Yeah I think neo-gnosticism is also at the heart of most protestants' rejection of the bodily presence of Our Lord in Holy Communion. He's in heaven, they say, not on our altars, and anyway the finite is not capable of the infinite. (My favourite refutation of that btw, comes from the rapper FLAME's album on Holy Communion, and is that if this were so the incarnation couldn't have happened.)
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." -John the Baptist
Also John's baptism was not the baptism instituted by Christ at his ascension. Hence why those who had been baptized by John were still given the trinitarian baptism.
@@silaschambers7413 I'm saying there's no such thing as "Holy Spirit baptism" apart from water baptism, and if you want to use John's quote, which Pentecostals interpret as referring to the Pentecost, which is why they say Holy Spirit baptism is evidenced by speaking in tongues, then you should expect this Holy Spirit baptism to be accompanied by visible tongues of flame as well like at the Pentecost. The fact that such does not happen proves that there is no such thing as the Pentecostal notion of a "Spirit baptism." Water baptism is not necessary for salvation in the sense that people can and do go to heaven without being baptized. However, the gift of grace in baptism is not to be rejected or despised by any true Christian, and that goes for their children as well. Baptism is necessary for salvation, just not absolutely necessary.
@tjotwo That's exactly the point. This washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, through which God saves us, is done by God. Baptism is God's work, not ours.
As a fellow catholic Protestant (any anglicans in the house?) I loled so hard at the 'I shouldn't write letters after four glasses of wine... I meant grape juice.' I thought episode two was hillarious but this is pure genius. I mean, sheesh Paul, there you go again, always meaning the exact opposite of what you wrote in at least three different ways so even the most bone headed of us could get the point...
I am Lutheran, but you Anglicans and us are similar, I thought it was hilarious, because Radical Reformers believe that grape juice should be in the Sacrament of the Altar. And many Hebrew movement Christians believe so just like JW. So on this topic we are on the same side as Papist-Romanists(aka Catholics)
@justasidekick Well, the point of the video is that if you want to hold the view that baptism is just a symbol, you have to explain why Scripture says the opposite every time it talks about baptism.
Mr. Hans, May I ask a question? My question is: IS the baptism formula; The Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit or Just in the name of Jesus Christ.
@@skyahn83 "Receipt of faith from the Holy Spirit through Baptism" may be a better way to say it. Here's some Q & A from Luther's Small Catechism. What is Baptism? Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Which is that word of God? Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19) What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. Which are these words and promises of God? Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) How can water do such great things? Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5-8) What does such baptizing with water indicate? It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever. Where is this written? St. Paul writes in Romans chapter six: “We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Rom. 6:4)
@@skyahn83 He is, if an Anglican can answer for him, saying that the sacraments are works, but not our works, but God's works. We can pour water over an infant's head, but it is God who thereby saves. We can place bread and wine on the alter of sacrifice, but it is God who makes them unto us the body and blood of our Lord.
I was baptized by immersion shortly after my conversion, I did not consider it necessary for my salvation, more like an act of obedience, following Jesus because He did it, and considered it a public act of declaring my intention to be a disciple of the Lord. It turned out to be more than I expected- I did feel differently, and a brother with discernment actually came up to me and said he could "sense" that I was "clean" in spirit.
@@silaschambers7413 I think it's the ability to test a statement against Scripture, in order to tell whether it aligns with the concrete word of God. I could be mistaken, but that's what I think the Bible says to do when it says to discern, to pray to be able to discern, any time we see "discern" in the text.
My attempt to debunk the arguments of this video from the Bible when I was a Pentecostal/quasi-Reformed Baptist in college ended up putting me on the path to confessional Lutheranism 😅
People are weird, the call baptism a work. But hearing the gospel not a work. You know how much I had to read to understand salvation. It took me way more work than baptism.
This is a good one! If baptism is like being circumcised, Paul says it does nothing in the heart. Really tough topic you picked. Loved it! A lot to think about.
"Baptism, which corresponds to [the flood], now saves you, NOT as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal for a clear conscience before God, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21) Also, baptismal regeneration is the orthodox Christian doctrine taught by the Church since the apostolic era, and was largely unchallenged until the schismatic reformation of Zwingli... 1500 years after Christ's founding the Church...
- Romans 6 is talking about our 'walk', see the end of verse 4. - The washing of regeneration is that of the Spirit in context, not of baptism. - Galatians 3 debunks the circumcision thing - we are Abraham's seed in Christ. - The Anabaptists were not the first to discuss believer's baptism. That is a common myth amongst Presbys and Lutherans...
