A Response to a Baptist Critique of Baptismal Regeneration

[@uneasyrider6533]

Very well done! I’ve been compelled by arguments from you, and others to speak to a Confessional Lutheran pastor. Thank you!!

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . :)

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)

[@marcuswilliams7448]

"Guys, it isn't an empty sign. It just doesn't actually do anything. So, it isn't full of nothing, it's full of words like 'regenerate' and 'save,' it just doesn't give what it says. Do you understand?"

[@yellowblackbird9000]

Had this exact conversation with an RB a few days ago. He kept insisting Baptism was a means of grace but nothing he said about Baptism had anything to do with grace.

[@davidenglish583]

IMO It's kind of weird to call something an "empty sign" when a sign by definition doesn't have the quality of the thing signified within it, (i.e. it points to something else, which is not itself.) Not defending the RB's, just making an observation.

[@johnnywatson4914]

That's the basic argument. "Yes... But no."

[@an_nie_dyc1386]

There is a view that combines both sides. Baptism saves and regenerates- believers and not babies🤷🏻‍♀️

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . :)

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

Even though I am a Reformed Baptist and hold firm in my convictions, I appreciate and enjoyed your response Dr. Cooper. I like the charitable back and forth between believing Lutherans and Reformed Christians. Btw, you need to do more Eastern Orthodox material! (Still hoping Dr. Ortlund breaks out a bow-tie in your engagements).

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

Reformed Christians are paedobaptists, "reformed" baptists are not actually Reformed

[@GermanFreakvb21]

I think the problem in english Lutheran dialogue with baptists is, that using the word "sign" may be wrong. In German we use the word "Symbol", which is the germanized word from greek "symbolon". In modern times it means the same as the english "sign", but the original greek "symbolon" (and I think "Symbol" historically) rather means "counter piece". I.e. baptism is the "symbolon" of circumcision in the old testament. It doesn't merely signify, represent something, it actually IS something together with something else. I don't think "sign" or the moder german understanding of "Symbol" truly shows that. So I do understand why baptists might feel offended/misunderstood if you call it an "empty sign". To me an empty sign is rather something that is supposed to signify something, but doesn't. The way english Lutherans use it, it's not merely to signify something, but BE something. On the other hand I think baptists should have understood this by now, but it might help the dialogue to explain terms

[@akimoetam1282]

Baptists will straight up turn into naturalists when discussing baptism.

[@kjhg323]

Another point about Acts 10: just because the people had received the Holy Spirit before being baptized, that doesn't mean they didn't also receive the Spirit in their water baptisms.

[@micahmatthew7104]

Yes! A person can receive the Spirit before baptism AND during Baptism. It’s not an either/or but about dwelling in the Power of the Spirit to regenerate us. The continuous power of the Spirit in the life of the Christian is there for Sanctify the people of God for the Kingdom of God.

[@givethanks6714]

Nobody in scripture received the Holy Spirit during/in water baptism. The Holy Spirit is received only once, it is the same as baptism in the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus got up of the water and prayed (See Matt 3 and Luke 3 together). Not during/in the act. If it would happen during/in, then that is the exception/anomaly, not the rule at all. However both Baptism in Water and Baptism in Holy Spirit are essential to scripture and true Christianity.

[@IvanAgram]

Whoa... so were they regenerated when they believed and showed the sign of receiving the Spirit as did Apostles in the beginning? Yes or no.

[@zacdredge3859]

Sure but the Particular Baptist has no objection to that(which one of the guys in the video above even mentions); it actually fits our understanding as we expect someone to receive the Spirit prior to becoming Baptised. We're contesting the idea that regeneration, as it pertains to granting faith, is not induced by Baptism in any way that can be said to be normative or expected. Baptism can be regenerative to someone who already believes without inherently guaranteeing someone Baptised without faith will come to believe.

[@flashhog01]

Great video Dr. Cooper. I remember reading Dr. Horton’s chapter on baptism in his systematic theology book. He went on for pages using many flowery words but in the end never stated baptism does anything. It is in fact an empty sign for our Reformed friends.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Jesus instituted it for nothing ??

[@jimmyking8074]

A walkthrough of John 3 would be great, you confirmed I wasn't making a random argument out of nowhere when it came to the context of John 3, I thought of what you said contextually about Nicodemus but you helped connect the dots on why it would make sense for that to be the context. Thanks so much Dr. Cooper! Would love to see you go through the Doctrine of Baptism book on a podcast one day heh

[@grasshopper801]

It's very easy for "interpret the unclear in light of the clear" to become "interpret what challenges me in light of what matches my expectations". We have to understand that clarity is determined by the grammar and history of the text itself, not by our cultural presuppositions.

[@donatist59]

Except that this is impossible. We can only read a text in the light of our culture.

[@grasshopper801]

@@donatist59 While we cannot remove ourselves from our own time and place, God speaks into our time with His transcendent and eternal Word. He lifts the veil so that we need not be slaves to our own assumptions.

[@bad_covfefe]

​@donatist59 hence why all protestant scriptural interpretation is subjectuve, and we need Holy Tradition.

[@jeremybamgbade]

@@bad_covfefe Which tradition? roman Catholiscim? Eastern Orthodoxy? Oriental Orthodoxy? How do you know you have chosen the right tradition?

[@bigtobacco1098]

Apostolic ​@@jeremybamgbade

[@codybancroft9147]

Also Calvin agreed in the efficacy of Sacraments, read the French Confession of 1559.

[@beaulin5628]

The Bible doesn't tell us to worship Calvin. Or Luther. Or any church "father". But only Jesus Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

[@captainfordo1]

@@beaulin5628who is worshipping Luther or Calvin?

