The Relationship Between Justification and Baptism: A Final Response to Patrick Ramsey

[@lutherserbe6435]

I do this comment because I love your work and it's unfair that you are not more popular.

[@boastonlyinthecross]

This was so incredibly helpful and edifying!! I especially loved the “getting fiery “ section!! God bless you, brother!!

[@jacobstefanec7683]

You should do a video arguing against the view Baptists often hold that there are multiple baptisms (baptism of the Spirit, baptism of water). Someone tried to tell me that the “our bodies washed with pure water” in Hebrews 10:22 refers to “Spirit baptism”. It’s a weird distinction.

[@tatogl2616]

YESSS! I don't know how many times i have heard this weird argument from baptist and don't really know how to respond

[@jaredquick5779]

It’s in the book of Acts!

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

Former Baptist here: John the Baptist said he baptized with baptism of repentance but one was coming who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. But we did not mean speaking in to tongues like Pentecostals mean by baptism of the Holy Spirit. That’s why you might hear a Baptist say there are two-water and Spirit like what Jesus said to Nicodemus.

[@christian-q3v]

doctor jordan Thank you for your contents. I am from Ethiopia Evangelical Church, Mekaneyesus, a Lutheran denomination. I want to know deeply about my denomination. What resource would you recommend to me? I look forward to your response.

[@vincent8943]

13:00 how baptism is not a work even though it is commanded

[@mikeparker840]

Good stuff Dr. Cooper!

[@judithtaylor6713]

Yes. Very helpful. Thank you.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I like the idea that we can look back to our baptism and have assurance that we are justified. But Lutheranism says faith is created in baptism. What then of all who believe who are not baptized? And, if they are justified, then why is baptism necessary as a means of grace?

[@charliecampbell6851]

Faith is created in baptism. Faith can also be created by the hearing/preaching of the Word. Scripture speaks of being born again only a few times very specifically, and those times are discussing preaching and baptism. As for the second question, Christ says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who do not believe will be condemned. Thus we say that it is ordinarily necessary to be baptized to be saved.

[@mattmessuh]

I often hear you (and Lutherans generally) say something like, “sola fide flows from Luther’s view of baptism” which to me, in my VERY limited study in Luther, just seems backwards. Of course he held to baptismal regeneration, but it seems like his doctrine of sola fide then *informed* his doctrine of baptism, and of course does a great job of making them work together, rather than the other way around. It seems like his study of salvation affected his doctrine of sacraments, rather than his study of sacraments convincing him of sola fide. I’m open to correction, knowing that I have not studied Luther much at all. Thanks for the podcast :) Grace and Peace.

[@j.g.4942]

I thought Luther started with the righteousness of Christ; given to us in baptism as Romans teaches. A better read person will hopefully answer

[@toddhollis]

I love the content. I am a seminary student and writing a research paper on justification and post baptismal sins. Any academic sources you recommend?

[@Iffmeister]

Claiming baptismal regeneration is heresy makes the Nicene Creed heresy. That's so foolish to believe.

[@Ben_G_Biegler]

This is verry interesting coming from more of a reformed prespective I have always thought baptism and circumcision were tied and this argument kept me from accepting baptismal efficacy for a while. I do wonder though if circumcision and baptism are not equitable were infants saved in the old testement?

[@MyName42]

I've watched most of your baptism videos and found them very helpful. I guess here's my last question on the subject that I haven't seen you address: What is the big difference between a Lutheran view and a Roman Catholic view on baptism? What's wrong with the "baptism of desire, baptism of blood, baptism of water" division, if anything? Is there any problem with talking about baptism putting us in a "state of grace" that we can then lose and must reacquire through confession? I assume there are differences here, but I'd be curious to hear you outline them.

[@Scum_and_Villainy]

People who say Baptism is a work reminds me of people who say Repentance is a work therefore you don’t have to repent … like what!

[@Robofish22877]

As an LCMS Lutheran, who still gets confused by this stuff, would it be correct to say that Christ won forgiveness of sins for the elect on the cross 2000 years ago, and that we receive the benefits, through faith, by a means of grace such as the spoken word, baptism, or the eucharist? Would it also be correct to say that the means of grace offer additional benefits beyond forgiveness of sins depending on the means, such as baptism killing our old man and putting us into Christ or the word generating faith and repentance?

[@jamesbarksdale978]

LOL! 😂 I'm also Lutheran and perplexed by Lutheran theology on many levels. If you want to become even more confused just watch Dr Cooper's video comparing Calvinism's TULIP and Lutheranism. Regarding your comment/question, I think Lutheranism would teach that Christ's death and resurrection win forgiveness for the whole world (objective justification), but it is received through the means of grace, particularly baptism (subjective justification). Certainly, we re-experience our justification daily as we remember our baptism. But the "additional benefits" that you refer to, I think, are more closely connected with holy communion. Hope this is helpful. It seems to me that Luther initiated what we now call Reformed Theology, but never worked out it's logical implications. John Calvin would be the one to do that. Because he didn't we're stuck with a bunch of paradoxes, or maybe outright contradictions. Lots of loose ends! It's a tough place to be when people are wanting clear answers to their questions.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

About 35:10, you said there's no precedent in Galatians for saying that baptism is a work of the law. On a different note, but not totally unrelated, what precedent is there for saying that it's a work for a person to volitionally place their faith in Christ?