Baptism benefits CHECK OUT these AWESOME benefits & gifts of God: holy Baptism is always "water with Word" (Eph. 5:26), "puts on Christ, baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27, Romans 6:3), "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5-8), sealing/gives with Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39, Holy Gospel John 3:5, Titus 3:5-8), "spiritual circumcision" (Col 2:11) "faith" (Eph 2:8-10), membership in Church - "Christ's body" (1 Cor 12:13), belonging to God's Kingdom (Holy Gospel John 3:5-6), "burial into Christ's death and made alive to a new life in Christ" (Rom 6:4, Col 2:11-12), receiving the name of the triune God (Holy Gospel Matthew 28:19), "salvation/saves" (1 Peter 3:21, Gospel of Mark 16:16), "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38-39). I hope this helps.
There is a difference between saying baptism doesn't save and baptism does nothing. Also, verses like the "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" are primarily referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit where in we are filled by the Holy Spirit as Christians upon salvation. In my mind it is similar to saying that works do not save, but we aren't saying that works are useless - they help others, serve God, help keep our hearts turned towards God, and assure others of our salvation. Baptism from what I understand it is something that a Christian should do given the chance - it is a proclamation of our faith and desire to pursue God and the Christian life to others - but if for example someone got saved and did not have the opportunity to get baptized or was not informed they should be those educating them, I think they would still ultimately be saved.
I think that most here would agree that from conception all the way through each day of our life, we are totally reliant upon the grace of God for our life and breath. For those who have heard, believe and trust in the words of promise delivered through the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, we are fully aware that it is the promise of God's Word that holds power for our eternal salvation. Where we seem to disagree, is the way in which that promise is delivered to us. As someone who came out of churches that spoke of baptism and communion only in a symbolic sense, I know that the arguments against Lutheran understanding of these matters (most of which I've used myself at some point), are unfounded and mistaken. Lutheran theology does not believe that somehow the waters of baptism hold some kind of magic in itself, or that the bread and wine in communion magically transforms into something other than the elements they are. Rather, it is the promise of God's Word that holds the power that saves us, and in His great mercy, He has attached the eternal promise of His Word for our salvation, to common earthly elements such as water, bread and wine. It is not about a magical incantation, but rather a confidence we have graciously been given by God, to know that in these common elements, He has promised to meet with us for our good. Can God save someone not baptised in water, or who hasn't received His Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper? Of course He can, for He is God and can do all things! But when this same God has given His Word through the testimony of the prophets and apostles in Scripture. When He recognises our frailty and weakness of flesh, and proneness to dive head first into sin at seemingly every opportunity, and gives to us the most simple and common ways to connect our sinful lives with the redeeming work of our Saviour. Why do we spend so much time and effort fighting against these things, instead of embracing them for the means of His grace they actually are? Strange thing is, I only had to ask myself that question once with all sincerity, and suddenly the light came on! Thanks Hans for your contributions. God bless. John
Thanks for this video. While I am not aware of how people use Paul's epistles to argue against the power of baptism to save, he said numerous things, as testified in this video, to argue that baptism, water with His Word, makes us new in Christ, meaning that we are saved. The tendency to denigrate baptism is very strange, flying in the face of so many scriptures as it does, mystifying those who know the scriptures, and arguing that our Adversary is behind that tendency. Watch and pray.
Great video!! Since the church actually began at pentecost, Acts 2, and what the were told to do was repent and be baptised FOR the forgiveness of sins......im gonna go with that as the way to have sins forgiven. ONE QUESTION: if you were standing there at Pentecost (acts 2:36) what would you do?
Funny how some believe that we don't really need to do something Jesus commanded, instead they've made it just a symbolic gesture. But then they turn around and make infant dedication a ritual practice when it was just something Hanna decided to do on her own. She wasn't commanded to give her child to the temple. And she actually gave Samuel to the temple. Dedicators should be giving there children to their pastors if they really want to follow Hannah's example.
Like the person who commented below, I love this channel, but with this particular issue I have to disagree with as well. I totally agree that some verses make it sound like baptism is necessary, but I always think back to the thief who was crucified next to Jesus. We have no record of him ever being baptized. And I can confirm from personal experience that you don't need to be baptized to be saved. After I accept Jesus, I had a total change of heart, the very same day. That's the effect of the Holy Ghost.
Oh, and, even if you can be saved without being baptized with water, doesn't mean you should neglect baptism. If you're not baptized, go do this immediately
I still don't see the scripture in this view but my question is : If Baptism did do something and I don't realise it. Since I'm baptized I still got whatever they saying you get right. So, I'm covered if I'm wrong because I obeyed either way, right? I believe I was saved by grace. I believed in Jesus and what He did. And at that moment things changed in me. The next week I got baptized because a strong desire to obey the bible came over me the moment I believed(having really no previous church upbringing). That was over 20 years ago. My teachings have been primarily under Baptist church and Calvary Chapel church teachings since God saved.
You don't understand the scriptures. Water baptism is just a symbolic act. It is the true baptism into Christ that accomplishes salvation. A man that walks in the reality of being dead to the world and live unto Christ by faith and has never been baptized with a water ritual will enter into the kingdom. A man that has been water baptized and continues to walk in the sins of the flesh will not. Water baptism cannot save. Only the baptism in the Holy Ghost can..no water required.