[@beaulin5628]

@@captainfordo1 Trusting the teaching of men that differ from the teaching of the Bible amounts to that. Many "traditions" ( such as baptizing babies who are unable to have intelligent faith in Jesus Christ and claiming this somehow imparts "saving faith" to them) have developed from the interpretations of fallible men that are not found in the NT. "Hearing" the gospel, "believing" the gospel, and then being "baptized" because of that is the order presented in the NT for salvation. If "baptism saves" anyone it is because the the first two steps resulted in their being baptized. Baptism is a public confession and confirmation of faith in Jesus Christ, not a "sacramental cause" of it: Romans 10:10 "For with the HEART man BELIEVETH unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:17 "So then FAITH cometh by hearing, and HEARING by the word of God." Mark 16:16 "He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The soul is "regenerated" by believing the WORD of God about Jesus Christ, not water baptism: 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." The soul is cleansed from sin by the BLOOD of Jesus Christ, not water baptism: Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" Matthew 26:28 "For this is my BLOOD of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@beaulin5628strawman

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@beaulin5628or your interpretation

[@lisafenwick3451]

You need to read Everett Ferguson's awesome book on baptism in the first five hundred years. It is a great book. It is 900 plus pages. It is the most comprehensive book on baptism.

[@christophermccready2248]

Where can I find the version of "A Mighty Fortress" that you use in your intro? It's beautiful.

[@Mitenilk08]

Ultimately it's a question of authority. Scripture plainly teaches baptismal regeneration. The Church has, therefore, always taught it. One would only oppose the teaching if one has a priori adopted a system that doesn't allow the teaching in the first place.

[@bad_covfefe]

If scripture clearly teaches it, then why do ithers disagree with it despite having studied scripture?

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@bad_covfefe why are there so many protestant denominations ???

[@couriersix7326]

Because they come from a Baptist presupposition.

[@vincent8943]

48:00 Explaining baptism of samaritans and why the order of faith, baptism, and the reception of the Spirit is different in certain parts of the book of acts

[@elainejan]

Thank you for making these videos. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Sometimes my faith needs a little shoring up.

[@aidanmcmanus2752]

Part of their problem here is conflating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38), with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2 & 10), or the laying on hands measure of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8). Every Christian had the indwelling of the Spirit, but only a few were baptized with the Holy Spirit or had hands laid on them by an Apostle to receive miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are greatly mistaken when we conflate these and their purpose.

[@benmizrahi2889]

No, you are just reviving the Montanist heresy by separating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us and some sort of bizarre parlor trick "gifts".

[@aidanmcmanus2752]

@@benmizrahi2889 I think you are confused, the spiritual gifts of the 1st century are gone. But if you see the gifts of the Spirit as just bizarre parlor tricks, then I can't help you.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@benmizrahi2889 I've seen lots of sacrament-Arians claim that John the Baptist having the Holy Spirit from the womb does not indicate that he had faith from the womb. But I never made the connection to Montanism! Thanks!

[@benmizrahi2889]

@@Mygoalwogel You are welcome. Those heretics will always resort to the Montanist emphasis on the Gifts of the Spirit and private revelations as a more elevated form of "spirit baptism" as opposed to "water baptism" (or as normal people call it: the one baptism for the remission of sins).

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@benmizrahi2889 What would you say of those who even deny that The Son of God remained faithful to his Father during the embryonic stage of his incarnation? Nestorian? I hate to use that term because Theodoret and the Church of the East have always maintained that Nestorius was not a nestorian and that they've never taught Nestorianism. The members I've met were such lovely people.

[@Faithseekingcatholicity]

I think the thing that's happening here that most people don't realize because they're ignorant of the Lutheran position is, if the baptism is fully efficacious unto salvation. Then why are you having your children participate in confirmation before giving them the Lord supper? If they are fully saved and fully in the Kingdom of God, then they are fully worthy participants in the sacrament of the Eucharist. A confessional Baptist, whether these gentlemen want to admit it or not, is most likely going to hold to Sacramental efficacy just as a lutheran would for an adult. We just do not practice it on our children. Therefore, we catechize them and basically start confirmation when they are babes and when they are older and professing faith, we baptize them and admit them to the table. That way, when they doubt their salvation, I can tell them to hold fast to their confession and remember their baptism. Blessings.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Does scripture give us a standard ??

[@AndyAshenden]

This was a great response. The empty sign portion is spot on.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

I’m sorry sir, no it wasn’t

[@benmizrahi2889]

@@dylanwagoner9768 Care to elaborate or is it the case that you just love to make statements and expect us to believe them on your say so?

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@@benmizrahi2889 Yeah sure. If those who do not believe that baptism actually regenerates have an ‘empty sign’ view of baptism then Lutherans don’t have anything less ‘empty’ to offer. Regeneration in the NT actually accomplishes something radical in the sinner that manifests itself in real life. So to flesh it out a little, if Baptist’s have an empty view of Baptism, then I would say Lutherans have an empty view of regeneration. Look at Titus 3:3-5. V3 describes what these people were pre-regeneration. The giving of life obviously brought a radical change so that what was true of them is not true anymore. But it’s obvious in real life that baptism does not actually accomplish this change. So therefore Lutherans have a starved/empty view of regeneration.

[@benmizrahi2889]

@@dylanwagoner9768 And then you just proved you have no idea what the Lutheran doctrine of sanctification is (clue: the regeneration brings a radical change over time due to the live of God said regeneration creates).

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@@benmizrahi2889 Friend, I don’t care as much about the Lutheran doctrine of sanctification as much as I do the biblical doctrine of regeneration. Titus 3:3-5 is very clear about what regeneration accomplishes. What would be your response to what I said about that text?