[@charliecampbell6851]

God is the one acting in baptism. The baptism recipient is passive. Decision theology, on the other hand, requires willed actions on behalf of the person to go from being damned to being saved. Thus it is more of a work-based view of salvation. Scripture says we are spiritually dead before faith, and dead people can't act on behalf of themselves or anyone. God must make the first move of breathing his spirit into us.

[@wesmorgan7729]

I've gotten several beard products ads during this one video 😂

[@juliasaurus-wrecks1995]

Would it be proper to say that Holy Baptism is related to Holy Absolution when a previously believing adult or child is baptized? Oh, wait, it's a means of grace! Duh! I heard your answer after posting the comment. However, I'll leave this question up anyway. It may create an interesting discussion.

[@B27-o2c]

I consider baptism to be God’s work of regeneration and unification with Christ. That is a promise associated with the Word of God attached to the water. However, that promise is only realized and received by faith (which is also God’s gift. That is why even a baptized person who does not believe and acknowledge God’s lordship will be damned. But whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

[@markhorton3994]

Circumcision was an outward sign by Hebrews of the promise made starting with Abraham to obey God's Law. No one has ever been able to keep that promise.

[@markhorton3994]

If Baptismal Regeneration is heresy then Zwingli was the first Christian!

[@josueinhan8436]

We need, however, to observe that since from the early church this approach was never unanimous. I did not read it yet, but there is a book from Everett Ferguson that treats about all of these issues. It's called "Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries". We must consider it berfore taking any ou another position.

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

@@josueinhan8436 Ferguson in his book argues that both the Bible and the Church Fathers believed that baptism saves

[@Iffmeister]

@@josueinhan8436 I've read the Fathers. It is unanimous

[@markhorton3994]

@@Iffmeister Did Marcian and Arius agree too or are you leaving them out because they were heretics? There were others whose opinions are respected by some and rejected by others (from their own times until now) whose opinion on justification varies from each other and later writers. Do they all agree too? Majority opinion, obviously but unanimous?

[@Iffmeister]

@@markhorton3994 even the heretics agreed that baptism saves

[@liudvikas6534]

Dude have you heard about the thief on the cross.

[@johnnywatson4914]

*Mark Driscoll intensifies*

[@TheDroc1990]

First! 🍿

[@TheDroc1990]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge its just a thing man

[@joshuaolson3645]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge realize that you have your sphincter in a bunch because people are intentionally just being silly. Your having to make complete character judgments based on something so miner says more about you than anything we've done says about us.

[@toomanymarys7355]

If water baptism is the means of regeneration, then people who aren't able to be baptized at conversion or adhere to credobaptism and delay it should not be regenerate. However, I know many converts in countries where baptism is impossible for them, and I can assure you that they are regenerate long before they are able to secure a baptism. Nor are Lutheran children better behaved than Baptist, for instance, which you would expect if an infant were truly regenerate!!!! If it made babies regenerate, you wouldn't have any credobaptists, because the fruit that necessarily stems from regeneration. Lol. I have no problem with pedobaptism, actually, after a long study of baptism, but I don't believe it either provides regeneration nor keeps believers from it. My theology is now almost completely confessional Lutheran at this point, but this is a place where I am unable to see agreement.

[@charliecampbell6851]

Strange. Baptismal regeneration is completely unanimous in the church fathers and church history (including Arius and most condemned heretics!) and is strongly attested and confessed as early as the 1st century. Before Revelation was written, before scripture was canonized, before the word "Trinity" was used, before the apostles had all died, baptismal regeneration was taught by the church.

[@toomanymarys7355]

@charliecampbell6851 I think you misunderstand the way the Fathers spoke. They always used the sign for the signified. That doesn't mean they thought the sign was the same as the signified. You'd say the universally taught that the cross itself is the means of salvation, on the same basis. But that is clearly not what they meant. And no, that is not what Acts or the apostles taught, so try again.

[@charliecampbell6851]

@ can you show me what direct quotes from the fathers you think go against baptismal efficacy? We have efficacy as early as the didache.... probably earlier in a father than that. Everyone believed it forgave sins, so oftentimes it was delayed until right before death.

[@toomanymarys7355]

@charliecampbell6851 Again, they speak of it as they do the cross. The didache has a description of baptism that excludes infants, and infant baptism was imposed only in 360. Why is that? Did they want babies who died suddenly to go to hell? Why was there a period of catechism by the didache? Again, should no converts go to hell if they died unexpectedly?

[@charliecampbell6851]

@ the issue here is baptismal regeneration. The didache teaches baptismal efficacy. Baptism is a means of regeneration. Scripture clearly, clearly says this with the "washing of regeneration." Faith can come through hearing the word preached as well. We are condemned by unbelief, not by unbaptism. We are saved by belief and baptism. "Those who believe and are baptized will be saved, and those who do not believe will be condemned." Regeneration is equated with justification in the Augsburg confession. Therefore it comes from the means of grace. So those not baptized but who have been granted faith are indeed called regenerate as well as those who are baptized.

[@joshuaolson3645]

Second

[@johnnywatson4914]

You're either first, or you're last.

[@markhorton3994]

Don't care!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Cool.

[@markhorton3994]

@@jameswillison7195 What I don't care about is how many people have commented before me. When I made that comment the only others were brags about how soon they commented.

[@TheDroc1990]

@@markhorton3994 Its just a joke/stupid trend..

[@markhorton3994]

@@TheDroc1990 I know. I was opting out of the frivolity.

[@markhorton3994]

@@jameswillison7195 True but when I commented there were no serious comments.

[@vincent8943]

13:00 how baptism is not a work even though it is commanded