@tjotwo Okay, so why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are consistent with the canonical Scripture. Are they Scripture too? Where's the cutoff? What if I feel that the Letter of St. James contradicts the other parts of the New Testament? How do you prove to me that it is scriptural?
I was trained by some of the best Biblical scholars of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The type of grammar used here is called a 'Dialectical Negation', and means exactly as I have said it means. Paul, as an Apostle, was not primarily sent to baptise. But he *did* baptise on occasion. This fits perfectly with understanding the passage as an idiom, meaning, 'Not so much A as B'.
Anyone who believes we should interpret one Scripture by another (proof-texting) would do well to watch this. The Church has always done a good job of steering our interpretations. Thanks and Kudos for this and the one on "The Original John Calvin"
Saying that we "are baptised with Christ into his death and raised into new life" still doesn't make baptism anything more than symbolic. The baptism being mentioned here is even more symbolic than an actual water baptism. In this instance in Romans 6, the baptism Paul is refering to here is a spiritual baptism (because it's done by the holy *spirit* ) that cannot even be seen in the physical world at all.
I was privileged to baptize a baby today. The child actually died with Christ and rose again by being born of water and the Spirit. I watch this episode now every time I am blessed to be a part of God's baptismal work. Thanks Pastor Fiene!
As a former evangelical and now Lutheran, I agree. To hear kids in my church as young as 2 up at the altar singing "I am Jesus little lamb", or "Jesus lives in my heart" and realize that it actually rings true, is a blessing. Kids in evangelical churches sing the same songs. Now I wonder when parents in evangelical churches know the proper age to tell their children that none of what they've been singing is true, until they make a decision to "ask" Jesus into their heart. Somehow they must believe that little ones are birthed as already saved, born-again children, but at some unknown age they go back to being an unsaved person and have to "ask" Jesus to make them born again, a second time.
@TheLutheranSatire That was a somewhat plausible point back when the crucifix was displayed on the alter or on a wall. But when it is paraded in front of a procession with the “pastor” walking behind, it becomes an object of worship. The Bride of Christ turns and focuses on that image as if it was the Bride.
This verse in John 6 is Jesus pointing out that our flesh counts for nothing. We are only saved through the spirit which is present in the word of God. your first question: most likely, but why take the chance Mk 16:16 second question: not at all Mk 16:16 third question: Yes, thief on the cross.
As a Catholic who believes in Baptismal Regeneration, I am very confused by the Lutheran stance. Hopefully a knowledgable Lutheran can help me out: How do Lutherans reconcile Infant Baptism with the doctrine of Faith Alone? In other words how is it that Baptism saves an infant if an infant can't make an act of faith in his/her Baptism? Any help is appreciated!
We believe that Baptism is the gospel united with water. This gospel is not only a thing to be believed, but it is itself the means by which God creates faith within a person. We believe that the means of grace (The Word and the Sacraments i.e. Baptism and the Lord's Supper) are not primarily human acts, but rather, divine acts which are administered by a human minister. They are not separated from faith, rather, they exist so that we might believe and so be saved.
You don't need baptism to be saved dear Lutherans. It doesn't do anything. For it is the heart that must repent. A lot of baptised people aren't saved and that is why it only a symbol that must not be taken lightly.
2 Peter 3:21 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you. St. Peter: Baptism now saves you. Stefan Douche: You don't need baptism to be saved.
+Stefan Fouche We wouldn't argue that the heart must repent. In fact, that is the first thing we would say. And we would agree that many baptized people are not saved because they have walked away from their salvation.
I think the distinction we need to make is that baptism is not magic. It will save you , if you attempt to live up to the commitment to Christ that Baptism involves. But if you neglect the Christian life, if you do not seek to work with God, if you make no response to Baptism then it will not save you.
+BassPlayer60134 no but is it by baptism by which God grants forgiveness? No. baptism is also commanded but those who think that thats the point are foolish. come to think of it. You are Lutherans... Sooo keep at it
'Baptism' simply means 'immerse,' but it doesn't always refer to baptism IN WATER, such as when John the Baptist contrasts 'his' baptism of water for repentance (which John said he must 'decrease') vs. Jesus' baptism of the Holy Spirit (which John said Jesus must 'increase'). If water baptism saved, then that would mean EVERYONE who isn't baptized IN WATER would end up in Hell, including unbaptized babies who die, according to Jesus' words in John 3:5, when He says "UNLESS one is born of water [baptized in water] & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven." So would the repentant thief on the cross, despite Jesus 'promising' him paradise, despite not being baptized IN WATER.