[@chaddonal4331]

Is it possible that John 3’s reference to water (baptism) is transitional? For example, as stated, John the B baptized with “water” PRIOR to Jesus for salvation (in the transitional time of the Kingdom of God being present in Jesus but prior to the establishment of the New Covenant. Meanwhile, from Pentecost onward, the Baptism of the Spirit into Christ (the actual baptism that saves ongoing) would become available. This would correspond with similar time texts in John 4 (a time is coming and has now come) with the inbreaking of the ministry of the Spirit in relation to Worship (in Spirit and Truth). Also this would correspond to the transition (described by Jesus in John 6) of those who are the sheep in God’s fold being transferred to the fold of the Son (in the transition of Old Testament Covenant to New Covenant). This would also correspond to the changing of the ministry of the Spirit detailed in John 13-16, where Jesus would send His Spirit to indwell believers) which will be better)! Once we recognize the validity of John’s gospel walking us through the many transitions from Old Testament realities to New Testament fulfillment we can put the pieces together on multiple topics. So, baptismal references to water are all typical- with the fulfillment antitype being Spirit Baptism - which is what saves. With water baptism being a loaded sign and temporary carrier of the reality UNTIL the resurrection of Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy at Pentecost.

[@chacehui6393]

You’re gonna turn me Lutheran 😂😂😂

[@adampetersen4795]

Lutheran yet☺️

[@zacdredge3859]

5:37 So? Do you think it may be possible that Lutheran's could at some point mature beyond the polemics of their forebears? To be clear it's not a question of whether you see the Reformed view in that way, it's a matter of respecting the other enough to speak to them with grace rather than with condescension. To be fair I'm not sure why these guys are leaning more into the traditional Reformed approach when Particular Baptists don't have the same burden when it comes to Baptism being dischronoligically connected to faith or something like that. We only Baptise people who have made a valid profession of faith, so Baptism can only fail to be a true means of grace when it is not received in faith, which we already say is true for The Lord's Supper as taught by Paul. Someone having faith after the fact may happen in exceptional circumstances but it's not the normative practice we are advocating for, unlike the Presbyterian who must defend unelect infants being Baptised due to their views of Covenant.

[@nikeinjesus1]

When Nicodemus came to Jesus that night, Jesus knew Nicodemus and the other Pharisees "rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of John" (Lk.7:30). They rejected salvation. Instead of Jesus responding to Nicodemus opening statement, Jesus went straight to the point of what Nicodemus needed to do to be saved. "Unless you are born again, you can not see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus was already physically born of a woman when Jesus said, "Again." So this knocks out the riduculous and erroneous insertion of Calvins amniotic fluid. It is offensive for people to have Jesus explain to Nicodemus one first has to be physically born, Really! The question Jesus addresses is, "How can a man when he is OLD be born again?" For an OLD man, not a fetus, to be born again, Water and of the Spirit is required. For those who submitted to John's baptism, Jesus promised would "go" into the kingdom (Mt.21:32-32). John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins (Mk.1:4-5; Lk.3:3). Their sins were ultimately forgiven at the cross of Jesus. Therefore, unless Nicodemus stopped rejecting, and submitted to be baptized, he could not enter into the kingdom. When Nicodemus came to Jesus, notice he said "we know (positively know) that you come from God for no man can do these things you do unless God is with him. Though Nicodemus had faith, he "believed on the Lord Jesus," "faith alone, and Christ alone," was not sufficient enough for Nicodemus to be born again. This alone, wipes out the "faith only position. If Nicodemus heeded Jesus warning and was baptized that night or the following day, he was born again. He would enter the kingdom and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost day. Now if you stay in context understanding water referring to baptism, you won't have a problem with understanding "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." When our bodies/flesh is immersed, this is the physical and visible part of our process in being born again. Where "born of the Spirit" is invisible, as the blowing of the wind (vs.8), the reception of the Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and the answer of a good conscience. To understand how one is born of water and of the Spirit, Peter does a wonderful job. "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever" (1Pt.1:22-23). Peter is addressing the saints, everyone who has already obeyed the gospel. First notice our souls are purified when we obey the truth. Not when we believe the truth, but when we >obey< the truth, through the Spirit. Being born again by the Word of God. The Holy Spirit works on our hearts through the Word of God, when we obey the truth, our souls are purified. It is then that we rise to walk in newness of life. "Unless a man is born of water (baptism/obedience) and of the Spirit (through the Word of truth), he cannot enter into the kingdom." Not only does a person have to be baptized in order to be granted entrance into the kingdom, it has to be according the truth. The truth that baptism forgives, and also does save us. Now, what about John's prophecy? "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." John was speaking to a mixed crowd, heaven bound and hell bound. As Dr. Cooper explained. Stay with me. Joel propecised the HS would fall upon all flesh. Now we know that the Holy Spirit did not fall upon every single flesh in the NT. So we need to determine what Joel meant by "all flesh." When the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles, they were already forgiven under John's baptism (Mk.1:4-5; Lk.3.3). So the purpose for the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles was not to forgive their sins. The baptism of the Holy Spirit served a different purpose. The next and final time the Holy Spirit fell (HS Baptism) in the NT was upon the household of Cornelius. About a ten year period between the two events. Every Jew convert from Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Spirit when being baptized (2:38), but not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, the timing God chose served a purpose as well. First, to fulfill Joel's prophecy, 2nd, to convince the Jews that God had granted repentance to the gentile nation. To understand what Joel meant by all flesh, is really pretty simple. When the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, they represented the Jewish nation. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, they represented the Gentile nation, thus fulling Joel's prophecy "all flesh." Joel's prophecy began with the apostles, and was fulfilled on the household of Cornelius. In both cases the ability to speak in tongues, came directly from heaven. For the apostles, so that the crowd could understand the gospel clearly in their own language. As well as to confirm the Word (Mk.16:20). On the household, to show the Jews that it was now time to include the Gentiles, making both one in Christ Jesus. The household were still in their sins, and this point many can not digest. It was also hard on the six Jews present, as they were 'astonished' to see the HS fall upon dogs. For Peter, the vision on the roof top began to unfold, "what I have cleansed do not call unclean." With Peter fully understanding what was taking place, and the scripture stating Peter "shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts 11:14). Peter then asked "can any man forbid water (not amniotic fluid) that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" Peter later explained, "who am I that I could withstand God who gave them the same like gift?" Peter then commanded the household to be baptized. Remember, the household were to be saved by the words they would hear from Peter (11:14). Not by the Holy Spirit falling upon them. The difference between the apostles and the household receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, was that the apostles received authoratative gifts. Such as laying on of hands. The household spoke with tongues for a few moments or minutes, but they did not have the authority to pass on the gift. The reason the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized and saved, was because of being Gentile, God had not yet granted repentance to the gentile nation. Here is a case of folks saved, but no Holy Spirit. And we also have a case of having the Holy Spirit, and not yet saved. In both cases, forgiveness of sins were granted when baptized in water. The one baptism that continues until the coming of the Lord, is the one baptism that puts us into Christ, where forgiveness of sins is granted, converts us from a dead state to a new living state (3:19), by which we are born again.

