REBUTTING Gavin Ortlund on baptismal regeneration

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I appreciate the shout out sir.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Hey! Thanks for stopping by! Hopefully you and I can collaborate or dialogue at some point as well.

[@SpotterVideo]

A person must be baptized to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below. Eating Kosher is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Circumcision of male children is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Trimming your beard according to the Law of Moses is not unbiblical, but it is not required under the New Covenant. Water baptisms were a part of the Old Covenant, but they are not required under the New Covenant. The proof is found below. John baptized with water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Which one is related to salvation, based on Romans 8:9? . Heb. 9:10 (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them . (Old Covenant ------> New Covenant) . 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, (What is the one baptism of our faith here, based on Eph. 1:12-13, and 1 Cor. 12:13?) . 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, . 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. 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. . Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 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. . Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (See Mark 1:8.)

[@NeilRaleigh]

If you’re a Protestant who finds Gavin Ortlund to be a trustworthy source on controversial Christian doctrines like baptism, just consider that Gavin essentially admits no church father could be a minister at his church. Just think about that. No early church father could be a minister at your church due to their teaching on baptism.

[@riverjao]

As a Protestant pastor who reads the Church Fathers I can def say: if anything is universal among the Fathers and throughout church history it’s baptismal regeneration.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

But how about the earliest and highest ranking of all early church fathers - The Apostles of Christ? If those 'early church fathers' that came after the Apostles disagree with the Apostles, which should be chosen over the other?

[@riverjao]

@@soulosxpiotov7280 Are you saying that the disciples of the Apostles either didn't know what they taught, or purposefully changed their teachings?

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

@@riverjao You mean the very next generation. Goodness, we have that today. Even children of godly pastors, went to Bible school, went to the mission field, and then, all of a sudden..."hmm, I think I'm going to change my mind about this." Priority goes to the writings of the Holy Spirit (who is God, and thus what He wrote was perfect) through the Apostles and also Jude, Mark and Luke, over the writings of those come after them. The Holy Spirit trumps them all, and the Apostles outrank those who came after them.

[@riverjao]

@@soulosxpiotov7280 I agree (Scripture being our basis) and I’d say your examples are def adequate. It’s still, however, difficult for me to believe that the entire Church missed this very important doctrine for 1500 years. I suppose it’s possible, but I find it incredibly unlikely. Of all the heresies that came up, the doctrines that had to be unpacked, solidified, sharpened, etc., the various, often conflicting, doctrines that we’re worked through, and just all the early Church issues in general. one of the few that were universally agreed upon was forgiveness and regeneration being wrought through baptism. The East, the West, everyone (from what we know) held to this teaching. And the vast majority of Christian’s throughout all time, including today, did/do as well. I’m not even necessarily saying that I fully hold to it. But for me it’s hard to ignore it’s possible validity at the very least. May I ask if you’re part of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition?

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

@@riverjao Here's the thing, Mr. Orick (not sure if you're still a pastor), those who come to faith in Christ - at that very moment - are in fact baptized. Spiritually baptized. Spiritually baptized (fully immersed into Christ, in union with and in Christ, fully immersed by the Holy Spirit), and hence, "baptismal regeneration" although not by water. . There is such a thing as an ongoing baptism, and that is the 'full immersion' of a clean conscience, which I take to mean there is no more fear of not being right with God. . Was I baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit at the onset of saving faith? Yes. Was I baptized later, thereafter, into water? Yes. Am I 'fully immersed' with a clean conscience, in that I fully believe I am truly saved, No More Wrath? Well, 99.98% of the time. . So, the question is, when the 'early church fathers' spoke of 'baptismal regeneration', what did they mean? Although I'm pretty sure they believed baptism of fire was something else

[@cactoidjim1477]

Weird thing, when I was Baptized as a Baptist in the mighty Humptulips River (yes, that's really its' name - no I don't know how much alcohol was involved in naming it) there was a *real* change in my life. One I was not expecting. One I was not taught to expect. Fun fact: the pastor who Baptized me also later became Catholic - totally unbeknownst to me, and for different reasons.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

You gained the Holy Spirit

[@SpotterVideo]

The Word “Baptize”: 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,

[@joecastillo8798]

@@SpotterVideo Mr. Spotter, Understand, water is the material vehicle by which God wants to apply His regenerative grace. Just as it happened originally with Moses. I’d like for you to focus on the allegorical sense of the story of Moses. St Augustine saw the entire story of Moses as an allegory or analogy of our struggle with sin, and our calling from Christ to come out of our sinfulness, to make our own personal exodus to the promised land of Christ. When we see the story of Moses through this lense it takes on an entirely new light. “Allegorically, sinful man serves the devil, typified by the Pharaoh, and is forced to labor in the mud of earthly desires. But when Christ offers to lighten our burden, we are led through the sea of Baptism, where he destroys the sins that enslaved us.” -St Augustine Seeing this story as St Augustine did, we can see that it’s no longer just a story of political, civil, and religious tyranny, but now we can see ourselves right there with the Israelites as they, and we, struggle to free ourselves (with the grace of God) from our earthly desires. We can also see that the crossing of the Red Sea is a cleansing of for the people of Israel before they enter into the presence of God at Mt Sinai, and later in the promise land. This cleansing will be replayed by them when they take ritual baths in mikvahs to cleanse before Yom Kippur, also anyone converting to Judaism is ritually bathed in a mikvah. To the Jews it was symbolic, but we believe that when we are baptized it is efficacious for the removal of original and any other sin. The Catechism makes this connection between the crossing of the Red Sea and baptism: CCC 1221: But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism: “You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh, bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea, to be an image of the people set free in Baptism.” May God bless your discernment.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@joecastillo8798 How about Korah and the others who rebelled against Moses? God had saved them at the Red Sea, but the ground opened up and swallowed them when they rebelled against Moses. Do you expect to see those people in heaven? Nobody is saved without going through the process below. 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,

[@joecastillo8798]

@@SpotterVideo Mr. Spotter, I suggest you stop pretending to know God's Will. It is God's prerrogative to save or not anyone. He knows what you'd never know and what we need to know. His Church, the Catholic Church inspired always by the Spirit of Truth, will teach it, just like Jesus said: "He who listens to you, LISTENS TO ME". (Luke 10:16) So, I suggest you start listening to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Pillar and foundation of the Truth, in order to know the truth. May God bless your discernment.

[@GratiaPrima_]

Thank God for giving us baptism through Christ. ❤️ As a former Baptist, I was quite surprised to hear Gavin say it is NOT just a symbol. Interesting.

[@domo3699]

@YAJUN YUAN Ummm, not really. Verb "baptiso" in Greek is indeed used mostly as meaning "immersion" in the Bible, but it means washing or sprinkling at few places. To know if it means only immersion in the context of the Sacrament we need to look how first Church did it. And we literally have FIRST CENTURY account that sprinkling of water suffices in the Didache, a text that was written by Apostles themselves (or someone who wrote their teachings).

[@domo3699]

@YAJUN YUAN I said that baptizo GENERALLY means to immerse, but it is not the only meaning. Catechism is correct to translate it as that in a general sense, but it doesn't encompass every particular case.

[@domo3699]

@YAJUN YUAN OK, pouring... That happens in Catholic infant Baptism on the head of a child, sprinkling is a weak word. If some act isn't intrinsically wrong then prescribing usage of it is subject to disciplinary reversible change. In the first Church mostly adults were baptized, currently those are children and I would say that immersing a baby three times in a water isn't quite the best way to do it for the benefit of the infant, Church acts out of mercy for child. So, in some manner Didache's "extraordinary circumstances" are there. I think that catechumens are still immersed on Easter Vigil.

[@dlfincher6887]

I agree. I had a broad education and NEVER once heard anything but the symbolic view.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@Phil Andrew " not the removal of dirt from the flesh "which equates to the physical ritual of water. Verse 20 " the water " is actually the water of John 3 not Christian baptism.

[@serviam4161]

Excellent video, Trent. Keep them coming! St. Justin Martyr "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their past sins, we pray and fast with them. *Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same way we were ourselves regenerated.* For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. *For Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]"* [First Apology 61]. Origen *"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. **19:14**; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39].* For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the *innate stain of sin,* which must be washed away through water and the Spirit' [Titus 3:5]" [Commentaries on Romans 5:9]. St. Theophilus of Antioch "On the fifth day [of creation] the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, *through the water and laver of regeneration, - as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God"* [To Autolycus, Bk II]. St. Hippolytus of Rome "Perhaps someone will ask, 'What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?' In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, *being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: 'Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'* Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation" [Homilies 11:26]. St. Cyprian of Carthage "[H]ow much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, *being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth,* who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of forgiveness of sins, that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another" [Epistle 58]. St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage "Therefore, my beloved, we also have received of the Spirit of Christ, and Christ dwells in us, as it is written that the Spirit said this through the mouth of the Prophet: I will dwell in them and will walk in them. Therefore let us prepare our temples for the Spirit of Christ, and let us not grieve it that it may not depart from us. Remember the warning that the Apostle gives us: Grieve not the Holy Spirit whereby you have been sealed unto the day of redemption. For from baptism do we receive the Spirit of Christ. For in that hour in which the priests invoke the Spirit, the heavens open and it descends and moves upon the waters. And those that are baptized are clothed in it; *for the Spirit stays aloof from all that are born of the flesh, until they come to the new birth by water, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . ."* [Sixth Demonstration]. St. Cyril of Jerusalem "But now the holy day of the Passover is at hand, and you, beloved in Christ, are to be enlightened by the *Laver of regeneration.* You shall therefore again be taught what is requisite, if God so will; with how great devotion and order you must enter in when summoned, for what purpose each of the holy mysteries of Baptism is performed, and with what reverence and order you must go from Baptism to the Holy Altar of God, and enjoy its spiritual and heavenly mysteries; that your souls being previously enlightened by the word of doctrine, you may discover in each particular the greatness of the gifts bestowed on you by God" [Catechetical Lecture 18]. St. John Chrysostom *"For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord [the Eucharist] and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life,* and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head. Wherefore they might not only be more justly feared by us than rulers and kings, but also be more honored than parents; since these begot us of blood and the will of the flesh, but the others are the authors of our birth from God, even that blessed regeneration which is the true freedom and the sonship according to grace" [On the Priesthood, Book III]. St. Jerome Hieronymus *"Of those engendered of the seed of Adam no man is born without sin, and it is necessary even for babes to be born anew in Christ by the grace of regeneration"* [Letter 144].