Hmm...maybe that's why the oldest Christians (Catholic, the Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.) baptize infants... Baptism is always connected to water in the New Testament. Jesus instructed his disciples to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" only after His resurrection. The thief died before Jesus had resurrected. This is from Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Lexington, Kentucky Furthermore, Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). According to Jesus, ANYONE who does not believe in Him will be damned. Jesus makes no exception for infants. Babies will not be saved without faith in Jesus. Parents who think they are placing their children under God's grace by "dedicating" them are deceiving themselves. The only dedication that the New Testament knows of is the "dedication" that take place via baptism. That is why infants should be baptized. Like everyone else, they desperately need forgiveness. If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned. They, like everyone else, need to be baptized so that they can be born again. Jesus said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). We believe that baptism is God's special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again. To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.
Deo Gratias so if anyone is not baptized IN water, they end up burning eternally in hellfire??? Then what would have happened to the children that Jesus said "HEAVEN belongs to CHILDREN like these?" if they had died right then, but weren't baptized in water? Based on Jesus' words, would they have ended up in Heaven or Hell? And as far as the thief dying before Jesus resurrecting, that still doesn't change the fact that Jesus promised him PARADISE (ie: Heaven), & when Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of water & the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven, that too was YEARS before He rose from the dead. So your argument doesn't work. BTW, Scripturally, the 'water' in John 3:5 does not refer to the waters of baptism.
You believe that heaven belongs to little children that aren't considered Christians (you know, because they are incapable of accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior)? Are you telling me that these little non-Christians make it to Heaven? And, on top of that, you believe that children don't need Jesus to make it to heaven (because they have not committed any sins)? LOL!!! Seriously though, on this matter the Church says, "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism." (CCC 1261). An "I don't know" is not a risk I'm willing to take when it comes to my kids. If you want to argue with Jesus when he says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16), be my guest. I choose not to do that. "Paradise" is not heaven. Did Jesus go to heaven the day he was crucified? No. He went three days to preach to the spirits in prison. He didn't go to heaven until after he resurrected, correct? See Mk. 16:19, Acts 1:9-11. "When Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of water & the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven, that too was YEARS before He rose from the dead." What makes you think this? "BTW, Scripturally, the 'water' in John 3:5 does not refer to the waters of baptism." By the way, some of your Sola Scriptura-believing brothers and sisters in Protestantism disagree with your statement...
Deo Gratias First, you are making the preconceived assumption that baptism is necessary for salvation & “makes” one a Christian. So, instead, let’s stick with what Scripture actually supports. Also, I never said that “children don’t need Jesus to make it to heaven” or “they have not committed any sins.” YOU assumed that I believe that, but I never made those statements. Of course children, including babies are sinners, & of course they need Jesus to die for their sins too. However, that isn’t the issue. The issue is “do they need baptism to be saved?” If yes, they if ANY child, or any person for that matter, who isn’t baptized IN WATER, based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus in John 3:5 (“Unless” & “cannot”), then ALL of those people, including unbaptized babies inside AND outside the womb would end up in burning hellfire. Again, is that your position??? Yes or no? If yes, then you contradicted your quote from Vatican.va that talked about the “hope” of salvation for children who have died without baptism (CCC 1261). If baptism is “necessary” for salvation - even for unbaptized babies who die - then they too would NOT have a “hope” for salvation, but would end up in eternal hellfire, which Catholics like St. Augustine & various popes from the past taught. Also, you don’t have to say “I don’t know” when it comes to your kids, like the Catholic church teaches about this subject, because SCRIPTURE EXPLICITLY teachers that ALL babies & very young children who die end up in Heaven. So, I’m not “arguing” with Jesus, but rather not “assuming” that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism (especially since Jesus never even MENTIONS baptism DURING His conversation with Nicodemus). Otherwise, if baptismal water is what Jesus meant, then again Jesus is saying water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, once again, you have ALL unbaptized babies who die ending up in eternal burning hellfire. Again, is that your position??? And as far as Mark 16:16 goes: First, Mark 16:9-20 is most likely not part of the original text, since the earliest Greek copies of Mark Ch.16 don’t have those verses. So, Mark 16:16 can’t be used to support baptismal salvation. Second, Mark 16:16 needs to be understood from the original Greek. Remember, Jesus says “He who BELIEVES and is baptized shall be saved.” An infant doesn’t have the mental ability to BELIEVE. Plus, Jesus goes onto say “He who BELIEVES NOT shall be damned.” Jesus does not say, “He who BELIEVED NOT and is BAPTIZED NOT shall be damned.” What “damns” a person isn’t that they weren’t baptized, but because they BELIEVED NOT. In the original Greek, “believed not” is an active verb, just like in John 3:18. So, the ACTIVE, willful “disbelieving” is what “damns” a person to Hell, not their baptismal status. Otherwise, you are back to ALL unbaptized babies who die ending up in eternal burning hellfire. Third, the specific Greek word for “and” in Mark 16:16 (“He who believes ‘and’ is baptized shall be saved”) is the word ‘kai,’ which in Greek is a copulative and sometimes cumulative conjunction. Meaning that the word after the conjunction must follow the action of the word before the conjunction. In regards to Mark 16:16 ‘kai’ means that the ‘saving’ part is “believing,” not being baptized. Based on the Greek, Jesus is saying that baptism occurs AFTER the individual “believes” and is “saved,” which is why throughout the NT, people don’t get baptized until AFTER their believe, repent, and are saved, especially in the book of Acts. “Paradise” is indeed Heaven. In fact, in the 3 times the Greek word for “Paradise” is used in the NT, it’s used as a synonym for Heaven (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; Revelation 2:7). Also, I never said that Jesus went to Heaven the DAY He was crucified. Again, YOU are making the assumption that I did. All Jesus did was promise the repentant & UNbaptized thief on the cross PARADISE (ie: Heaven)…just not Heaven THAT DAY, but EVENTUALLY. So, after Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, Jesus “took the captives captive” (the OT saints, which would include the repentant, UNbaptized thief on the cross) to HEAVEN. So, if baptism is “necessary” for salvation based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words in John 3:5 & the ‘water’ referring to the waters of baptism, then ‘how’ did the thief “enter the kingdom of God?” "When Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of water & the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven, that too was YEARS before He rose from the dead." What makes you think this? Umm…think about what you just asked. Jesus hadn’t died yet when He was speaking with Nicodemus, let alone been crucified. Therefore, when He was speaking to Nicodemus, it was BEFORE He spoke with the thief, which occurred WHEN He was on the cross. Remember, your argument is that the reason Jesus promised the unbaptized thief “Paradise” (ie: Heaven) was because He hadn’t resurrected yet. My point is that when Jesus told Nicodemus ‘how’ to “enter the kingdom of God,” that too was “before” Jesus rose from the dead too, and was also “before” Jesus spoke with the thief. So, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, which occurred BEFORE Jesus promised the thief “Paradise” (ie: Heaven), then ‘how’ did the unbaptized thief attain “Paradise/Heaven?” "BTW, Scripturally, the 'water' in John 3:5 does not refer to the waters of baptism." By the way, some of your Sola Scriptura-believing brothers and sisters in Protestantism disagree with your statement... That is irrelevant, since we are talking about what SCRIPTURE actually supports. Anyone can profess to be “sola scriptura,” but if their “beliefs” & interpretations of Scripture either are not supported by Scripture or contradicts it, they are no more “sola scriptura” than the Catholic church is. Also, keep in mind that many “sola scriptura” Protestants follow Reformers like Luther & Zwingli who were former Catholics themselves who still clung to some false Catholic beliefs, like infant baptism. So, it’s a moot point. You still have to compare THEIR beliefs to Scripture too, which is why most Protestants are not Lutheran either, because many Lutherans are also not "sola scriptura" either.
"SCRIPTURE EXPLICITLY teachers that ALL babies & very young children who die end up in Heaven." -Are you referring to Matthew 19:14 and Luke 18:16 “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”? Yes, children who go to Jesus go to heaven. And what do you call a person who goes to Jesus? A Christian. Something many Christians refuse to call children who are incapable of confessing Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. And who is a person put that has put on Christ? One that has been baptized. Gal 3:27 Also, I never said that “children don’t need Jesus to make it to heaven” or “they have not committed any sins.” -What possible sin can a child that has not reached the age of reason be guilty of??? "Of course children, including babies are sinners, & of course they need Jesus to die for their sins too. However, that isn’t the issue." -Oh, yes it is! If they do in fact have any sins, and Rev. 21:27 says that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, HOW is a sinful child going to make it to heaven? They can't believe in Jesus and they can't repent for their sins, so....? -Is there anything in the Bible about baptism for the remission of sins somewhere? Oh wait, infants can't repent and be baptized for the remission of sins as clearly outlined in the Bible so this verse doesn't apply to them either using your logic. "Remember, Jesus says “He who BELIEVES and is baptized shall be saved.” An infant doesn’t have the mental ability to BELIEVE. Plus, Jesus goes onto say “He who BELIEVES NOT shall be damned.” Jesus does not say, “He who BELIEVED NOT and is BAPTIZED NOT shall be damned.” What “damns” a person isn’t that they weren’t baptized, but because they BELIEVED NOT" -Therefore, since infants cannot believe, they are damned because they believed not? (Side note: a person who does not believe is not going to bother with baptism, are they?) Why do you bring up children that have not been born? You need baptism because we are BORN of the flesh, and flesh begets flesh. Children who haven't been BORN have not been BORN of the flesh yet, now have they? Yes, there absolutely is “hope” of salvation for children who have died without baptism and once again I say "hope" doesn't cut it when it comes to my children. "That is irrelevant, since we are talking about what SCRIPTURE actually supports." -Actually, it is completely relevant. What Scripture "supports" varies greatly depending on who you talk to. You are essentially speaking as if your interpretation of the Bible is the 100% correct translation and that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. You speak as though you are infallible or something. Are you infallible?