[@TheKingdomWorks]

Do you have a simple video just talking about the mode of baptism and not it's meaning? Obviously the significance is more important than mode but it is a dogma that is held and I believe deserves to be delt with. Apologize if I have missed it.

[@WarrenWVa]

Does Just and Sinner have a video or article on the Joint Declaration on Justification by the RCC and the World Lutheran Federation?

[@Dilley_G45]

Remember that LWF is where the liberal fake Lutherans are found in. Dr. Cooper and Bryan Wolfmueller and Chris Roseborough would be in Churches that are in the ILC or (the other one I forgot the letters 😆). Elca the liberal atheists calling themselves Lutheran would be LWF. LCMS would be ILC, and AALC and LCMS are in fellowship

[@michael6549]

Do you believe that baptized adults are always saved at baptism? Are babies different?

[@raykidder906]

Around 37:45 Dr. Cooper stated things about the Pharisees that I think are contrary to St. Matthew’s testimony; for Dr. Cooper said they were not baptized by John the Baptist. It is true that at least SOME of the Pharisees were not baptized by John, as per Luke 7:30. This is from Mark 1 (NKJV): 4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 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. This verse 5 teaches that John’s baptism was near universal among people in Jerusalem and Judea. This is from Matthew 3 (NKJV): 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Verse 11 is what John the Baptist was telling these Pharisees and Sadducees, which means these men were INDEED baptized by John. It seems to me that the baptism of repentance that John the Baptist preached (Mark 1:4) was to promote repentance. Why didn’t he just preach repentance (without water baptism) for the forgiveness of sins? My answer is that baptism is a mechanism that PROMOTES repentance. It is like receiving an invisible Bible that establishes a communications channel from God. It is also likened to enrollment into a God ordained reform school that promotes a spiritual death and resurrection, which is a born again experience. See also Luke 3, where John the Baptist labeled others who came to him for baptism as a brood of vipers.

[@chaddonal4331]

Also, the baptism by fire as a warning of destruction seems to have been meted out against the rulers of Jerusalem, as prophesied by John, in 70AD. Effectively this ended Pharisaic temple-based Judaism.

[@vngelicath1580]

I think the Acts (Samaritan) situation is not a giving of the Spirit in a regeneration sense... but like you said, in a charismatic anointing / supplementary sense. Likewise, the Apostles (and all subsequent pastors) at their ordination "receive the Holy Ghost" but we are not to understand this in the sense that they didn't already have the Spirit in terms of their individual salvations (as they were clearly regenerate). It's interesting to note that the LCMS 1982 hymnal _Lutheran Worship_ included the laying of of hands with the explicit formula "receive the Holy Spirit" for its Confirmation rite. A tangential connection to chrismation there lol David Scaer has written an article on Confirmation in relation to the Holy Spirit where he addresses the issue, and argues that the Spirit is given for a multitude of reasons (including at the public confirming of one's faith) and not simply for the giving of faith and salvation.

[@carltorola716]

When the reformed discuss the means of grace, the amount of qualifying, backtracking, etc (which is so frustrating when you are trying to learn it) that they do I believe is a “sign” no pun intended, that they have a hard time connecting the sacraments to their theology.

[@carltorola716]

Reformed challenge: state clearly and unequivocally what is given through the sacraments, in 10 words or less (IMPOSSIBLE).

[@j.g.4942]

@Empyreal First 4 words baptism, last 5 HC? So the Holy Spirit (the seal Eph 1:13) is given in Baptism, and we are united into Christ's body in Baptism (John 14)? And by faith the Christian receives ... what do you mean by body and blood?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@carltorola716 "Reformed" or "Baptist"? Those are not the same. Even for the Reformed Baptists, the issue of baptism (and the sacraments in general) is the area with the largest amount of changes from the Westminster Confession to the London Baptist Confession. As a Reformed guy, I agree that it would be impossible to reduce all the amazing things God does in baptism to a mere 10 words, so I'll just quote Westminster Confession 28.1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world.

[@donatist59]

​@@carltorola716Their honest answer: "Catholic mumbo-jumbo!" 😂

[@donatist59]

​@@oracleoftroyThe word "seal" here sounds awfully sacramental to my Episcopalian ear.

[@arabniga]

What microphone do you use? It's really good!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Blue Yeti.

[@critical_mass6453]

So why would Jesus say born of water and of spirit instead of baptized in water and then of spirit, since the term baptism was already being used.

[@j.g.4942]

Isn't He making the point that baptism is a 'new birth'? 'must be born again' ... 'not of the flesh' ... 'but born of water and spirit' (born/brought into New Life, by water and spirit, the water and the Spirit present in Baptism)?

[@emanuelkournianos7412]

"Be baptized and wash away your sins; calling on the name of the Lord!" Acts 22:16 Words no Baptist would use during a baptism. Ananias, Orthodox church,uses these words to baptize Apostle Paul!

[@j.g.4942]

Regarding EO chrismation, isn't that analogous to the laying on of hands after Lutheran baptism in the baptismal rite?