[@Vinsanity997]

Thank you for posting 🙏

[@davidball7111]

I think Gavin is a great person to talk to and I really respect his intentions and methods. I pray these debates shed light on misinterpretations, and the Gavin can approach the true church in time.

[@mynameis......23]

I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” AMEN and AMEN.. ..

[@jeremiahong248]

@@mynameis......23 Get behind me Troll

[@joea8842]

@@mynameis......23 again, no proof. There was no mention of your name in the proof text you used. I've seen you've posted this same comment on several videos. There's no need for anyone to take this seriously

[@deus_vult8111]

@@jeremiahong248 Judges 5:24 says Jael is blessed above men.

[@deus_vult8111]

Mary Worship is Wrong!

[@dlfincher6887]

I want to be charitable to Gavin, but as a lifelong Baptist educated by some of Evangelicalism’s best (as a pastor), when I saw the historical & scriptural evidence, the issue was (slowly & painfully) settled in favor of baptismal regeneration. The fact that ZERO church Fathers could pastor his church, but perhaps that they might be invited to discuss certain topics in a dialog, reveals the status of Gavin and his church as SEPARATED from the one true Church of history founded by Christ. The attitude that, on this issue, nuance is needed; that the truth about an issue so foundational to salvation and the gospel is somehow so mysterious that a plain reading of scripture and the universal testimony of the Church (especially the Apostolic Fathers) is insufficient to discover the truth is just (literally) non-sense. This kind of thinking and argumentation is exactly what led to Arianism and nearly every other heresy. The fact that Dr Ortland has no authority greater than his own rational mind in deciding matters of life and death for eternal souls (for whom he will give account) is VERY concerning. This is not an academic game of ideas. The consequences are too grave.

[@SpotterVideo]

The Word “Baptize”: 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,

[@timtaft8585]

//The attitude that, on this issue, nuance is needed; that the truth about an issue so foundational to salvation and the gospel is somehow so mysterious that a plain reading of scripture and the universal testimony of the Church (especially the Apostolic Fathers) is insufficient to discover the truth is just (literally) nonsense.// This just sounds like inconsistency to me. “Why do you Protestants have to make something salvific like baptism so complicated?” “You Protestants need to stop simplifying a complex salvific topic like justification!” For the record, I’m open to baptismal regeneration and have defended it before myself, I’m just saying though that it’s inconsistent to get upset with Protestants for (allegedly) simplifying the doctrine of justification and then get mad at them for seeing nuance and complexity in the doctrine of baptism.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

"baptism now saves you" in 1 Peter 3:21 - in the Greek is 'now savING you", in that the 'saving' is in the Present Indicative Active. What this means is: it is current action in the present time, it is true, and you are the one baptizing, that is, you're baptizing yourself. Not anyone else holding a squirt bottle of water continuously squirting you with water - no, you are continually squirting yourself. Hence, this would not be true of literal water, but this would be true of one's clean conscience.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

In Acts 10, the Gentiles came to faith in Christ, spiritually baptized.....prior to....being baptized into water. Faith in Christ precedes water baptism.

[@dlfincher6887]

@@soulosxpiotov7280 Strange that Saul/Paul’s experience doesn’t agree (Acts 22). He obviously had whatever spiritual experience you speak of (had been “born again” in Evangelical terms) on the Damascus road. He repented, believed in Christ and obeyed Christ. But he was told that he needed to be baptized to have his sins washed away “as he called on the name of the Lord” (vs 16). It certainly appears that “calling on the name of the Lord” that saves, something St Paul would quote in Romans, happens in the waters of baptism.

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

I find it interesting he decides to add complexity and splitting of hairs to something as simple as baptism just to get around the Catholic (and historical) view of baptism. But when it comes to something like the Eucharist, they refuse to look past anything but "do this in remembrance of me" for evidence of the presence of Christ. The "it's not just a symbol" surprised me coming out of a baptist bc that is 100% the only thing I ever heard from baptists growing up in the South. In common congregation members that is how it is viewed - just as a thing you should do if you answer an altar call, but that's it is nothing more than a symbol.

[@zacharynelson5731]

Yeah there’s a lot of people whose religion is “not catholic”. I’ve interacted with some who will even deny the divine inspiration of scripture before they’ll admit that the church is correct on anything

[@marteld2108]

This is why Protestantism is “spiritual anarchy.” One Baptist says symbol…Ortlund says not a symbol.

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

@YAJUN YUAN Trent has some great videos about why and how we see the Eucharist the way we do - which was the universal view until the Reformation. I'd encourage you to watch some of them. :) it's a beautiful teaching. I'm a convert to the faith myself and learning and accepting the Eucharist has been life changing in so many ways.

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

@YAJUN YUAN not having a unified definition of essential issues of the Faith is indeed a problem. Every man becomes his own bible interpreter, and they can't all be right.

[@sergeirachmaninoff6106]

I'm pretty sure Gavin affirms the real presence (in the Reformed definition).

[@ScripturalMormonism]

Trent, as much as we disagree on many core doctrines, your work on baptismal regeneration (here and in The Case for Catholicism) is top-notch material.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thanks!

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN Which deny it?

[@frederickanderson1860]

Nonsense what did it mean to the jews in jesus day,ever thought about that. The jews have no say tegards their own scriptures.

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN You have a double standard for what constitutes evidence.

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN You really like the shotgun fallacy don't you? There is positive evidence. You already know this.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." Honestly, I don't know how it could get much clearer than this. If ever you needed proof that _sola scriptura_ does not work, that well-intentioned, intelligent, serious people who are dedicating _their very lives_ to Christ and to the study of his truth can look at the same scriptures (even the very simplest and most straightforward ones) and come to diametrically opposed conclusions, this is it. Each human is free to think for himself, free to submit to the Church's teaching or reject it. He can think whatever he wants to about this verse, but if he's going to deny the obvious, plain meaning of the verse, and then turn around and call scripture "perspicuous" or say "the main things are the plain things," then he is completely intellectually bankrupt.

[@EpoRose1]

Yeah, but Jesus isn’t just a man taking another man’s sin- He’s God-made-man.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

By the way, aside from the silliness of using one's own personal anecdotal experience as some kind of argument against the plain, traditional, 2,000-year-old interpretation of God's word, and assuming one can identify regeneration with mere human senses and faculties, I want to point out that it's possible the reason Gavin only ever sees people who "appear regenerated" before their baptism is _because_ it's a Baptist congregation. Like yeah of course you're not going to find people who don't act like Christians before their baptism, because you don't baptize people before they're Christian. Your whole system revolves around having faith first, being baptized second. So you systematically prevent yourself from ever observing disconfirming evidence. And if you teach people that baptism is just a sign, you're priming them with a kind of placebo effect _and_ a nocebo effect. So they're less inhibited prior to baptism, thinking that they might already be saved, and are liable to act like it. Just like pentecostalists will act out all sorts of spiritual gifts because they expect such spiritual gifts to be given to them, whether or not those gifts are really divine in origin, or are merely the result of suggestion. Then, Baptists are less likely to have a profound experience _in response_ to baptism, because the teaching to which they are systematically subjected, usually from birth, implies that baptism does not have any mystical effects. By the time they've been baptized, they're already acclimated to Christianity. The honeymoon phase is over. They've already been developing a personal relationship with Christ and have regarded themselves as "born again" for 8, maybe even 12 years. So why would they expect to be "born again" again after baptism? There isn't necessarily going to be a profound experience or some kind of outward mystical vagary, because the Holy Spirit isn't magic. The way a person experiences it is ultimately filtered through all the other modalities and quirks of human consciousness, including suggestion and acclimation. The Bible never teaches that baptism invariably produces religious experiences or causes an immediate change in behavior. It also never teaches that someone can't be intellectually moved to holiness before baptism. What it teaches is that baptism washes away sins, sealing our salvation. What a surprise - two immaterial effects, invisible to the naked eye.

[@charliek2557]

Amen

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@Roger Mills Hi, Roger. You've replied to Toxic, and then to Rose. In each case you were displaying yourself aggressive, hostile, and contemptuous. In order to assess whether it is meaningful for me to engage the particular matters under consideration, I have a couple of questions. The first is to ask you what your cult believes. The second is to ask you whether it fits with your understanding that distinctions can dramatically affect the interpretation of what is held to be true.

[@BrewMeister27]

@Roger Mills That's why our faith is based on a historical event, the resurrection, not just an interpretation of the Old Testament.

[@AveChristusRex]

"I will be explaining my view" See I will never understand how this is an acceptable epistemology to anyone. Did Christ leave us Scritures with unknown millions of 'my views' including our own to sift through? Or did He establish a Church which only has one faith?

