation and entrance into Christ's family.

[@retrograd332]

Marriage is not a sacrament. No where does God say it is a sacrament in his word. Make sure you are not speaking where God has not. The Word of God only names 2 sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

[@andya7012]

@@retrograd332what do you mean by this? I don’t recall the word sacrament ever being used in the bible. It’s a term that came about later to describe sacred things. Marriage is not considered a sacraments by Lutherans because it is not something that brings saving grace for the forgiveness of sins, but marriage is something that is sacred that is mentioned many times in the bible

[@soteriology400]

Jordan is an intelligent guy, but I think he is way off on the topic of baptism. Just way off from the authors intent.

[@christian.comedy.channel.2]

This is nothing but a word salid - be basically says nothing and ignores scripture, trying to cover both positions in one statement.

[@axderka]

Salad

[@dave1370]

But scripture clearly says that baptism now saves you.

[@wushambudo]

@@dave1370 does all scripture say that

[@systemuser8701]

There is no water Baptism. There is now only blood Baptism. You scorpions ignore that.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Oh.

[@ralf547]

lol

[@BeauDWaln]

Examples, from scripture would help your case... Instead of name calling

[@andya7012]

@@DrJordanBCooperMotion to change the Lutheran Twitter symbol from a buffalo to a scorpion