[@vngelicath1580]

The current LCMS hymnal LSB (and its attendant Agenda / Altar Book) offers the optional use of the laying-on-of-hands and/or anointing oil for both the Post-Baptismal Blessing (aka Chrismation) and the Confirmation Blessing. Lutherans are the epitomized fence sitters lol

[@j.g.4942]

@@vngelicath1580 yeah, in Australia the rubric isn't optional it's either laying on of hands or anointing oil in the sign of the cross. But I though Doc Cooper said chrismation wasn't part of Lutheran practise, yet it seems to me it is we just don't see it as separate from Baptism. Also, I prefer the Ol' Elpaso girl to 'fencesitter'; we're not undecided, our feet are firmly planted on both sides, Just and Sinner, a mystery to be sure!

[@vngelicath1580]

@@j.g.4942 I meant in reference to the chismation vs confirmation debate between Orthodoxy and Romanism... Lutherans allow both/and lol

[@vngelicath1580]

@@j.g.4942 are you LCofA?

[@j.g.4942]

@@vngelicath1580 ??? well here we call it LCA, and yes? Some even call it LCANZ. Why do you ask?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Here’s one Anglican view of Baptism (not the only one), and curious for your thoughts. I would say that the Spirit works through the waters to visibly seal the baby as God’s, to give the baby the forgiveness of sins as a promise they really have (such that if they were to die, they’d be with Jesus), and really brings them into the covenant family. I’d also say that God works through baptism in such a way that the parents and the church can be assured that the child belongs to God and is an heir of eternal life. I stop short, though, of baptismal regeneration, leaving the mechanism a mystery. The family can be assured that God looks at the child as one whom he either has or intends to fully bring in, but certainly not as an unregenerate baby. What do you think? I’m close but not quite at baptismal regeneration.

[@carltorola716]

Do you have any scriptural support?

[@Iffmeister]

That literally is the definition of baptismal regeneration fam

[@MyName42]

@@Iffmeister If "regeneration" just means "the promise has been vouchsafed to you and has been visibly demonstrated to others" then it seems like the argument between Reformed and Lutherans would be over the definition of "regeneration." For Reformed, that would have to involve the genuine salvific work in the soul that creates saving faith and produces good works. I was under the impression that Lutherans would agree with that definition. If all regeneration means is in that first sentence, then it seems like everyone ought to agree with it.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@carltorola716 I think in Baptism, God does everything that entails one’s inheritance of eternal life. The person baptized is united to all of the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection. But Scripture never says God gives faith in baptism or definitively renews the inner man in baptism. So I’m willing to say everything that Scripture says (God saves in baptism by making the child an heir of eternal life), but not what Scripture doesn’t say (Scripture never says that babies are regenerate and thus have saving faith through baptism).

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@VDMA LCMS my view isn’t Presbyterian, because I believe that the children of believers are actually made heirs of eternal life in and through baptism, and publicly adopted. I’m just not willing to say that God gives definitively saving faith through baptism, and renews the inner man through baptism-though the child isn’t a “pagan”, and the Spirit is working in the child’s life such that we can know the child is an heir. It’s closer to the Federal Vision view than anything else

[@Jassaj1985]

Yes for a walk-through of John 3

[@chrismatthews1762]

Water baptism isn’t any more effectual than OT circumcision. They are signs of inward, spiritual realities:

[@Mygoalwogel]

Acts 22:16 Baptism washes away sins. Colossians 2:12 In baptism, God raised you with Christ through faith.

[@johnnywatson4914]

Yeah that is nowhere in Scripture. This "sign" language isn't found in the NT. Paul and Peter both call it the thing it does. Not a symbol of.

[@raykidder906]

You typed, “Water baptism isn’t any more effectual than OT circumcision.” This is from Romans 3 (NKJV): 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” If you link the meaning of water baptism to the meaning of circumcision, then this is an explanation of the covenantal nature of baptism. It is also an explanation of why it is wise to baptize infants. In verse 2, St. Paul mentioned the benefits of circumcision, which alludes to the idea that members of a covenant receive communications from God. If water baptism does not replace circumcision, then it seems to me that Christians should be advocates of circumcision; right?

[@Godfrey118]

Circumcision was necessary for salvation in the old covenant Genesis 14:17. But, also circumcision was not a guarantee of salvation, faith is required, but circumcision was more than a sign... It was required to be done.

[@philagon]

As a presbyterian, your insistence on the "empty sign" language seems to be overly polemical and I just don't understand it. If you say that the reformed view gives baptism LESS meaning, power, etc, I can understand that. But to say it is "empty," as if it is only a word for the Reformed is a poorly justified inference. This comes across clearly when you discuss the baptist podcast, which makes a distinction about the temporal impact of baptism. You put all your Lutheran eggs in that basket, and so if someone denies that baptism is effective temporally, you think that person deems baptism empty and hollow. The efficacy of baptism can be affirmed in different ways, and even if you disagree with the Presbyterian view, it doesn't mean that the view is one of empty symbolism because it doesn't agree with the baptismal over-reliance of your parochialism.

[@PopeKiberius]

So effectively, the Presbyterian position on baptism is one that empty because it has meaning tied to it but does nothing else.

[@philagon]

@@PopeKiberius No, not effectively, nor in any other way. To discuss efficacy in a different context: the fruits of the spirit do not cause salvation, but are indications of it. But just because they play no causal role in justification, this does not mean they are empty signs. And no one would make such a silly claim, not even Lutherans.

[@Jessard187]

​@@philagon The issue is that then you wouldn't be able to baptize babies presumably. The fruits of the spirit would only show you if you were already saved. Someone who was never baptized presumably would be able to manifest these fruits if they were a part of the elect. This clearly shows there is a detachment from baptism and these effects in the Presbyterian framework. It would truly be an empty sign in this case. It's also of note that Dr. Cooper was a Presybeterian seminarian before becoming Lutheran so I doubt that this is a merely polemical issue. He seems pretty familiar with the Presbyterian view.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@philagon You are spot on. As a confessional Presbyterian, when I read Luther's Large Catechism on baptism I see the same theology as I find in my own Westminster Confession with the same distinctions being made at all the important points. Then I observe Lutherans trying to debate these issues, and they either pretend like all Calvinists are Zwinglists (ignoring the historical reality that Calvin was on Luther's side against Zwingli), or they argue the Rominist view and I have to defend their own confessions against their polemics. It's rather disturbing that so many Lutherans don't know that much about the view their cousins of the reformation hold to, and even worse that they won't accept correction but will double down and insist you have to fit in their bucket.