[@stooch66]

This is it. It immediately betrays the idea that the Holy Spirit guides the man of God. Instead, he is admitting that he is just being HIS views.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

Yeah I think that problem is so self-evident for anyone without a prior commitment. For any stranger to Christianity who reads the Bible, it should seem obvious that the ecclesia is the physical manifestation of the kingdom of God. The very form of the Church is a clerical hierarchy. I don't understand how else someone could interpret Daniel's visions. It seems pretty clear that Daniel prophesied a kingdom (sculpted by God from a rock, no less) destroying the Roman empire and spreading over the world, lasting forever. Are we enjoined to interpret this "kingdom" as uh... the Bible? The brotherhood of all believers? Or is it a dominion with a government and a monarch, like every other kingdom in the history of the world? Jesus himself establishes an ecclesiastical judicial system for the Church in direct, non-parabolic instructions. So for someone just studying the subject academically, without any preconceptions or prejudices, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus' blueprint for the Church (and for interpretation of the ancient scriptures and of his good news) centered around an authority structure guided by both reason and supernatural guidance. I was an atheist until last year and for me it was pretty obvious where to go if I'm trying to find the Apostolic faith. As an atheist, even when I thought Christianity was just a cult like any other, even though I had absorbed the usual anti-Catholic bigotry from the culture, the anti-authority bent, the conspiracy theories, and so on, I still understood that the Catholic Church was the real one. I still understood that the church fathers are in a better position to know what Jesus really taught than some American baptist preacher who went to "divinity school." I didn't think Christianity was remotely worth my time of course, or that Catholics were teaching anything useful, but I still understood that all the other so-called churches were rebellious fractures from Catholic Christianity. I guess it's easier to see that when you don't have any dog in the race. So, when I eventually became convinced of Jesus' divinity, it was just a no-brainer. I disdained the Catholic Church just like most Americans do, but I begrudgingly accepted basic reality and gave it the opportunity to clear my mind of the anti-Catholic canards and brainwashing. I have met many others (both atheists and protestants and even Muslims and Jews) who are doing the same, and it seems like the number is increasing. But I hope still more can do the same - especially protestants, since it's the only way their preachers will stop attacking the Church, spreading myths and canards online, and misleading others away from the Church. Unfortunately I think it requires a lot more humility for protestants to join the Church than for atheists. We don't have as many prior commitments. Once I accept that I'm wrong about God not existing, it's not a big deal to accept that I was wrong about everything that follows from atheism. But many protestants have been raised from birth and have built a life with the powerful belief that they're saved and chosen by God, and that the Catholic Church in particular is somehow connected with Satan. They have all the same anti-Catholic biases that everyone in America has, including atheists, but to a more extreme degree. Like as an atheist, I didn't really care who misuses or distorts Jesus, because I didn't care about Jesus. The Catholics were just the biggest, most powerful cult, with a litany of alleged abuses of power to be condemned for. But it's not like they were guilty of some kind of supernatural crime. But it's easy to understand why a protestant would be very angry with the Catholic Church for what they perceive to be basically stealing Christianity, systematically destroying it, and replacing it with perverse idolatry. So there's probably this deep-seeded revulsion that's difficult to overcome. But then on top of that, a protestant would have to admit that they were wrong for most of their life. That they weren't actually saved. That they spoke falsely against the Catholic Church. That their own parents misled them and may have even caused them to be damned. That's a harsh enough conclusion to draw that it's easy to see why people would be motivated to use the kind of mental gymnastics they use to deny the authenticity and exclusive authority of the Church. It's hard enought just accepting the Catholic Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage. My mom divorced and then married my dad. So by accepting Catholicism, I have to worry about the possible damnation of my parents. That's not enough to make me disregard the hundreds of independent lines of evidence all pointing directly at the Catholic Church, of course. But there are lots of little stumbling blocks like that, especially for protestants. So, even though the whole protestant worldview of a "church" without any authority or structure makes absolutely no sense, either biblically or strategically, it's gonna be mentally easier for many people than the alternative. Plus, if they can just change the subject over and over, they can avoid ever having to address the "unacceptable epistemology" you pointed out. And there are sooo many different subjects. You can spend thousands of hours watching different lines of anti-Catholic attack on youtube. It's like avoiding thinking about something. The best way to do it is to think about something else. So people come out with new attacks against Catholicism every day, new red herrings to distract themselves and others from the giant elephant in the room, that they're purporting to replace the Church with something that simply isn't a church.

[@paularnold3745]

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol Welcome to the family of believers and welcome to Christ's Church!

[@paularnold3745]

@YAJUN YUAN The rock is not Jesus, the rock is a created thing. Jesus is the one who cuts the rock out (a rock was cut out, but not by human hands Dan 2: 34). Later the rock grows to the size of a huge mountain and fills the entire earth (Dan 2: 35). Only created things change and "grow" so the rock itself is not Devine, but the Devine power that cut it out also makes it grow. God's Kingdom is at hand and the growth of His Kingdom is in process and will culminate in Jesus' second coming.

[@gk3292]

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol …AMEN!! well said!! It sure is a blessing to be part of the one true Holy Apostolic Catholic Church!!

[@seanrodrigues12]

Ortland: “I hear people say that we twist ourselves into pretzels in order to explain away baptismal regeneration”. Then he proceeds to do exactly that.

[@hanssvineklev648]

@seanrodrigues12. Actually, I think he’s trying to untwist himself from the convoluted, inside-out conceptualizations of historic advocates of baptismal regeneration.

[@eddardgreybeard]

​​@@hanssvineklev648 Yeah, it's not in Scripture at all. Sorry dude, but Christ himself said it was necessary.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@hanssvineklev648 Yes, the act of water baptism does not cause regeneration. Baptism has never been a requirement for salvation.

[@Catholic101A.]

​@joycegreer9391 false statements

[@joycegreer9391]

@@Catholic101A. No, they are not. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and does not cause regeneration.

[@erroljacobs4555]

Thank you my brother Trent for explaining .Love from south Africa cape town .💒💒💒💒💒💒💒⛪

[@thedomesticmonk772]

The problem with Protestant “traditions” is confirmed in the justifications provided by Gavin in his position statements. He always has to acknowledge, (and it is a credit to him that he does so) that Protestants in the tradition he is using to support his argument may differ from that position. That is the problem with Protestantism, if there is no authority, there is no consistency. Truth is consistent. There cannot be many version of it, or it’s no longer truth.

[@duckymomo7935]

caths affirm a doctrine first and then look through or force the scripture to match that doctrine

[@alejandrocanela691]

@@duckymomo7935 At the least it matches lol. Protestants have to do all kinds of gymnastics! heh

[@BrewMeister27]

@@duckymomo7935 you're not entirely wrong. The Catholic Church did identify the 27 books of the New Testament based on the doctrines they already held. Like the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. The Gospel preexisting the Bible by about 350 years.

[@thedomesticmonk772]

@YAJUN YUAN I’m sorry, but consistency starts with authority. When there is no authority to rightly interpret Scripture you wind up with “common hermeneutics”, and that leads to everyone interpreting scripture for themselves. That is why Protestant denominations can’t even agree amongst themselves on even basic issues of doctrine. Christ created one Church, gave it authority to teach in his name, guaranteed the Spirit would guide and protect it and promised to be with it until the end of the age. Protestantism in all its forms, (no matter how well intentioned the individual practitioner may be) is a corruption of Christianity. All of their doctrines that oppose the teachings of Christ’s Church are man made inventions. They claim to follow Jesus but reject His Church. They give their own biblical traditions priority over the teachings of the Church yet claim the Catholic Church follows the teachings of man. Christ gave us a Church not a Bible. The Church gave us scripture. Scripture properly interpreted cannot undermine the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, because it is the product of that very Church. Protestantism is the wholesale corruption of Christianity by coopting and perverting the teachings of Christ to accommodate the base beliefs of man, while at the same time claiming the Church founded by Christ, in whom lies the promise that he will never leave nor allow it be corrupted are false. Protestantism, in all it’s forms is a study in contradiction.

[@thomasfolio7931]

@@duckymomo7935 I'd like to see some proof of that statement. Since we have among the writings of both early writers, both the Church Fathers, and those opposed to the Early Church the same doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches. For example the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Early Christian writers attest to it. Anti-Christian writers also attest to it, even calling Chrisitan Cannibals for claiming that they ate the flesh of Jesus and drank His blood. The Fathers and even some Jews writing to explain this to the Roman pagan rulers use either Scripture, or as sometimes they wrote before the books of the NT were put to paper, the events of Christ and the Apostles lives and teachings. Much like your contention that the doctrine was believed first. The NT Scriptures came after the doctrines were already taught by the Apostles and believed by the Christians who heard them.

[@ericgatera7149]

This was a great rebuttal. My impression is that Dr. Gavin is trying to sow doubt in the absoluteness of baptism regeneration by calling for Complexity, Complexity, Complexity. But he never goes all the way to prove the alternative view, except to tentatively suggest that his reflections on them (i.e metonym) are worth considering.

[@zacharynelson5731]

Trying to add complexity to things stated clearly or simplify things that require subtlety always leads to heresy

[@lonelyberg1808]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking

[@domo3699]

Yeah, adding complexity to plain words violates logical principles of sufficient reason (you don't put unnecessary chain of causes without good reason), Ockham's razor (the things are most probably true if they have less premises). Then it basically leads to gnosticism (hidden knowledge of the few "enlightened") and denial of obvious reality. No wonder Church Fathers equaled heresy with insanity: something is true not because observation points to it but because heretic wants it to be in his mind.

[@mj6493]

You and Gavin are actually closer than I thought you'd be.

[@OstKatholik]

Now you’ve to rebuttal his last video with CapturingChristianity. I think, Gavin had many points against the papacy, which could be easily answered with the Catholic Catechism.