@tjotwo Actually, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas are not part of what is commonly called the Apocrypha, which is OT Jewish literature. Anyways, yes, it's been tested by the Church, and that's why I accept it. This whole discussion was intended to lead you to that very conclusion, that our ground for accepting the twenty-seven New Testament books was indeed the Church.
@jcvanderham Actually, the "not by removal of dirt" speaks MORE in favor of water baptism. In other words, Peter is saying Baptism does save, but it's not just because we dunked the person in water, but because the Holy Spirit grants the believer infused righteousness which is efficacious for salvation IN the act of baptism. Hence, it ISN'T our work that saves, it's what the Holy Spirit does in the midst of that baptism. I think I'm orthodox here, (Knowledgable Catholics, warn me if I'm not).
In Rom. 6 was Paul speaking of water baptism or spirit baptism? Titus is spirit baptism. Peter's comment explicitly excluded water baptism as that which saves us (not the removal of the filth of the fresh (i.e. not water washing), but the answer of a good conscience toward God (i.e. spirit washing)."
@TheLutheranSatire The bride that everybody turns to look at in a wedding was made by the one true living God and the analogy is spelled out in His Word (Eph 5:22ff and others). The image on the pole that Lutherans turn to look at was shaped by an ironsmith (Isa 44:12) or a carpenter (Isa 44:13ff) These craftsmen are only human (Isa 44:11).
I don't see what's so complicated about this. The Bible says we have to be baptized in water, though God may allow exceptions (like the thief on the cross). And every biblical instance of baptism we know any details about comes after conversion, so, like Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I think the grounds for infant baptism are very weak.
It's not our works but God's. What should it matter if a person can understand it or not? It's not by our finite power of understanding, but God's infinite power of salvation. Would you never baptise a mentally disabled person? Baptism now saves you. Assurance through faith in God (and His scripture) is given when we are baptised.
+Beaguins in Acts there were those who were baptised and then received the Holy Spirit. "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8)
I liken it to babies coming into their natural families. When they are born or adopted, parents give them their last name and make them a part of the family without that child's permission or ability to decide if they want that. Would the perfect Father not do the same for his children.
If Romans 6:3-5 refers to literal baptism, doesn't it contradict his earlier teaching about salvation by faith alone? I don't think "baptism into Christ" is the same as "baptism, period".
+ObieMe1 The Lutheran answer: No, because water baptism is not something you do, it's something that done TO you and your decision to receive it is a part of your faith. The Catholic/Orthodox: [Insert Lutheran answer]. Plus, the works condemned are works of the law, which are referring to the ceremonial ordinances which foreshadowed Christ and in of themselves do not save, but rather they pointed to Christ who DOES save. It does not refer to good works which are an extension of your faith and therefore are a part of the faith that saves you.
+ObieMe1 We're not saved by our works. We're saved by Christ's work for us. This work is delivered to us in the Word of God. Baptism is simply the Word and Spirit of God attached to water (John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:25-26). Consider also listening to the Gospel. The Gospel saves (Romans 1:16-17), but this doesn't mean that we are saved by our work of listening. We are saved by Christ and his work which the Gospel gives to our hearts.
+Phil Godshall Oh, OKAY, modern Lutheran who quotes ancient Lutherans....., but your explanations are more complicated than the simple teachings of Paul, that the Bible teaches just as Paul wrote in his letters, none of our actions save us, only God's grace through the blood of Christ, shed only ONCE for all time, saves us. So we think you ate too much junk food candy powder when you were young, and never learned to read the Bible for what it is. But you have enough emphasis on faith alone, grace alone, God alone, so you are okay with us, and have a good day. And don't taze me, bro.
+Mike Lindner 1. The Bible says baptism saves 2. You say baptism does not save Conclusion: You reject the Bible. Repent and accept God's Word. "junk food candy powder" I'm not familiar with this concoction as I do not do drugs. Enlighten me as to what this substance is please. Any response would sound vastly more intelligent than any attempts at exegesis you offered here.
I think people resist the idea that it is baptism doing the saving specifically because it implies a works based salvation and partly because it implies that everyone who has ever had a both or gone swimming will be saved. So they believe it must be something other than literal water that saves; that the washing being spoken of is a washing of sins and spirit rather than physical dirt. I'm sure that when the Bible talks about circumcision of the heart it doesn't mean people should go for coronary surgery.
Both of these are poorly constructed strawmen; I suggest you read the small catechism's section on baptism if you want to know what we *actually* believe.
You might like the late Cardinal Biffi's Il Quinto Vangelo (probably the English translation is The Fifth Gospel). As it claims to unearth a very important document for properly understanding the four canonic ones, it is put beside them. (Yes, he died in 2015, +RIP)
@tjotwo Just as there is one Lord and one Faith, there is one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The only reason people separate water baptism from spirit baptism is because they start with the conclusion that baptism doesn't do anything and then have to create different levels of baptism in order to fit the conclusion they've already drawn. That's a bad way to do theology and doesn't let the Scriptures speak freely.