[@johnnywatson4914]

He says "empty" because any other definition is merely word salad. It either provides the thing or it doesn't. It is the vessel that carries the grace of salvation, or it isn't. Anything else is semantics.

[@josephjones4207]

Hi where could I get the fathers easy cheap

[@donatist59]

Zondervan

[@toddvoss52]

Listening to this and their point about the "accompanying word of God" sounds like a weak instance of "occasionalism". Interesting.

[@gman1550]

If baptism is not symbolic but it saves by washing away sins, does sparkling clean chlorinated pool water wash away more sins than dirty river water?

[@zacdredge3859]

Not if you read the Didache.

[@aGoyforJesus]

I'm still going through this but my main objection is this: 1 John tells us that those who are born of God overcome the world. If baptismal regeneration is automatic, there's an awful lot of born of God folks not overcoming the world.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I mean, one way a Lutheran might understand this is by observing the reality of apostasy. Unrepentant sin ultimately results in the destruction of faith and being severed from Christ. But yeah I don’t find that an easy fit with 1 John 2:19

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@VDMA LCMS I’m sorry, you leave his question entirely unanswered. He’s not asking about changes that ‘should’ come after someone is baptized, but the actual change in life that results from regeneration. Forget baptism for a moment and look at the scriptural passages that deal with regeneration. Ex Titus 3:3-5. Look at the ‘actual’ ‘coming out at the fingertips’ change that accompanies ‘the washing of regeneration’. They were ‘once’ (v3) ‘foolish’, ‘slaves to passion’, ‘disobedient’. But they are NOT anymore. There’s been an actual see it with your eyes change brought about in them. Paul isn’t saying what may be true, but of what necessarily will be true for a degenerate person. Baptism does NOT bring this about, as evidenced in most Lutheran churches.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@VDMA LCMS “I don’t know any confessional Lutheran who thinks it’s okay to live a life of unrepentant sin and think they’re safe just because they are baptized.” I’m glad, never said they did. Has nothing to do with what I’m saying. I’ll put my point simply, regeneration brings about radical transformation. Looking at scripture and people around us, baptism does not. Titus 3:3 tells of the condition of the unregenerate, these things can remain true of someone sprinkled with water in the name of the trinity. They cannot remain true of someone united to Christ and made alive by the Holy Spirit. I don’t say that out of any disrespect toward Lutherans, I appreciate many of them. I just believe their doctrine of baptism is way off.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@VDMA LCMS My friend, 1. I’m not responding to the book you wrote in the comments section on KZbin. 2.) Yes my understanding of faith would exclude infants. But that nowhere contradicts what Jesus taught. ‘Little children’ can refer to infants or small children depending on the context. Since Jesus speaks of them as coming to him obviously we’re not talking about an infant. 3) and Yes regeneration will have effects which you can see with your eyes. Faith in Christ is transformative and is itself the fruit of regeneration. I believe that’s clearly taught in scripture.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@VDMA LCMS Endurance in transformative works? Have no idea of what you’re talking about. We endure in faith in Christ by Gods power which brings works about, it’s quite simple. (1 Pet 1:5)

[@sueregan2782]

A question came up in our Bible study on baptism: Was the Baptism of John unto repentance sufficient, or did those so baptized have to be baptized again at Pentecost? What about those baptized by the disciples during Jesus’ ministry?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Acts 19:1-5

[@chaddonal4331]

@@MygoalwogelYes! This would be a baptismal parallel to belief as described in the John 6 narrative: those who belonged to God (His sheep) are transferred to faith in Jesus (His sheep) while losing none in the process. This is a time of transition from the Old Covenant of Promise to the New Covenant of Fulfillment.

[@Aaryq]

I may have missed this part. I'm not trying to ask this in a mean or rude way. But wouldn't it make more sense to reference the 1689 London Baptist Confession in response to Baptists instead of the Westminster Confession?

[@benmizrahi2889]

Many Reformed Baptists (at least those who are aware of their history) see both confessions as normative.

[@donatist59]

A Baptist is someone who believes baptism is an empty meaningless sign that doesn't actually do anything, but that absolutely MUST be done to believers by immersion.

[@chaddonal4331]

Not meaningless, but otherwise yes.

[@nealstafford9063]

Born of water refers to natural birth? Only a male born 2,000 years after the fact would say something like this. Can you imagine two women discussing childbirth, and one said, "Back in the day when my son was born of water." Nobody talks this way.

[@oracleoftroy]

This isn't a good argument. Your incredulity about how people might talk 2000 years ago in a different language and culture does not mean such an idiom didn't exist. If anything, _because_ at least one language has an idiom relating water and birth, it doesn't seem beyond imagination at all that another might as well. One would have to dive into an actual study of ancient Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew and the Israelite culture and usage of those languages to give support to whether it is plausible or not. Truth isn't determined by our feelings.

[@calebhickerson]

How many more Reformed Baptist podcasts do we need? Sheesh!

[@hi2cole]

Sheesh!!

[@johnnywatson4914]

Zero. I don't need another podcast making a mockery of Holy Baptism.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Oh we need many more.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Numerous

[@LucasAdmiraal]

Thank you Dr. Cooper. I’m curious, what do you think of John Davenant’s Baptismal Regeneration and the Perseverance of the Saints?

[@OrthodoxCatholic1]

Often Baptists claim it makes water a savior.. The John 3 born of water = natural birth interpretation is ironic considering some Baptists accuse catholics of making Mary our savior, when their exegesis makes every Christian's mother a savior since the natural birth is a requirement to then receive the new birth by Spirit.