[@jattebaleyos116]

I've also heard that Suan and Michael Lofton are gonna do a rebuttal on that video

[@Miatpi]

Ironically I think Cameron already did a good job challenging Gavins points. He didn't seem very convinced.

[@jattebaleyos116]

@@Miatpi do you mean that Cameron isn't convince of Dr. Ortlund arguments?

[@Miatpi]

@@jattebaleyos116 Yes. Or at least it didn't sound like that

[@glof2553]

@@Miatpi Cam's been impressing me lately. He's a Prot that is actively wrestling with Catholicism as a viable option, instead of like Dr. Ortlund who only seemingly does so.

[@shlamallama6433]

Hey guys, let's keep this charitable and not accuse Ortlund of ill-will.

[@jimmydavid1993]

Yes, you are right we can't judge his motive. My observation of his methods is there seems to be an overemphasis on complexity even where it does not really exist, which comes across as wanting to sow doubts. Sophistry tendencies in a way

[@joycegreer9391]

@@jimmydavid1993 Just the opposite. He bends over backwards to be understanding and charitable to other views.

[@jimmydavid1993]

@@joycegreer9391 I just saw my comment was full of terrible typos. I just edited it. Not sure about your point as a result. Thanks, God bless.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@jimmydavid1993 He is the opposite of sophistry tendencies. He is too irenic.

[@MrAnomic]

These are the types of rebuttals that I love to watch!!!

[@brendansheehan6180]

Trent, that wall is ready for a green screen. You could do rebuttal videos around the world.

[@bearistotle2820]

"Hey everyone, today I am doing a rebuttal from beautiful Paris!"

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@bearistotle2820 awesome name man, lol

[@bearistotle2820]

@@brendansheehan6180 Thank you kindly!

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

If there's ever a dialogue, I hope Trent (or whoever) presses Dr. Ortlund about his "I've seen many people regenerated before being baptized" argument. Is he saying that the subjective feeling of being on fire with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being in a state of grace? I'm very skeptical of a hermeneutic that takes our subjective feelings as concrete evidence for spiritual realities. It seems to imply that a spiritual dark night of the soul must actually mean that the person isn't in a state of grace. What if I didn't feel "spiritually regenerated" before or at my baptism, does that mean I'm not going to be saved?

[@TKK0812]

Matthew 7:18-20 / A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Jesus seemed to think it was good enough. Should we push Him on this? I don't think Gavin anywhere says that it's concrete evidence, rather he simply asks what to make of someone who confesses faith in Jesus Christ and undergoes a radical life transformation before being baptized.

[@Tvoj_Prijatelj_Vili]

@@TKK0812 Chickenofbristol is talking about feelings, not fruits of the faith. It is not the same category to be compared with.

[@TKK0812]

@@Tvoj_Prijatelj_Vili I don't think you understood my point. Jesus said that we can determine between false teachers and true believers by their fruit. Gavin's challenge to Trent was to ask "What do you make of people who begin to bear fruit before being baptized". Gavin was not arguing based of feelings, but rather a witnessing of fruit in a believer after confessing Christ

[@Tvoj_Prijatelj_Vili]

@@TKK0812 Oh I get it now. Yeah well God isn't limited by His sacraments as Trent said.

[@TKK0812]

@@Tvoj_Prijatelj_Vili Thanks for your response!

[@sillybearss]

I’m not very adapt in all these jargon, but let’s just say that I’m glad that as a Catholic, I can trust the Catechism and not have to constantly question and argue the church’s teaching. Looking at his own uncertainty and desire to figure out & spell out what he reckons as Truth, I wonder if Gavin just wants to write a Catechism of his own…?

[@brutus896]

That's the problem with Catholics. They are not adapt to the Bible. So they just entrust themselves to the Magisterium. Don't want to learn for themselves

[@BrewMeister27]

@@brutus896 Do Protestants understand the Bible? They will devote their entire lives to studying it and still have disagreements amongst each other on fundamental issues. Do you honestly believe this was God's plan to teach and spread the Gospel? Imagine yourself as a farmer in the year 1200. You're supposed to buy a Bible you can't afford, learn ancient languages, learn about ancient cultures/customs, and then spend countless hours reading/studying the Scriptures, all to have any chance of understanding the Gospel correctly. And you're supposed to do all this while spending all your daylight hours farming? If this was the plan, the Holy Spirit should've brought down a Gutenberg printing press at Pentecost.

[@brutus896]

@@BrewMeister27 By " Protestants " I understand you mean "Protestant religions." So yes they all have it wrong along with the Roman Catholic religion.

[@BrewMeister27]

@@brutus896 are your beliefs 100% right?

[@calebadcock363]

@@brutus896 what would you propose as an alternative?

[@JakubFerenc1911]

All texts must be interpreted. Unless you want to erase your memory every single day, you always come to the text via a lens of tradition. Be it your own tradition, or 2000-year-old tradition. I may be wrong, but I choose something that has been "beta-tested" for 2 milenia, rather then my own petty theories.

[@Gazdo01]

Great stuff Trent, as usual! Just a small detail though, at 1:08:38, you are responding with references to St John Chrysostom whereas Ortlund was quoting from St Cyril of Jerusalem. But overall, I think your arguments are full proof!

[@heidiaraneta1660]

Yes baptism seals our mark that we belong to Christ! Thanks Trent for a clear explanation on what baptism is all about to us as Catholics 😊🙏 and this could also give more infos or knowledge/clarifications to those people who were rebaptized to other sects, thinking that their being Catholic could be erased by a protestant baptism, God bless the RCC , GOD bless Trent🙏

[@brendansheehan6180]

Ortland says he isn't trying to add complexity to this. Sure. But there is a reason that he appears to be doing this. The reason is that these passages, and the Fathers reflection on these passages, seem entierly clear. And it would seem entierly clear to Ortland too if not for a prior commitment to a tradition that seems to be unsupported by the means that Baptists claim. If all religious knowledge is limited to scripture, this would seem to cast doubt on a Baptist doctrine of faith.

[@marksmale827]

Confirmation later is a positive response to one’s earlier baptism.

[@glof2553]

Gavin presents himself as this meek individual while the better part of his content is railing against Catholicism. I think a debate is needed.

[@sableminks6639]

Hah! You read my mind.

[@an7440]

Malicious is the word

[@namapalsu2364]

My sentiment exactly. He has deep soothing voice and a nice demeanor. But the substance of what he said is very questionable. I remeber when Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity insisted that at the very least Mat 16:18, Luke 22:32 is primia facie gives evidence to papacy or at least does not contradict it. Gavin's respond is that he flat out rejected that those verses has any possibility to be interpreted as pointing to a papacy. That's, IMO, very dishonest.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

it's true, same goes for most protestant apologists online, which in many ways is fine of course besides the fact that what they're protesting against is the one true Church. I don't find it irritating coming from Dr Ortlund or Dr Nemes when they do this because they're upfront about the reservations they have about Catholicism when they act cordially, they never dilute the fact that they do disagree with Catholicism and it's a thousand times better to engage with someone who's willing to define their own position clearly, and has the ability to back up their argument.

[@l21n18]

I’ve noticed that too, quite slippery in that way.

[@davidfabien7220]

Philippians 3: 12-14 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heaven-ward in Christ Jesus. To strain = stretch tightly, make taut, press to extremes. It's obvious that by the grace of God the apostle Paul had to fulfil his responsibility in obtaining what the Lord God had called him for, that is, his ultimate salvation - the final stage of our salvation which is not apart from the totality of the saving grace of God.

[@andrewfricot4214]

Trent can you please do a debunk or rebuttal video, or debate Raymond Comfort of Living Waters ministries. His videos, although well made, attack Catholic teaching and is so misguided... Thanks

[@dave1370]

This is one of those circumstances where we Confessional Lutherans agree more with Rome and the East than with pretty much all other Protestantism.

[@lonelyberg1808]

1:00:35 But in the end, I wonder what phrase could make Gavin think that baptism is the cause ? A super technical sentence describing baptism as _really_ saving or something like that?

[@lonelyberg1808]

@YAJUN YUAN Hey Yajun, your comment doesn't answer my question

[@lonelyberg1808]

@YAJUN YUAN ok

[@domo3699]

@YAJUN YUAN Even then most comitted Protestants would explain that away with: it means Holy Spirit. Just like they do with explicit Christ words about necessity of Baptism. No amount of evidence can convince person of bad will. They first need to sincerely pray to God to open their eyes and recieve grace of supernatural faith. Simmilarily, atheists would explain direct vision of God as hallucination, dream or extraterrestrials. Wicked are often sadly to comitted to their wickedness to which God left them because of their continuous sins.

[@sotem3608]

Again very helpful Trent, God bless you!

[@stooch66]

He never seems to recognize that he is coming at scripture from a tradition that has already defined his beliefs…and then interprets it to fit that tradition. In other words, his tradition wins over scripture at every turn. But somehow, we Catholics and our apostolic faith counterparts are alone in being bound by tradition…

[@duckymomo7935]

what? that's literally what caths do: affirm a predetermined doctrine from the magisterium and then pick out scriptures that support said doctrine and if they can't they just relegate it to tradition and things like apostolic succession-papal infallibility or make up things like the church/magisterium can never err

[@stooch66]

@@duckymomo7935 wrong, we pass on the teachings that were passed down by the apostles and their successors, the bishops. Just like all the other apostolic faiths (there are dozens besides the Latin Catholic Church). You should really study our ecclesiology and history before making such statements.

[@duckymomo7935]

@@stooch66 no you don’t. You make up doctrines and then claim that

[@stooch66]

@@duckymomo7935 sorry, but that is just an ahistorical understanding. God bless you.