Is it fair to say Lutheranism = Catholicism - celibate priestly order - trans-substantiation - acts of penance - Pope? Or, it's Church of Christ + consubstantiation + creeds + a collared clerical order + infant baptism?
No one is denying that baptism is an outward symbol of internal regeneration. I have not only been baptized but have baptized others. However,when it is presented as a requirement for salvation then you are changing the gospel. Someone that actually walks in the reality that baptism represents,like putting off the old man and walking in the new,is actually baptized into Christ. Water has no redemptive properties.Only the blood of Jesus does.
@tjotwo But a Crucifix is not an object of worship. No one is praying to it. No one is treating it as the presence of God among us, just as the Israelites were not at first worshiping the Bronze Serpent (but then later were, hence it's destruction.) Rather, a Crucifix is a visible reminder of the Crucified One we worship. And it functions in the same way as illustrations in a children's book or the images on screen in "The Passion."
This is the first video I've seen by you guys that disappoints me. I'm sorry but your logic is muuuch weaker and much more up to interpretation and you know it.
+Colloquial Bunny Why do you deny the Holy Baptism,my friend. Kindly, study the scripture and look into the life of the apostles. You will get your answer.
@NicholasMyra Note that Christ provides a timeframe in Luke 11:51. Around 400AD, Jerome recanted his support of DC books naming them apocrypha after the Greek term for hidden. There are 4 different sets of apocryphal books depending on whether you are RC, GO, SO, or HC. And it was Trent, after Reformation, that settled it for the RC’s while they also condemned Luther.
@Vaticantroll One other note, to be sure not be confused with an actual water baptism, Peter says "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh..." The believer when saved, is in Christ, the "ark", which keeps the believer from God's judgment. If you read the whole chapter, you'll see it ties together with other references to the flood and the Noah's ark.
and one last thing. "Our prayer should include the Mother of God…What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor… We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her… He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary." (Personal Prayer Book, 1522). -Martin Luther
A good point...only Jesus can baptize with the Holy Ghost and as such he is the only way to the Father. How do you reconcile water baptism,Holy Spirit baptism and baptism into Christ with Paul's statement in Eph 4 that there is only one baptism? It's simple,water is the symbol and the Spirit the reality into the one true baptism into Christ.
If it's not supported in scripture it's not supported by real Lutherans. My Catholic friends tell me we have to go by more than just scripture, but then where does one draw the line. I was once Catholic, and then Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and pentecostal. Conservative Lutheranism is strictly by the book as far as doctrine is concerned and is is truly a solid foundation.
Brother,I just want to change the whole atmosphere of this conversation. First of all I want to repent for the ungodly attitude I have had with you. I apologize and humble myself for acting so ungodly. While we will perhaps never agree on this subject I do think that water baptism is important and that it needs to be re-emphasized. I don't agree that it in itself has redemptive properties but I agree that Jesus did command it and we need to obey it out of faith. Once again...forgive me.
He served his body to them yes. Don't tie yourself up trying to understand it, just take his word for it. I am not denying that people can be saved without baptism. I gave a nice analogy for baptism in the aspect of a lifeguard saving swimmers. Someone who is not a lifeguard saves a drowning child, since the bystander is not a lifeguard, should we assume that lifeguards do not save? Crazy! Baptism saves, and yet you can be saved without it.
@NicholasMyra You probably have not directed artillery fire. Fire one round based on best guess. Adjust fire until on target then fire for effect - all guns. That has been my experience with reading the Bible from various perspectives. I keep rereading, learning, and adjusting. Finally, after 40 years, I adjust primarily from within Scripture. I enjoy smart people like you who test my PF rather than condemning me along with my PF out of hand.
it all makes sense when we realize that water baptism is meant to happen at the same time as spiritual baptism. Romans 6 refers to spiritual baptism. Baptism always speaks of death and resurrection and is the first act of public faith.
@tjotwo You mean like when the Israelites followed God's command and looked upon a graven image on a stick in the wilderness so that, through faith, they might be saved? (Numbers 21:4-9) FOR SHAME!!!
@tjotwo Yes, God tells the Israelites not to use pagan images in worship. And He also tells them to put all kinds of images on the Ark and in the Temple. So He is obviously forbidding the Israelites from using the idols of the pagans and from using them the way that the pagans do. But He is not outright forbidding the use of graven images by His people.
(pt. 2) In other words, when Paul, using Hebrew idiom, says, 'For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel' what that translates to is, 'For Christ sent me both to baptise and preach the gospel, but my main mission is preaching the gospel' Nowhere does he say that baptism is not commanded. Nowhere does he say that baptism doesn't actually do anything. All he says is that for *him*, *personally*, it wasn't the focus of his ministry.
