The Evangelical Misunderstanding of Baptism [Scriptum #4.4] 

It is no accident the churches which do away with the biblical sacraments often end up inventing sacraments of their own, such as the altar call or the evidence of speaking in tongues, or the goosebumps.

"All Baptism is infant baptism" Beautiful. The Lutheran BOTH AND instead of EITHER OR

I'd love to see a Pentacostal "baptism of the Holy Spirit" debate/investigation on this channel. Great video

The fascinating aspect of all of this is that as much as the Biblical passages here cited are clearly teaching 'baptismal regenerationism', if you lack the proper worldview of what many 20th century theologians call the "Sacramental Imagination", you will simply dismiss these obvious interpretations and opt for more convulted ways of getting around the uncomfortable conclusions. The issue is more foundational than "what does the text say about baptism..?", and is rather, "what is our theology of the relationship between God and the material world?" I tend to think _Gnosticism_ is thrown around like a boogeyman nowadays (especially by those who denigrate Greek philosophy generally and Scholasticism in particular).. but in this regard, I think there are some leanings in modern evangelicalism.

I like the citation of the 7th Gospel (after Bach's B Minor Mass and Isaiah), "Has American Christianity Failed?"

As someone who moved from Baptist to reformed baptist this video is very interesting! I don't think baptism is just something we do to show our commitment to God, and I do believe baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but I also think regeneration precedes faith rather than being withheld to baptism. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sins and a clean conscience, but those are also received in faith. It is less like a ring in a marriage and more like the wedding itself. One can be married apart from a wedding, sure, but you can also say that a wedding is when you got married and not be lying. Or a king's coronation, where you can truly say that that is where the man became king, even when he was king before that moment. Both of these examples are also things that are done to willing participants, rather than things they do themselves. Also on infant faith I think infants can have faith! I am appalled at baptist churches which require a person to be like 20 to be baptized. As soon as a little one displays faith they should be baptized! I just don't think we should assume that all infants have faith. Point of clarification: do all infants have faith, or is it just the infants of believers? So overall, I think this is a good video critiquing broad evangelicalism, though I disagree on the particulars of how baptism is efficacious and whether baptism of infants should be infants according to faith or infants according to flesh.

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

Have you ever read this? It seems Luther himself was not fully consistent on this matter. Early in his ministry, Luther tended to emphasize the importance of faith in baptism, especially against the sacramental Catholic view. In 1520 Luther wrote The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, partially for the purpose of attacking how Catholicism had turned the sacraments into empty rituals devoid of faith. He claimed that, “It is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfills that which baptism signifies.”9 As late as 1522, Luther preached on the centrality of faith and baptism as merely a sign pointing to Christ.10 Luther argued that human faith is necessary for baptism to be profitable, even to the point of arguing that faith without the sacrament could still be salvific.11 Basing his argument on Mark 16:16, “the one who believes and is baptized will be saved,” Luther claimed, “Where there is a divine promise, there everyone must stand on his own feet; his own personal faith is demanded.”12 He declared, “It is not the sacrament but faith in the sacrament that justifies,” and then quoted Augustine, “It justifies not because it is performed but because it is believed.”13 The younger Luther clearly saw faith as necessary for baptism. Several years later, a different threat-the Anabaptist movement- appeared. Luther again felt the need to publicly counter a theology he deemed false. Luther likely had very little understanding of the views of Anabaptists, and even “may never actually have seen a genuine Anabaptist face to face.” 14 8 David P. Scaer, “Luther, Baptism, and the Church Today,” CTQ 62.4 (1998): 252. 9 Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Abdel Ross Wentz and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), 36:66. 10 Samuel Byung-doo Nam, “A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Understanding of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Hubmaier” (Ph.D. diss., Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), 80. 11 Bryan D. Spinks, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From Luther to Contemporary Practices (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 6. 12 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 36:49. 13 Martin Luther, Lectures on Hebrews, in Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, eds., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia, 1968), 29:172. 14 Jaroslav J. Pelikan, “Luther’s Defense of Infant Baptism,” in Luther for an Ecumenical Age: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation,

I grew up in a Lutheran culture where 90% of infants were baptized and later confirmed, but only 10% considered themselves Christian as adults…. Perhaps it was deficiency in the sprinkling method. (Sarcasm)

This is one instance of getting baptized more than once. ‭‭Acts 19:2-6 KJV‬‬ [2] he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I actually have heard some scriptural arguments for baptism being a work. One is when Jesus goes to John the Baptist to be baptized, Jesus says that he must be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness". Another is the parallel Paul draws between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2, and we already know from Galatians baptism is a work. Therefore, if the parallel works, then it seems baptism is a work. Would you mind responding to these please?

Do you think that getting re-baptized is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (unforgivable) or just blasphemy against Jesus (forgivable) Because what people are doing is saying that God’s Word has no power in baptism when they deny their baptism and do it over again.

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

You failed to include 1 Peter 3:21. Water baptism won't save you.

Let me be clear on this... without Apostolic Roots and Succession, there is no valid sacrament including Baptism. In the Bible we have a person named Simon who tried to buy a gift of Holy Spirit and take it outside of the Church. He met his doom. In the (1 Tim 4, 14-16) is the explanation as to what Apostolic Succession is and includes: 1) Gift newly ordained priest receives via Laying on of Hands v. 14, and 2) Having correct doctrines v. 16. What that translated into Apostolic means that person performing Baptism must have unbroken lineage in ordinations from the Apostles all the way until our days. If we look at the present day RCC, EOC and Orientals who only have roots that are 2000 years old, RCC & Orientals do not have succession in teachings and are thus invalid, which leaves EOC only one with the clergy having Apostolic Succession and thus can perform true Baptism. Protestants.? Their roots are only 500 years old.

I was disappointed with this explanation. You need to be more “forensic” with your approach and less aggressive about Evangelicalism. Here are the issues I’m working through: First, though salvation is declared to be wholly of God, who alone can save, it has yet been taught in some portions of the Church (like yours) that God in working salvation does not operate upon the human soul directly but indirectly through instrumentalities which he has established as the means by which his saving grace is communicated to men. As these instrumentalities are committed to human hands for their administration, a human factor is thus intruded between the saving grace of God and its effective operation in the souls of men; and this human factor indeed, is made the determining factor in salvation. The whole point of evangelicalism is to be faithful to sola fide. So by high church Lutherans introducing a sacerdotal requirement is starting to play with fire on sola fide. This is the accusation being made. Please explain. Second: In the interests of the pure supernaturalism of salvation, True evangelicalism insists that God himself works by his grace immediately on the souls of men, and has not suspended any man's salvation upon the faithfulness or caprice of his fellows. Protestantism, as opposed to Rome, suspends the welfare of the soul directly, without any intermediaries at all, upon the grace of God alone. The whole argument here is that justification is an alien righteousness, and man is justified by Christ even though his inward self is not changed. But I just watched a traditional sedevacantist attack Luther and evangelicals using your very argument! That baptism is where regeneration happens and where grace is infused and therefore justification, hence Luther is a heretic. How do Lutherans respond to this? Would you like the link? Regarding infant baptism: Does a baby really have faith? And what about David’s baby to Bathsheba? Died after 7 days without circumcision but David said he will be with baby one day in heaven. And that’s the OT! Thoughts?