[@duckymomo7935]

@@stooch66 says the one being nonsensical

[@protruth1]

by grace are you saved through FAITH, not of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us

[@michaelharrington6698]

"Seems to be regenerate at faith not baptism" - Gavin Ortlund Is this even an honest argument? When I was a protestant discerning Catholicism, I began to feel that Gavin was being slippery and imprecise and not honestly representing Catholicism.

[@Guradeaur]

It is hard to know his heart but to me he seems to be a sophist. His charity does not seem genuine either.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Nonsense stop trying to understand something you guys have no clue Isaiah chapter 55: 8-9. & 40 v 13-14

[@michaelharrington6698]

@@frederickanderson1860 Can you elaborate?

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@michaelharrington6698 traditions traditions keep the traditions, people love the archaic outmoded ceremonies and having a figure of the holy Father as the universal head of all mankind. The king is dead long live the king.

[@Wgaither1]

@@michaelharrington6698 The Bible says now is the day of salvation, why does Catholic Church say you should be saved on Sunday or Easter vigil? Number 856 of the Code of Canon Law states: "Though baptism may be celebrated on any day, it is recommended that normally it be celebrated on a Sunday or, if possible, on the vigil of Easter."

[@Vereglez-d4z]

Thank you, Trent. 🙏🏽

[@BrewMeister27]

And this is the evil of Sola Scriptura. You think your opinion is equivalent to the plain text of Scripture and the universal witness of the early Church. If Sola Scriptura can't bring clarity on the basic requirements of salvation, how can it be trusted in any capacity?

[@joevasanu7459]

Gavin's use of the term "linguistic complexity" to deal with what the Bible says ab0ut baptismal regeneration is a great refutation of his own Protestant belief on the "perspicuity of scripture."

[@matthewbroderick6287]

I am so very glad that Dr. Ortlund is actually taking the complete writings of the Church regarding baptism. Unfortunately, Dr. Ortlund is very closed to the complete writings of the Church Fathers regarding judgement and how final sanctification takes place! So, for one who teaches Scripture alone, although Holy Scripture never teaches that, Dr. Ortlund is admitting that one can never know with infallible certitude what Holy Scripture actually means, as no interpretation outside of Holy Scripture is infallible! 🤔 Dr. Ortlund is in my prayers as he journeys toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

How to Be Christian has a good video related to this. Like with other teachings, like the real presence, it's pretty clear it was universally held by the earliest Christians. Just from the text, it would also be a much more clear interpretation if not for the centuries of anti-Catholic protestant tradition.

[@truck965]

I hope you can respond to his video on Capturing Christianity

[@Momof15plus]

About 2000 yrs after Christ walked the earth we have Gavin Ortlund. He knows better than giants on both sides of the Catholic/ Protestant debate.....more than Augustine, Aquinas,, the early fathers (who were Catholic) Luther, Calvin, the list goes on. I wonder if there is a single one he can't correct. What have Christians done these past two centuries without Gavin? He is the Pope, magisterium, counsels, etc, all wrapped up in one guy. Wow. I find him torturous to listen to. After all his study he still be so wrong. Trent has all my admiration for his kindness and patience with him.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Gentlemen, I hope you are both charitable to one another. These discussions are informative.

[@shlamallama6433]

Agreed

[@adjd1576]

What in this video would give you any pause as to whether they are being charitable?

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@adjd1576 I haven't completed the video but so far, Trent has been fair. When Gavin responds, I hope he responds with the same fairness.

[@sethmatherne7012]

I appreciate the Spirit in which you frequently respond to Gavin. It's been instructive in learning how RCs think out questions and form their answers according to their doctrine and pedagogy. Just a point of clarification, when Gavin was discussing Cyril of Jerusalem, you kept mentioning Justin Mayrter it seemed. Was that merely a slip of the tongue? I didn't see anyone addressing that in the comments. I am a Reformed Baptist btw for clarification.

[@danviccaro3920]

I have Jimmy Aikin’s book The Fathers know best and every Church Father all said water baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God and Jimmy Akin has said he has look for 1 Church Father to go against the Catholic teaching and has found none . Gavin seems like a good guy but he still has pride that gets in the way of the truth and the Protestants always think things are symbols and ask yourself would Gavin when Jesus preached he is the bread of life and we have to eat him to have eternal life and if we do not we have no life in us . The disciples who followed Jesus said this is a hard sell we have to eat him and they all left except the Apostles would Gavin have left or stayed there? His views he would have left also just because Gavin presents himself like Trent doesn’t mean he is as wrong as a boisterous person .

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video..

[@an7440]

I think we should not give so much importance to Gavin in turn giving him a lot more coverage… he gives a way for prots to know what they are wrong and still see so much nuances so let’s stay where we are .. and he seems to intermittently convey this cognitive dissonance is ok and that it’s the right approach .. u ll hear him say multiple times - all these point to Rome but I am not convinced and so these are not good enough.. there is no focus on truth rather a focus on the idea that evidences are not good enough without telling why…

[@jimmydavid1993]

the best description is sophistry.

[@LostArchivist]

We should pray that the dam may break and truth flow freely into his soul.

[@marksmale827]

As an infant-baptised Xian, I have never quite understood baptism. My idea is that it breathes the divine life, the Holy Spirit, into your soul. But you still have free will and need to make to make the right choices on your way through life to fulfil the potential which your baptism has given you. I may well have this wrong.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

“Veneration is an accretion”-Gavin “Baptism isn’t regenerative”-Gavin Rough.

[@dogbackwardspodcast]

not wrong though

[@breddythewinner]

@@dogbackwardspodcastliterally he’s wrong but keep coping for your savior Gavin 💀💀😂😭

[@joycegreer9391]

He is right!

[@joycegreer9391]

@@breddythewinner Like you cope for your savior pope??

[@breddythewinner]

@@joycegreer9391 Nobody Catholic believes that the Pope is the saviour. Watch yourself. I could bury you with the hilarious errors of Protestantism.

[@zekdom]

23:58 - 1 Peter 3 25:00 - spiritual renewal before baptism? 26:40, 26:50, 27:58 - Acts 28:43 - Ortlund’s take on Acts 29:49 - Trent’s response

[@zekdom]

@YAJUN YUAN 🤣 Good to see you, too!

[@LostArchivist]

The Sacrament of Baptism is the fulfillment of the many Old Testament types pointing to it found in the Old Covenant, the same way Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ`s sacrifice upon the Cross is the fulfillment of all of the Temple sacrifices and espescially of the Passover Lamb (which, the Eucharist as His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is the eternal feasting upon and consuming the Lamb of God to complete the sacrifice). Thus, Our Blessed Lord`s Baptism at the Jordan, is among other things, the raising of the ceremonial purification baths of Judaism into their fulfillment in the eternal Divine order and into God calling His people to Himself in Christ and cleaning them of sin both Original and personal to make them ready for the Kingdom of God. Thus were one to die then, one would be prepared to meet God face-to-face. As one would be ready to worship God and enter the Temple only after one is cleansed of defilement from its various sources as the Jewish people understood them. As Christ did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, Baptism is necessary as it is such a fulfillment. Faith is also necessary as it is a spiritual purification and so requires understanding and consent as God will not force Himself upon us. It must be freely chosen and in some form desired, thus requiring some form of understanding. This ropes both the intellect and the will as the powers of the soul. One can also simply see it stated in the Sacred Scriptures and is not contentious in that regard so elaborating is not entirely necessary. If it should become such at some point, one must remember what the spiritual life is, a relationship with God Himself. Baptism as one`s entrance into it is in that regard an act of trust, if you do not trust someone, they can not make you do so and no bond of relationship can develop, thus any otherwise right ceremony without faith, is not a baptism as it lacks a key substance of it. For infants this comes from the parents and godparents as they have the innate right to raise and care for the child until one reaches maturity. Thus why the consent of one of the parents is required for a baptism of a minor. This is also because infants do not can can not at that stage have convictions on such matters and it falls to one`s parents or guardians to guide the child in its stead.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I have a strong (and personally testified) reason to oppose the idea that infants aren’t capable of belief. We really can’t know and to hold out baptism from infants that are taught about God until they are capable of adequate communication to meet some minimum acknowledgement of faith is far more works based than entrusting the infant child of believers to God’s grace.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

It really does seem like people deny the efficacy of Baptism because *they* want to, not because the text supports that. You either learn from the scriptures and preserve the meaning, or else you sit in judgement over God’s word and deny the things you don’t want to do. Conversion necessarily involves realizing you’re playing by God’s rules. That ‘you might have done something different if you were god’ means nothing; God is, and you are not Him

[@KayElayempea]

@The Counsel of Trent I appreciate your response videos and other videos. I appreciate your charitable explanation of Catholic teaching. You don't have to live in a developing country to have poor formation.

[@jimmydavid1993]

Yea, I think Trent got that analogy wrong. I am not sure he thought critically about that statement. I could forgive him for that given his overall position of similar matters considered indepth.

[@andrefouche9682]

While I agree that Gavin is a nice guy he is extremely dishonest in this issue, it is obvious that he approach the texts that clearly says that baptism saves with a preconceived theological idea, namely the idea that baptism does not save. He then makes all kinds of arguments to try to justify why the clear meaning is not the clear meaning. Imagine a Jehova's witness does the same kind of swindling with texts that clearly convey the divinity of Christ. Gavin would probably not even realize that the JW is doing exactly what he did. This when we always hear protestants say that we should interpret the less clear texts with the clear texts.