@tjotwo So we've gone from "all graven images are bad" to "only graven images made my men are bad" to "it's ok to have a graven image by the altar as long as people don't turn to face it or anything like that" to "you can hold it up for people to look at, but only once." Hombre, you are grasping at straws here.
@kozyshack12 That is the Semipelagian view that man participates in his salvation. Drop back to Rom 3:21 and read through 4:12, esp 3:28 which tells us our works ARE irrelevant to our salvation. In fact, pg 544 your Bk of Concord quotes M Luther,” Therefore, while and as long as we have to do with this article of justification, we reject and condemn works, since the very nature of this article cannot admit any treatment or discussion of works.” Works follow faith but do not produce faith.
(cont.) which is to be spiritually understood; John the Baptist said: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Clearly, spiritual baptism is distinguished from water baptism, as is seen from the fact that Jesus never baptised. Water baptism is a sign pointing to spritual baptism, for as water cleanses the body, so the Spirit cleanses the soul.
The spirit can come to a person without a baptism yes. But it is promised to us IN baptism, I feel more confident with a baptism. Baptism is spirit induced, don't separate the two.
Sir, I love your videos. This is one of the few, however, that I can't say I agree with. Does that mean that babies go to hell if they're not baptized? Also, what about when John the Baptist talks about the baptism of the Holy Spirit above the baptism of water? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just think that if you're on your death bed and accept Jesus Christ and then die before your baptized you will go to hell.
@jcvanderham If you look at 1Pe 3:21, he's comparing Baptism with the Noahic flood, so apparently he IS talking about water baptism, at least in that case where it says, "baptism saves"
You just read a passage that says baptism is a rebirth, and you then go on to say that circumcision is for newborns, and yet you still don't get it and dunk sinless babies instead.
@Vaticantroll Hi. Interesting reference, but that seems to be quite the logical stretch.Peter is comparing baptism to the flood in the sense that Noah and his family is analogous to the Christian's experience in salvation by being in Christ, the ark of one's salvation.Baptism is not necessary to go to Heaven(the thief on the cross was not baptized),but being baptized is a public declaration of one's faith.Nothing supernatural happens in the waters of a baptismal tank.God saves, our works don't.
Paul wasn't cleansed of his sin when he saw and believed in Christ and called him Lord. Anninias told Paul to arise and be BAPTIZED to WASH AWAY HIS SINS! OOPSI!
Acts 9:17 "So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 19 and taking food, he was strengthened. " Anninias was sent to Saul so he could regain his sight and receive the Holy Spirit, only then was he Baptized. ???Where do you read Anninias saying anything like "arise and be BAPTIZED to WASH AWAY HIS SINS!"??? Thanks.
This is an excerpt from John MacArther on this text(Rm 6:3)"baptized into Christ." "This is does not refer to water baptism.Paul is actually wising the word "baptized" in a metaphorical sense, as we might in saying someone was immersed in his work, or underwent his baptism of fire when experiencing some trouble. All Christians have, by placing saving faith in Him, been spiritually immersed into the person of Christ, that is, united and identified with Him. (1Co 6:17; 10:2; Gal 3:27; 1Pe 3:21;)
Col 2:11-12 doesn't call baptism a "circumcision without hands." It says Christ performed a circumcision on us without hands, cutting our fleshy selves off (from our spiritual selves). He didn't do that when we were baptized or when he baptized us, or when he was baptized. He did that when he died, was buried, and resurrected. In other words, this verse by itself doesn't mean baptism replaces circumcision and should be performed at 8 days old. The atonement & crucifixion of Christ replace circumcision. Baptism represents the burial and resurrection of Christ (and our own burial and resurrection). Nothing is said in these verses about when baptism should take place. But since you're making an argument that baptism actually DOES save us, and you're also making an argument that everyone, including infants, should be baptized, then the logical conclusion is that my personal salvation, until I'm an adult and able to disobey my parents, depends entirely on whether or not my parents baptized me. Right? Or am I completely misunderstanding this one?
What I can't figure out is why does Frankie Schaeffer play St. Mark in your vid?As to baptism & other doctrines & St. Paul. St. Paul was always, except for Rome which was founded by others, writing to churches which he had founded long b/4. He had taught them all basic doctrine, baptized them, gave them all the sacraments. He was going to give a basic intro. to Christianity to people who were not new or prospective Christians. He was speaking authoritatively as an apostle to the authorities of the chuches he had left behind. We have NO reason to expect any kind of basic Christian doctrine class in St. Paul's epistles.
@NicholasMyra My apologies. It was not my intention to be flippant or insulting. I refer to them as such since the “Song…” was an addition to Daniel not in the original Hebrew Canon and I understand “Wisdom…” has 2 instances of contradictory doctrine. They are likely more reliable than my writing but not up to the standard of the Holy Bible.
I wonder why they only quoted the first part of the verse in 1 Peter 3:21: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