[@hjc1402]

No because you’re reading the born of water part as necessary to see the kingdom of God and that is not how those with a Baptist interpretation are understanding it. Verse 3 only says one needs to be born again to see the kingdom of heaven, meaning born of the spirit.

[@fireflames3639]

You can't be saved unless you are born that's pretty obvious

[@zacdredge3859]

Yes, every mother saves their son or daughter from inevitably becoming stillborn through the act of childbirth.

[@OrthodoxCatholic1]

@@hjc1402because Jesus makes it a requirement: Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit--John 3:5 If it's natural birth, what's the point? Nicodemus and everyone else that can hear Jesus preaching is ALREADY born. It makes Jesus look like an idiot by even bringing it up

[@OrthodoxCatholic1]

@@fireflames3639 you imply those that aren't born aren't saved.

[@mikezeke7041]

You guys are the watchman on the wall looking in the citadel and critiquing the people as the enemy scales the wall and puts siege equipment into position

[@Eloign]

If the transfer of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Apostles then doesn't that corner us into apostolic succession?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Yup #beananglican 😬😬😬

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@anglicanaestheticsjust as broken from Rome as Lutherans

[@donhaddix3770]

water does not regenerate, the holy spirit does.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

thats like saying "Divine Jesus didn't die on the cross, human Jesus did" the water and Spirit are linked by sacramental union

[@donhaddix3770]

@@jalapeno.tabasco exactly. the water and Spirit are linked by sacramental union verse?

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

@@donhaddix3770 John 3:5, titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

@@donhaddix3770 ”Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.“ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭25‬-‭27‬ ‭

[@chaddonal4331]

@@jalapeno.tabascoAre you suggesting that the Trinity was broken from the cross to the resurrection and the 2nd person of the divine TriUnity was deceased?

[@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 . ==================================================================== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[@nilsalmgren4492]

If it is not stated in the Bible, then it is man's logic...which Paul writes is fine but unimportant.

[@1920s]

Very helpful.

[@codybancroft9147]

Dr. Cooper, if you could do a walk through of the Gospel according to St. John in general in reference to the Sacraments, that would be great!

[@TheRoark]

I would have to disagree with the empty sign language, as it isn’t empty if it gives some form of grace to the recipient. Just because it doesn’t give regeneration doesn’t mean it doesn’t deliver grace. Is the only grace in Lutheran theology regenerative grace? Thanks

[@chaddonal4331]

This is a good question! To follow, what is meant by giving/delivering grace if not meaning that which effectuates actual salvation? The RCC system seems to rely on an accrual of graces, wherein you hope to have reached a necessary threshold (at least to avoid or minimize pergatory). But in the legal code of Lutheranism where you are declared righteous by faith, how much grace is needed to have justifying faith? Does baptism into regeneration distribute sufficient grace necessary for saving faith?

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :)

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 . :)

[@markcharlesmay4289]

Can you do a video that goes deeper into 1 Peter 3 because you seem to often stop short of “now saves you” but the entire passage is, “Baptism, which corresponds to this [the ark bringing Noah and his family to safety], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:21-22‬ ‭ESV‬‬ In what sense is someone who has no prior faith or who has never heard and understood the gospel able to make an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ? This seems to preclude infants. I’m baptist and wanted to know your thoughts on this, and if you’ve already gone through that elsewhere, my apologies.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

From the little I understand, Lutherans believe in what is called the doctrine of infantile faith. They believe the word of God goes out in effectual power and is effective in saving sinners unless it is resisted. Infants don’t have the ability to resist and therefore the word and sacrament(baptism) actually saves them. I believe it’s unbiblical, but from what I understand it’s what they believe.

[@IvanAgram]

So God decided that man has to be immersed in water in order to regenerate him. Repenting and believing is not enough. Nope. God Almighty decided He doesn't want to do it unless one has been immersed in H2O. Yup, sounds legit. It is far more likely that God doesn't need these rituals distribute grace. So I think that following is biblical and Baptismal Regeneration is a Romanist leftover. Water baptism is a symbol of Baptism in the Spirit and Christ. Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Eucharist is a symbol of receiving Jesus Christ in faith. John 6:35 “I am the bread of life. Whoever COMES to Me will never hunger, and whoever BELIEVES in Me will never thirst.

[@stevew4079]

I’m writing this barely half way, but after all the ‘empty sign, empty sign, empty sign’ comments...it simply struck me like this: Wedding rings, ceremonies, vows, feasts, dresses.... Empty sign? Hardly!! But a wedding (and all the symbols that go with it)...is definitely not a marriage. Pushing that even further, contrary to what someone might start to think k as they ponder this..,the wedding doesn’t actually make you married (regeneration). No, not even the vows. The *spirit*ual commitment to eachother, that begins (and continues daily) is the marriage. The wedding, and even the vows, are the powerful symbols for the couple - and the community - to look back on.

[@stevew4079]

Oh, and I say this wishing i could be Lutheran (Luther is probably one of my earliest heroes). Still researching and hoping, but sadly, I doubt it

[@johnnywatson4914]

"In a sense." Lol. 🙄

[@mysticmouse7261]

We are not born of amniotic fluid. We are born after amniotic fluid. Grasping at very wet straws.

[@huntsman528]

I assume you've never been involved in a birth....

[@SamuelMoerbe]

Does he have to be in order to hold the correct point?

[@critical_mass6453]

I think the main problem here on the baptism issue is that people, like this gentleman, argue from an 'ism' like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, catechisms writen by men who are merely men with their own interpretations, as flawed or correct as they are. An important thing to do is read the scriptures on your own without the 'tradition' aspect of whatever denomination you have the most influence from and really open your eyes to see if what you read realllllly says what your denominations traditions or catechisms say. Yes there are wiser people than me but when I comes to some of these issues I want to make sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding my understanding of the Scripures rather than ascribing to the teaching and interpretations of others.