[@SpotterVideo]

The Word “Baptize”: 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,

[@cephasmwila7537]

👏👏👏👏 Trent.. Keep it up my friend

[@cheryl0327]

This is why I am becoming a Catholic. We need an authority that can tell us the truth of meaning in Scripture. 1Tim 3:15

[@geoffjs]

Tks for your honesty

[@thomasjefferson6]

One the one side, we have those who refuse to take Scripture as being literally true when it comes to the Real Presence or Baptismal Regeneration. On the other side, we have those who refuse to take Scripture as being literally when it comes to authorship (e.g. Daniel, II Peter) or history (e.g. Genesis 1-11). The Tradition of the Church is that both sides are to be taken as literally true. Not a single Church Father can be cited who rejected the literal truthfulness of any of this.

[@sandmaneyes]

My comment here was pretty uncharitable so I'll just say I'll keep praying.

[@brutus896]

Baptismal regeneration is not taught in the Bible. Can you show me? All of Trent's references were from the catechism not the Bible (20:20min) mark. The only regeneration done is by the Holy Spirit. This is throughout the Bible.

[@sandmaneyes]

@@brutus896 thanks for the interest. John ch. 3, 1 Peter ch 3... or just watch the above video again since Trent does cite the Bible.

[@brutus896]

@@sandmaneyes Trent does cite the Bible, but when talking about baptismal regeneration, he cites the catechism. I just read John 3 and 1 Peter 3 but there's nothing on baptismal regeneration.

[@TruthMakesSense]

Romans 6: 3-4 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

[@brutus896]

@@TruthMakesSense These verses don't teach baptismal regeneration.

[@in_defense_of_the_church]

My dear Gavin, we will never see what we don’t want to see…

[@marteld2108]

“Whoever believes AND is BAPTIZED will be saved.” Baptism is necessary! Jesus did not say “Whoever is Baptized OR believes is saved.” The Lord is very clear…but Protestants muddle Jesus’s words.

[@duckymomo7935]

baptized with the holy spirit yes. there are plenty of people who have died before water baptism and are still saved

[@brutus896]

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life" John 6:47 "Believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" Romans 10:9 Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, Acts 16:31 "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" John 20:21 "Truly, truly, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life" John 5:24 "He that believes the Son has everlasting life, and he that believes not the Son shall not see life" John 3:36 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" John 8:24 I would have to say that "believing" saves, not baptism. It's the Roman Catholic Church that muddles God's Word.

[@brutus896]

@@AaronR319 Belief and baptism in the Bible are not pitted against each other. It is the Roman Catholic Church that twists scripture and causes us to be pitted against each other. It's causing division.

[@brutus896]

@@AaronR319 In the Bible, the distinction between belief and baptism is crystal clear.

[@brutus896]

@@AaronR319 Just like every Catholic when it comes to the scriptures. "I'M OUT"

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Not only does Ortland think language which is clearly referring to the practice of baptism often is not, he thinks language referring to baptism directly actually just represents conversion. He has mentioned this mental gymnastics several times in articles denying that children should be baptized

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

5:03 It doesn’t seem charitable nor fruitful to concede that there are simply differences in the understanding of baptismal regeneration among “Christians.“ There is a Christian view, then there is the Protestant view, and the and view varies greatly amongst the nonChristian Protestants. The Catholic Church, which is the Church that Jesus Christ founded, teaches the Christian view. Protestants for the most part teach a bastardized heretical view. Some Protestant sects have returned to the Christian view in baptism, but they are not Christians. One day hopefully God willing they will be.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

Protestants start with their belief system (ideology) then work backwards to try to justify their man made belief with so called proof texts in Sacred Scripture. As someone raised in the Protestant religion whom God dramatically called out of that damnation into the light, into His one true Church - it is unbelievable how intentionally ignorant of Christian history and the faith most protestants are. Even in this video Gavin seems comfortable that his view is only a couple hundred years old. That proves immediately it is not of Christ, making him not a Christian! We must conform ourselves to God and his revealed religion, not conform to some religion to our beliefs.

[@kathyweiland4732]

I guess we will all find out someday!

[@mitromney]

If the first Saint of the Church, st Dismus did not need baptism to be saved, I think people will get by Trent. Baptism is most definitely connected to salvation. But it's a biblical fact that it's not necessary.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Adam, nor is faith at times necessary, As Jesus Christ forgave the sins of the paralyzed man who never even asked for it. Indeed, there are exceptions to the norm. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@mitromney]

@@matthewbroderick6287 sorry, but a paralyzed man could have faith without speaking it out. Faith is internal, in the heart, and Jesus sees the heart. Sorry, but that's a horrible example.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

There's no evidence St. Dismus believed that Jesus was fully divine or that God is a Trinity. Even though he was saved do you think that proves these truths are not an essential part of our Faith in Christ?

[@mitromney]

@@TheCounselofTrent Dismus was a jew, so he would believe Holy Spirit mentioned throughout the OT Scriptures is the God YHWH. As for Jesus, Dismus says this on the cross: “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:40-41) In just this short phrase, he's called Jesus a God (by saying to the other criminal he is under the same punishment as God - Jesus) and a "man". I'd say that's a very strong argument that st. Dismus had a very accurate understanding of God's true nature for his time, even if he wouldn't be on our exact philosophical treshold and couldn't tell apart the persons and natures and etc. the very same thing would've been true of the Apostles even. And even if we had no idea about what he believed - that's an argument from silence mr Trent. Faith is internal and it's impossible to fully screen it via a brief quote so there is no way to use that to discredit these truths. It does not invalidate the fact that Dismus didn't need baptism to be saved, instantly, skipping purgatory and all. All he needed to do is confess his sin to Jesus and trust in him to save him instead of trusting his own self. Sounds a lot more like what mr Gavin was saying to me.

[@jerome8950]

@@mitromney At the time when Dismus was dying on the cross next to Jesus, Jesus had NOT YET risen from the dead. This means that Dismus couldn't believe in his heart the God raised Jesus from the dead . This means that he was saved WITHOUT believing in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Does that mean that Romans 10:9 was wrong to mention believing that God raised Jesus from the dead as one of the requirements for salvation, simply because Dismus DIDN'T fulfill this requirement before he was saved? Why then do some people think that baptism is not a requirement for salvation simply because Dismus DIDN'T fulfill this requirement before he was saved ?

[@davidnoel31]

58:22 I'm not sure why Dr. Ortlund thinks the passage from Ephesians implies that every member of the church had to be baptized at the same time. It seems to me that even if each member is washed separately, the whole Church has nonetheless been cleansed by the washing of water with the word.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Ortland repeatedly shows he is merely assuming that baptism can't regenerate you because he believes that people are previously regenerated, but there's no reason to assume that is true and that people baptism is not a unique process of regeneration from the change in behavior after being repentant. If the text shows it is regenerative, it is regenerative. His reaction quite nakedly seems to be an example that no evidence either from how the parts of the text relate to each other or historical Christian interpretation will displace his existing tradition.

[@1962mrpaul]

Regeneration doesn’t mean what he seems to think it means. People’s “mind set” and “behavior” can change for a variety of purely natural reasons and causes, from psychological therapy to Buddhist meditation practices or just getting hugged very intensely. Regeneration, on the other hand, is having the ability to partake of the divine nature - the life of the triune god - which in and of itself is unobservable, although external signs and “fruits” can and ought to be the result of that.

[@Wgaither1]

So if God is not bound by the sacraments, how does someone know God didn’t save them prior to baptism?

[@jessebartunek3195]

Gavin's argument about the coronation ceremony not making the king breaks down when you consider the wedding ceremony makes the marriage and the swearing in ceremony makes the judge and the police officer. Without those ceremonies it isn't legitimate, so why would baptism be lesser?

[@seanrodrigues12]

What we must not do is complicate the simple. I believe in “grandma theology”: Baptism- Temple of the Holy Spirit- completely washed of sin, but can sin, but in Grace- so on the road to Heaven”

[@RedRoosterRoman]

I think referring to growth in virtues prior to baptism being used as a reason to weaken the importance of baptism is a very poor argument. If someone becomes a devout Buddhist/Hindu they will also bear the fruit of growth in virtues (by the grace of God of course) And baptism doesn't happen by magic - as in; nobody teaches forced baptism is efficacious! In addition; this salvation before baptism is perfectly explained by baptism by desire. Baptism by desire brings a LOT of common ground with Dr Ortland's position

[@elmerarts9124]

Can’t wait for dialogue

[@cactoidjim1477]

1:02 I think Baptism is more closely related to Marriage than graduation or coronation. Not seeing Baptism as anything more than a symbol leads to seeing Marriage as merely an "outward sign". Just because you decided to get married, doesn't mean you *are* Though, having believed this is why my wife and I got married in Vegas. It worked out for us, but I don't recommend it.

[@cactoidjim1477]

@YAJUN YUAN Wouldn't the ring be the invisible seal of Baptism and not the Baptism itself?

[@cactoidjim1477]

@YAJUN YUAN Yeah, I'm down with that. What I was attempting to say, as Gavin was (and what I learned as a Baptist) is that it is the *heart* which is the only important thing. The rest is an exterior symbol which has no effect on you as a person. This led me to see Marriage the same way: as soon as you're in love and decide to get married, the rest is just a meaningless ritual solely for the benefit of other people. I no longer think that Marriage or Baptism works that way. God gave us bodies, and a lot of instructions in the Bible to act things out with our bodies.

[@hugomunoz9039]

Irenaeus - "we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

[@beowulf.reborn]

Trent, what is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding those who profess faith in Christ, but are not in communion with Rome (i.e. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, etc), can they be saved?

[@Wgaither1]

And can a Catholic who leaves Roman Catholicism be saved?

[@domo3699]

Simple answer: Maybe, but not probable Which is true even for Catholics according to many saints: few are saved.

