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.". . . :)
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 :)
Great job you guys! While I side with Dr. Cooper on the issue of BR, I think it would be very beneficial to the body of Christ if more baptists had a higher view of the sacraments as Dr. Ortlund does. It's very refreshing to hear especially since so many now a days aren't even willing to call them Sacraments but mere ordinances which strip them of all their power. Thanks again for these wonderful dialogues.
While I side with Gavin on BR, I listen and benefit from Dr. Cooper a ton. I disagree that calling them ordinances is calling them "mere". Especially if sacraments is charged with the Roman understanding of ex opere operato here. And the greek word μυστήριον (of which the Latin word sacramentum derives) in Colossians 1:26 refers to what has been revealed.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Former Baptist. After learning that other denominations called them ordinances, I got annoyed that we called them "ordinances." Later I understood the definition and significance of sacraments and become even more bothered by the usage of ordinance. Calling them ordinances renders them as mere commands by God, much akin to the Mosaic Law, without any underatanding of why God calls us to practice them. It's with sacramental theology that they gain their purpose, which objectively benefits believers, and not mere dictates.
@@wesmorgan7729exactly! "Ordinance" is an implicitly legal word. Why would we use it, inasmuch as we know that Christ is the end of the law for believers?
As an Orthodox Christian, I find a lot of commonality between my own understanding and Dr. Cooper's Lutheran perspective, more so than with some Roman Catholic articulations. But I think Pastor Ortlund is incredibly thoughtful, and it's refreshing to hear a Baptist perspective that doesn't default to a hyper-Zwinglian belief that baptism's effect is only psychological or that it's a sign whose significance lies entirely outside the act.
To my understanding, Lutheran sacramentology is similar to both Eastern and Oriental orthodoxy. They would rather appeal to mystery than explain through a more detailed model like reformed and Catholics do.
@kevinclass2010 It's interesting you should bring up the Orientals, since I think Lutheran and Calvinist scholastics often accuse each other (not without warrant, IMO) of drifting too close either to monophysitism or to Nestorianism in their respective christologies, e.g., in regard to the communicatio idiomatum and the extra Calvinisticum.
@@kevinclass2010 My only issue with Lutheran eucharistic theology is the plethora of spatial prepositions about the Body's relation to the consecrated bread. Being Orthodox, I don't say the substance of the Body replaces the substance of the bread, in accordance with Aristotelian ontology, as Roman Catholicism insists; nor that the Body is in, with, and under the bread; but rather only that bread "is" the Body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's a mystical identification, with all the accompanying spiritual significance. We say the Church is the Body of Christ as well ("we are what we eat"), yet we don't strap endless prepositions to the statement qualifying the "is."
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is the most charitable and level-headed memorialist I have ever met. Usually they get very heated and irrational and start slinging "works-based salvation" insults at you. I say this as a former memorialist who (to my shame) did the same thing. Actually, embracing the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration and salvation gives me very great comfort and MORE assurance than anything I ever felt in the Born-Again movement. In my walk in the Messianic Movement right now I am also meeting a bunch of young people who feel the same way as myself. We're kind of quietly pushing leaders of the movement to adopt the apostolic view of the "sacraments" while keeping the distinct beliefs of the movement (a future millenial reign, the Jewish people still being elect in God's eyes [albeit in rebellion and unsaved], a future literal restoration of Israel involving the reunion of the house of israel and judah, etc.).
@@angelbonilla4243 Piagetian psychological gymnastics, sometimes. Hermeneutical, not at all. You did not get your rejection of infant faith from the Bible, nor did anyone get it from the Bible. Some late medieval anabaptists invented the notion. *John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.* _And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41 *A psalmist had faith from birth.* _For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_ _You are my trust from my youth._ *_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_* _You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6 *David had faith from birth.* _[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._ _I have been dependent on you since birth;_ _from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God._ Psalm 22:9 *Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy.* _From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy message._ 2 Timothy 3:15 *David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith.* _And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16 Finally, the Son of God did not somehow lose his eternal faith in his Father during his earthly infancy.
Evangelical churches in America substituted the sinner's prayer instead of baptism. This sinner's prayer then becomes their method of acceptance of the gospel, when Christian baptism is the biblical method of acceptance (Acts 18:8).
According to my Church, Syriac Oriental Orthodox, baptism should be done once. Baptism is the forgivness of sins and one becomes united with Jesus Christ referencing Galatians. If someone joins from another denomination, we just "confirm" him/her thru the sacrament of Crismation.
Believers want to have a believer's baptism, following their Lord's instructions & the Bible. WE LOVE & APPRECIATE WHAT JESUS DID & TAUGHT. HE'S A LOVING LORD who we want to follow.
As a former SDA, I appreciate what was stated with reference to LDS baptism not being valid and would argue for the same stance on SDA baptism because they also believe in three personages (sometimes called "Powers" or "three great Worthies" by SDA prophetess Ellen G. White).
In Dragonarrr’s question, the closest to Baptist that has baptismal regeneration would be the Church of Christ denomination. If I’m not a mistaken, they split off of the Baptist in the early 1800s.