[@Athabrose]

How do you know if the spirit is guiding you?

[@mtl98-n9g]

I can feel it in my tummy. I get all firezed up!!!

[@peacengrease3901]

No. I respect your opinion but have to disagree. Former Baptist here. As much good as might come of your suggestion, often our own biases cloud our interpretation. The Holy Spirit so caused it that every single Apostolic Father and subsequent church father who spoke about the issue, Every Single One of Them, taught baptismal regeneration. As a former Baptist evangelist, I was shocked they often used John 3:5 as a self evident proof text. Over the course of studying it the last 6.5 years, this came as a rude awakening because I saw many people make decisions for Christ and saw God at work in that way. But it was a necessary awakening to truth that caused me to see baptismal regeneration as normative, whereas in God's grace and patience, he allows for the excesses of modern Evangelicalism. I am still an evangelical but truth won out over evangelistic pragmatism. Or think of it this way. If the Fathers were so chronologically close to the Apostles and some were even discipled by the Apostles, then why would they depart so strongly, so quickly, and so universally from credo baptism or covenant baptism, if that is in fact what they taught? The answer that makes the most obvious sense is that the Apostles must've taught baptismal regeneration. I had no choice. I had to become either Anglican or Lutheran. But that story is for another time.

[@mtl98-n9g]

“I am still an evangelical“ - Lutherans were and still are the first evangelicals. Most older Lutheran churches have Evangelical in their name. The church i am a member is called St John Lutheran but the official church name is St John Evangelical Lutheran, Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

[@peacengrease3901]

@@mtl98-n9g Thank you, my point is that in other words, there is/was not a need to convert to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

[@firdeleafe6995]

All the ads for this video were for the Mormon church. Why do you feel the need to use ads?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

A completely gnostic view in baptism

[@Iffmeister]

do you mean baptismal regeneration is gnostic or the baptist view is gnostic

[@Biblia1]

Absolutely true!! There is no any power in a ceremony or rite. Just Jesus has that power.

[@Iffmeister]

@@Biblia1 no, baptism does have saving power BECAUSE Christ is present in it

[@Eloign]

@@Biblia1 The incarnation means that the sacrements do have power.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@Iffmeister baptist view on baptism denies the physical

[@adampetersen4795]

You can sense the insecurity in these guys in their demeanor. The way they huddle together.. no confidence in their own convictions.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

If Baptism is an empty sign for the ‘Reformed’ then surely it is for the Lutheran as well. In scripture, Union with Christ and regeneration bring about ‘actual’ ‘see it with your own eyes’ change. (Compare Tit 3:3 w/ 3:5). When it’s obvious from scripture (Simon the Magician Acts 8) and experience (most Lutherans I’ve met) that water baptism does not bring this about. Lutherans believe baptism is an empty sign. “Put down Schaff, and pick up Paul! HAYMAN RIGHT THERE!” Lol

[@mysticmouse7261]

Two phrases or words that weaken and perpetuate debate are 'in a sense" and 'perspective'.

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :)

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". :) :)

[@Biblia1]

Baptism doesn’t save itself. Just Jesus does it.

[@tatogl2616]

Faith doesn't save. Just Jesus does it.

[@Biblia1]

@@tatogl2616 Faith is a means, not a subject of a sentence like in 1 Peter 3:21. Huge difference

[@Biblia1]

@VDMA LCMS You just went to the antiquity phallacy, to me of fathers saw it one way or other is not relevant at all. H2O cannot save. Just jesus does it. Period!

[@Biblia1]

@VDMA LCMS “WITH THE WORD”? Is that what Greek says? No. What is the verb mood of washing, santifying in the Greek? No syntax attached. Now you make a pinching 🤏strategy, when it says “word” you assume it means some commands. No sir!! I don’t need inferences that come from reading into the text. I need clear evidence.

[@Biblia1]

@VDMA LCMS Just if you see it through your theology lens. Gal. 3:27 can be compared to Rom 13:14 the same word is used there. Was Paul teaching them to be baptized again? Of course not. When you see the whole chapter 3 of Galatian you will find the word faith 13 times, and the very verse 26 says that is by faith that we are children of God. Rom 6 doesn’t teach that baptism saved. In fact it mentions the word likeness, implying shadow, not reality, and if you go to verse 7 that obedience is caused because God handed over to the doctrine so we can obey, that is because of the passive voice of the Greek language as Charles Lee points out. Acts 2:38, read the Hermeneutic frame Peter used by going to Joel 2:28-32 that multitud in front of Peter was called the remnant, and Paul refferred to them as saved by grace in Rom 11:1-5. Additionally, ver 39 of Acts 2 precedes chronologically to V 38 due to the causal γαρ, by the way there is a υμην in dative case that implies possession and advantage so there was not way that causal promise and prophecy could have failed. Finally, if baptism regenerates or saves by itself, Cornelius and his family was still condemned even having received the Holy Spirit, and Samaritan in Acts 8 were saved by water without having received the Spirit, the same for Ephesians’ descuides in Chapter 19 of Acts since both groups received the Holy Spirit by hand layer of the Apostle, not baptism itself. Acts 22:16, yes it has to do with a específic case. Paul letters had not written yet and what baptism meant for him it doesn’t mean for us. It was a transitional period. Why do you take Ananías word just if verse 16, and not his whole words getting together all Paul’s narratives and making doctrines out of them. Ah, because you use what is convenient. Mark 16:16, it is spurious, it has 4 endings, why taking this one. Why do you validate verse 16, and not 18-21? And I could continue, but it will be waisting if time. Only jesus by faith SAVES, 150 verses confirms it. Titos 3:5 Greek grammar allows for understanding water there attached to the action of the Holy Spirit, since the genitive a can be subjective, and it fits better with the idea of having been saved NOT BY SAVING WORKS WE DID in the past. REFUTED, DEBUNKED. It is not just citing verses with no analysis at all.