[@georgwagner937]

Hello Trent Horn, I have a question: How far can a catholic diverge from catholic teaching and still be a catholic. I left the church as soon as I realized that I disagree with core doctrine. But I know others that remain catholic even though they don't believe in Virgin birth, real presence in the eucharist, miracles and so on. Maybe they just enjoy the culture and community? At what point will a catholic be kicked out of the church? And are "real" catholics encouraged to "denounce" other's ill faith?

[@thepalegalilean]

The church defines for herself what a Catholic is. A Catholic is someone in communion with Rome who believes and gives ascent to all of the teachings that the Church has proclaimed. Anyone falling outside of this definition is not a Catholic in any meaningful sense and their own Church denies them.

[@georgwagner937]

@@thepalegalilean they still take communion! They eat the flesh of our Lord, but they are not part of the church, they are not in him? I don't understand. They think they are catholic, they think they are saved and nobody corrects them.

[@thepalegalilean]

@@georgwagner937 You were right in saying that nobody corrects them. That is precisely the problem. When you discent from the teachings of the Church you are disenting from The Authority that Christ placed in it which is His own. So when these Catholics that do not actually adhere to the teachings of the Church take communion, they are eating and drinking the Sacrifice in a state of mortal sin. This means they are conuming their own damnation. If they escape Hell, it will be due to invinsible ignorance. However, the priests and bishoos thatvhave allowed such blasphemous and ill practices to continue will not be blessed with such an escape because they can't claim such ignorance.

[@georgwagner937]

@@thepalegalilean do I have to add that I live in Germany? I think the problem is more complicated than just correcting people, if I just stayed a catholic, even though I disagreed with doctrine, I would eventually have been able to find Trent horn, Jimmy akin, and maybe, even though not understanding and accepting everything the church teaches, I would still be a catholic. I pushed myself to make a decision which lead to me leaving the church. I'd really like to hear Trent on this issue. He'd probably be on the side of patience and hoping a person will find his way back, maybe even if that person thinks Jesus was just a man, Mary wasn't a virgin etc. Teaching / catechising people is a process.

[@domo3699]

With what doctrines you have problem? That Jesus is God and Mary a virgin is a core belief as it gets. Without posessing belief in that, you're Catholic (or even Christian) as much as cow is a dog, car a ship or oxygen water.

[@AndrewKendall71]

Seems to me the distance between "representation" and "re-presentation" is very much smaller than is often discussed in these dialogues.

[@beowulf.reborn]

23:13 Trent says that the act of Baptism is itself the appeal to God for a clean conscience, but can't 1 Peter 3:21 also be seen as supporting the idea of Baptism of Desire? It is the the desire (or appeal) to God for a clean conscience that saves, and that drives us to the water. So even if we are prevented from receiving the waters, we are not prevented from being washed.

[@Liminalplace1]

You cover things well Trent. Id onky say that catechism and your comments (perhaps Gavins also) seem to conceive on entrance in the kingdom as "going to heeaven when you die". There are a number of Biblical scholars (And Orthodox) who shift that goal to life with God now and intin eternity.😢

[@ryandawson2877]

It is really amazing to me about 27 minutes and I believe it is. Why do people assume that Matthew 28:19 is the “proper “formula of baptism, when there are so many scriptures in the book of acts, when the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, etc. is invoked. Not only that, but this is also alluded to in the epistles. So you have the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in places, such as acts 2:38, eight versus 12:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16. Then in the apostles, you have Romans six versus 3:4, one Corinthians one versus 12:13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5, Colossians, two versus 11:12, etc. One this Pentecostals did not make this up. I cannot for the life of me see why people would reject baptism in the name of the one who died, was buried and resurrected for them. They talk about Romans six about being baptized into Jesus Christ, being identified with Christ, etc., but God forbid they actually use his name in the water. They are so busy quoting Matthew 28:19 that they don’t read Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, or John 20:31. Not to mention that act 4:12 let us know that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved to be clear, I do not believe that a certain formula alone is a guarantee of heaven, but it really puts a burr in my saddle to think that anyone would want to reject the efficacy of the saving name of the Lord Jesus Christ in baptism, but yet at the same time, they teach baptismal regeneration. I think the apostles are much better able to understand what Jesus meant when he commissioned them than we are and if they use the name of Jesus, you better believe I’m going to use his name, because when you use the name of Jesus, and you, baptize his name, you baptize into the whole godhead, Colossians two versus nine 12, 3:17, one Peter 3:21. Father is not a specific name, proper, neither is the word son, neither the Holy Spirit. When you say “I baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit “, you did not Speak the name. People talk about baptizing in the “name “of the Trinity, but they don’t actually do it when they say it. If they were to baptize into the name of the godhead, they would baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, because in Jesus, all fullness dwells, whether you believe in three “persons “or not, Colossians, 2 verses 9:12, one versus 15:20. So even if you believe in three “persons “, you should still use the name of Jesus because it is faith in the name of Jesus and his meritorious work that saves. For the record, Pope, Stephen, believe that baptism in Jesus name was valid, and that is how it was practiced in the first two centuries of the church. If you were going to believe in baptismal regeneration, at least use the name that saves. Sorry for the typos as I have no vision and I’m dictating this to Siri.

[@l21n18]

Trent, I think you confused Chrysostom with Cyril

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Indeed, there are exceptions! Even there are circumstances, where faith is not needed to be saved, if Dr. Ortlund wants to go that route! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Wgaither1]

I was one of the exceptions. I was born again before baptism.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@Wgaither1and the Good Samaritan was justified before God by his work of mercy, rather than faith alone! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@benabaxter]

48:54 not to be that guy, but tertia pars was not written by Aquinas, as far as I know. Maybe he started it, and I have my information wrong. I don't think it makes very much difference, but just not on the authority of Aquinas.

[@nicoleyoshihara4011]

Baptism ❤💕

[@agaliasis]

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 NIV From the passage above I now understand that Christ operated de circumcision of my heart through baptism. Is that correct?

[@imasoftAstro]

YES

[@Wgaither1]

If prior to baptism someone has no love for God, why would a hater of God desire baptism?

[@Chrissiela]

Interesting subject. I've been studying the scriptures for over 20 years now and have never come away from them with the idea that baptism in water is either necessary for salvation or the means by which salvation is acquired. I absolutely believe baptism saves but, as argued against, I believe it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And I don't understand why I should ignore the obvious (to me) connection Jesus makes between being "born of the flesh" vs being "born of the spirit" when talking about the necessity of being "born again," by saying that one must be born BOTH "of the water" AND "of the Spirit." I'm also not sure why the subject should be limited to just those passages of scripture which talk about water baptism when Paul speaks of the old man already having been "crucified with Christ," thus already having been "buried with him" and "raised with him." But to even understand that you'd have to dig a whole lot deeper into the story "Christ and him crucified" and the typology that exists within the Crucifixion itself and why Jesus, said to be "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" was crucified "in a place called a skull" and "buried in the heart of the earth." I've never read the early church fathers, nor do I know the first thing about Catholic Doctrine (I haven't belonged to any church since leaving Mormonism over 20 years ago after seeing The Passion of the Christ), but I'm not sure I'd have a problem disagreeing with either, though I can certainly see the "problems" that arise from not having "a Pope" (the LDS would say "Prophet") to point to as some sort of ultimate authority in settling matters of "heresy" (in particular). Yet, I've not come away from the scriptures with this same idea about "the church," which is "the body of Christ." And I certainly don't think I could ever doubt or deny what I believe the Lord has done in my life over the last 20 years.... without an "acceptable" baptism and apart from the Catholic Church..... including showing me the typology behind Eve and Mary, something I'd never heard in any church before, until I recently saw a video of Brandt Pitre talking about Catholic doctrine behind the veneration of Mary. THAT caught my attention!! So I have only recently begun looking into the Catholic Church.

[@Chrissiela]

Also.... why does the Catholic Church believe the proper formula for Baptism isn't baptizing in the name of Jesus , as repeatedly stated in Acts (even by Peter), when "Father," "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are not names, but Jesus (the ONE name/person, through whom salvation comes) is? Was that never a question?

[@geoffjs]

@@Chrissiela. Mt 28:19 Baptism is not valid unless performed in the name of the three persons of the Holy Trinity

[@Chrissiela]

@geoffjs THE name... what NAME is that? Father, Son and HolybSpirit are NOT "names."

[@geoffjs]

@@Chrissiela Read what Jesus said Mt 28:19

[@Chrissiela]

@geoffjs I read it. I already addressed it, more than once. Why don't you go read the book of Acts which gives THE NAME that was used for baptism? Do you somehow believe God has THREE NAMES? Jesus said THE NAME. Whose NAME did He come in? Whose NAME does the Holy Spirit come in. What NAME is "the ONLY name" by which men can be saved? Read the WHOLE Bible, not just one verse!

[@davidgloe719]

I think the only way you could see all this evidence from scripture and the church fathers and come to the baptist interpretation would be if there was some more fundamental belief that forced you to dismiss baptismal regeneration. Anyone know what that could be? Is this a "saved by faith alone" thing?

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

Yes. That is what it is.

[@ryandawson2877]

If someone baptized saying something, like this, “in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ “, do you think Rome could’ve except that? That would be interesting. It just boggles my mind that they completely counsel out the name of Jesus.

[@wingchun1963]

You have to use the trinitarian formula and yes Rome does accept that way of baptism because it's Rome who first practiced it.

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Hoooold on. The premise of baptismal regeneration that you're putting forward, Trent, if I understand right, is that baptism is the mechanism by which we are saved. That we cannot have assurance or confidence in our salvation unless we have been baptized. But then you turn around and say that catechumens do have that assurance and confidence, that if they die before baptism they will certainly go to heaven because they have made that commitment to God. Isn't that exactly what Gavin is arguing for? You defend this by saying, if the catechumen ends up not being baptized, they can lose that salvation if they leave the faith - in other words, baptism is not the mechanism, but the seal of that salvation? Came into this thinking baptismal regeneration was a slam dunk but now I'm not so sure.

[@rpgfeatures793]

Yes and no. According to scripture, you are saved through baptism. But doesn’t mean you are always saved until you die, that why it’s important to have infant baptism before the person sins. According to scripture, If you mortal sin without baptism. You are not saved

[@GregRickard]

Its part of it though. Thats why every conversion in Acts involves immediate baptism. Not rocket science.

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@kennethprather9633]

We have to have the Holy Spirit and the Light and stay in the light to go to heaven. If we sin, repent and return.

[@MericaFurst]

this video is really hard to watch in one sitting and pay close attention. my head was hurting after a half hour; three times that is extremely long.

[@ryandawson2877]

Also, you can still believe in the Trinity and baptizing Jesus name. The two are not mutually exclusive, and baptism in Jesus name is not a godhead issue. I think if people would get off of that, it would definitely help in discussions like this. I do not discount Matthew 28:19. we baptize in the name, the “name “, of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. That is one name, not three names. It is a singular name, and what name is that? It’s the name they used in the acts of the apostles, aside from that, how could we discount these other scriptures when they are so many and such a myriad of texts, that talk about the name of Jesus. Why would we pray in his name, give in his name, preaching, teaching his name, lay hands on the sick in his name, cast out demons in his name, Do In, his name, but refused to be baptized, and therefore identified with him and his name? This is especially true when it is the saving name. What a trick of the enemy to take out the name that saves out of baptism.

[@Daniel12.4Ministry]

There are many who are more learned that disagree with you: Barnabas (circa 75 AD) "Blessed are they who place their trust in the cross and descend down into the water... We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, however we come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit." Hermas (circa 110 AD) "Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal then is the water. They descend into the water dead, and they rise alive." Justin Martyr circa - (circa -160 AD) "But there is no other way than this to become acquainted with Christ; We must be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of our sins, and for the remainder of our lives we must live sinless lives." Iranaeus (circa 180 AD) "But there are some Gnostics who assert that it is unnecessary to bring people to the water. Rather they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those that are to be initiated. .. This they maintain to be the redemption... But there are other heretics that reject all of these practices and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable should not be performed by visable and corruptible creatures. They claim that the knowledge of the power of God is itself perfect redemption." Tertullian (circa 198 AD) "(Unless a man is born of water and of Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.) {Quoted from John 3:3} These words have tied faith to the necessity of water baptism, and accordingly, all those that became believers were thus baptized. It was also this way with Paul, that when he believed, he was baptized." Cyprian (circa 250 AD) "One is not re-born by the imposition of hands when they receive the Holy Spirit; Rather it is through water baptism. Therefore, having thoroughly cleansed, he may receive the Holy Spirit." Archelaus (circa 320 AD) " If he (Jesus) was not been baptized in water, neither are any of us baptized. Yet, if there is no baptism, neither will there be the remission of sins. Rather, every man will die in their sins." Apostolic Constitutions (circa 390 AD) "He who, out of contempt will not be baptized in water, he will be condemned as an unbeliever. He will be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, unless a man is born of water and spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Quoted from John 3:3) and again he said, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Quoted from Mark 16:16)" Do you still not believe?

[@dominusalicorn3684]

At around the 7 minute mark, you say critics of baptismal regeneration would use the same "ordinary means" argument for declaring faith when thinking of exceptions like babies. But I would push back against that, because the argument for babies going to heaven is not that they didn't have an "ordinary" opportunity to confess their sins, but because in their state of inability to respond to moral knowledge, they are not yet responsible or accountable for their sin. Only at some point they become aware (some would say age, but it's more nebulous than that) do they become morally culpable, and therefore need to repent of sin and confess faith in the blood of Christ.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

This still seems problematic to me because I can ask "Are babies in heaven justified?" If yes, then they are justified apart from faith. If no, then you have the strange consequence of people not right in God's eyes existing with him in heaven.

[@HaleStorm49]

​@@TheCounselofTrent They are justified as they are incapable of sinning nor of possessing the moral faculties for repentance and covenant-making. You did a video about babies and baptism a while back where you mentioned that parents can choose the baptism on the baby's behalf. (I forget the exact words you used) which creates a problem for God in terms of consistency & righteous judgment. Some will not be saved through no fault of their own (someone who never had the opportunity to be baptized) while others will be saved due to the actions of others. (someone who was baptized without knowledge or understanding of the act) This is an untenable position from the standpoint of justice and free will. Salvation does not come through such a capricious process. I accept that I may not be understanding your position clearly - but this is how I interpreted what I heard you say.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@HaleStorm49 "They are justified" The word means "being made just". In what sense does this apply to babies? Are they born just? Are they born with sin, but made just? If so through what process? I think I can see where you are coming from, but the word "justified" cannot be applied in your view, I think. "which creates a problem for God in terms of consistency & righteous judgment." It's God who saves. In any case. The regeneration and therefore the justification and forgiveness of sins is God's work in baptism, through no merit or righteous work of their own. Almost nowhere is this more clear in baptized infants. "Some will not be saved through no fault of their own" I think this is where the misunderstanding comes in. At least if by "not saved" you mean damned, but this view is itself problematic. 1. Because it (at least) has in the background a mindset of "God owes salvation by force of justice". This is not true. We are creatures, and also fallen ones and we don't deserve two things: To exist and to be saved. Yet God does both of these for us. 2. No one is damned through no fault of their own. "while others will be saved due to the actions of others." Everyone is saved due to the action of another - God, the Almighty. Without taking the first and primary cause of our salvation into account, there are pretty much always secondary causes which are not us - the witness of other people in their works of mercy, the preaching of somebody, the conviction of conscience by a stern word from a friend. God works in mysterious works. And he works through the members of His body in baptizing infants. "This is an untenable position from the standpoint of justice and free will." I tried my best to present our view in more detail, and I think what I wrote offers a good starting point for further investigation. If God decides to save someone, He does so in His mercy. And He doesn't owe it to us a single bit. God bless! J.

[@HaleStorm49]

@@intedominesperavi6036 Re: justified. I would use sinless myself, but since the op said justified I used their language. I admit I may not be quite clear on their interpretation. I don't think babies are born with sin or capable of sinning. If they were to die in that state they would be "justified" (ie considered just) That is my view. I am not Catholic and do not share the same view of "original sin." I think it causes too many baseline doctrinal cracks in the foundation. Infant baptism being the primary. "The regeneration and therefore the justification and forgiveness of sins is God's work in baptism, through no merit or righteous work of their own. Almost nowhere is this more clear in baptized infants." Baptism is a work. It requires faith, repentance, and a covenant to not only obey His commandments but to take His name upon us and represent Him. Taking agency out of the equation (as is done with children) also takes the merit out of the ordinance. Ordinances/covenants entered in without free will are the same as those done not at all. They cannot be enforceable. "No one is damned through no fault of their own" If this is true (which I believe it is) then the reverse is also true. No one can be "saved" by the fault of someone else. If God's judgment (for rewarding, not damning) cannot be given to someone who did not receive baptism because he was never presented with the option - but would have accepted it | then it cannot be given to someone who received but would not have accepted it had he been able to make the decision himself. "Everyone is saved due to the action of another" True - this also contradicts the point earlier about no righteous work of their own - when we are influenced by those works constantly...but to the point: We are saved by God BUT he will not save us against our will or without our consent. That is why ordinances are received by covenant throughout the Bible. Our agency is a requirement. God commands. We choose whether or not to obey. Infants cannot make this choice. "And He doesn't owe it to us a single bit." I agree that everything we have doesn't actually belong to us. the air we breathe and the blood in our veins. Our agency was provided so that we demonstrate what is important to us and what we do with the abundance we have been given. in the scriptures, Christ and the apostles use saving and exaltation in different contexts. They seem interchangeable but it is clear, as Paul explained, that when the resurrected rise it will be with different levels of glory (1 Cor 15) he compared them to the Sun, moon, and stars. Obviously, when it comes to glory there is a lot to unpack (why would someone be as bright as the sun vs as bright as a distant star after the resurrection) and coincidentally that is also the chapter when Paul mentioned the practice of baptisms for the dead. Paul taught about these concepts but most churches do not. This should invoke curiosity but I find that for most it does not. Thank you for the note-

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@HaleStorm49 "Paul mentioned the practice of baptisms for the dead" I actually find that curious. St. Chrysostom in his 40th homily on 1. Corinthians says that Paul means by "the dead" the body. He then goes into what baptism signifies, only to further teach on the topic, basically talking about baptismal regeneration, and definitely as baptism forgiving sin (in totally destroying it and taking it away). I think that's a fitting interpretation, given the obscurity of the verse as well as the context. Re: Re: justified. Well, then at least or common ground is the immaculate conception of Mary. Also, I agree in a sense, "justified" is kind of a weird word to talk about this, I blame the reformers for bringing it to the very forefront of soteriology. ;) I personally prefer "peace with God" (Rom 5:1). This might seem pedantic, but I wouldn't agree with "sinless", unless we are talking about initial justification (which I of course hold to be baptism). We are taught to pray daily "and forgive us our trespasses", because even the most holy of us in this life still sin. The distinction between venial and mortal sin is therefore vital in understanding this, because we can still have "peace with God" and also sin, because we are weak and in the midst of a spiritual war (Eph 6). In this light 1 John also makes much more sense, because he can talk about everybody sinning (venial) and also that nobody who is in God sins (mortally) in the very same letter. I suspect you know this already, but interestingly, this is also the epistle that speaks about sin which leads to death and sin that doesn't (ibid. 5:17). God bless you. J.