CofC splitt from Presbyterians, in their faith journey got close to Baps, but in US diverged. In Australia tho Baps and CoC are much closer, shared a bible college campus. British Baps have scholars are more sacremental.
On infant baptism from memory i read that Martyn Lloyd Jones, the British preacher, did an extensive investigation into infant baptism. And after a long investigation reading many books he finally came to a conclusion about infant baptism. The conclusion he came to was there was no conclusion. The New Testament was unclear he said and it was not possible to come to a conclusion about what the teaching is about infant baptism according to the bible. Not sure what denomination MLJ belonged to.
@YAJUN YUAN liturgical services are mostly made up of text from the Bible. There's usually at least 4 explicit passages read out of the scriptures, along with most of the other things taking at least a very heavy influence from scripture, if not directly quoting it. Compared to the services I've been to that were closest to baptist, those usually have one reading followed by a very long sermon. Less scripture.
Yes I would absolutely love and appreciate if they could talk about marriage divorce and remarriage views from Roman catholic, EO and prodestant perspectives and the church fathers .... I have probably studies this topic for the last 4 years and it's confusing and complicated and I have only looked into the prodestant discussion on this topic , but I understand the RC church views marriage as a Sacrament and in some cases divorce and remarriage as mortal sins (I'm not sure) please help bring clarity if possible
I'm curious, at 1:15:08 Dr. Copper says "we don't tie all of our salvation or assurance just to 1 particular experience" but with most Lutheran's I know, as well as most Lutheran doctrine I hear, they DO in fact tie all their assurance to their baptism, which most of them have no recollection of experiencing...? Just not sure how to square that.. Also, I very much enjoyed the discussion. Both men seem genuine and kind and very well informed, but I wish they would "go into" a lot of the things they said "we won't get into that right now" lol
Great conclusion to this saga! I do wonder why the West no longer agrees with Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants are damned due to them still being under man's curse? It seems incoherent to believe in original sin and believe that unbaptized infants are saved no matter what. I agree that Scripture doesn't affirmatively answer the question.
P.S. I second a discussion between Drs. Cooper and Ortlund on the Eucharist. I also would love to see y'all tag-team a discussion with the guys at Reason & Theology since they usually do 2-on-1 and 3-on-1 debates.
It puzzles me why baptism of infants isn’t exceptable because they don’t choose to be baptized, but infants were circumcised into God’s people ‘Israel’ without their consent. Another thought, a decision later doesn’t guarantee that a person will follow Christ just because their intellect was involved. In Orthodox Theology there isn’t original sin, just ancestral sin so infants aren’t sinners. Polycarp refers to his baptism as an infant.
Besides, Our Blessed Lord said, "Let all the children come to Me". Isn't it diabolical to prevent them from going to Him? They say it's choice. Would one really want his/her child choose hell? Wouldn't one rather place the child on a path to heaven, then if the child wishes he/she can choose to leave that path and head the opposite way. Parents choose the schools, the clothes etc of what there babies will wear because they (parents) know that those things are good for them. Why shouldnt they choose for them something that is even of a greater good (like bringing the child into Communion with God through baptism)? In the Acts of the Apostles, somewhere it's written of how Peter baptised the entire household (they didn't exclude the children), in fact in one of his sermons, Peter urges people to get baptised and says that "these gifts and promises are for you and your children". Lastly, Church history. All the early Christians, those who had just got the gospel message from the apostles and a few generations after them, baptised their infants.
I would say we Baptists view the difference is that one is part of the nation/religion of Israel based on ancestry (although one could later join) whereas being a member of the Church is based on personal faith.
@@servingseniorsandshut-ins6209 If infants can't have faith, then how do they go to heaven? If you say by grace apart from faith, then is that not a denial of sola fide?
@@StBindo To me personally, babies and heaven is a mystery that I do not feel has been clearly reveled in Scripture, and I leave it in the hands of my loving heavenly Father to take care of. I know many Baptists, however, believe in an "age of accountability" before which children are not responsible for sin as they could not personally choose Christ.
@@servingseniorsandshut-ins6209 I was raised Baptist, so I agree that many believe that, but I have yet to find it clearly taught in scripture. I just think that God can grant faith to infants in the same way he does for adults - both are helpless without Gods grace.
Hi! Roman Catholic here: In the medival era many theologians distinguished that, though unbaptized infants do not experience the beatific vision they also have not merited torment in hell. This led to the teaching by St Thomas on Limbus Infantum. The state of natural happiness for the unbaptized, yet deprived of the beatific vision. This teaching is not defined, but permissible. Just as it is permissible to speculate on the salvation of infants through extraordinary means.
@YAJUN YUAN According to the medieval theologians, yes. But again, this is not a defined teaching, but permissible. It has been the widely held belief of the Church since the time of St Thomas. A number of early church fathers held a similar belief, such as Gregory Nazianzen when he stated "It will happen, I believe, …that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. …For from that fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that he is worthy of being honored, any more that it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserve on that account to be punished” (Orations, XL, 23).
@YAJUN YUAN Sorry in advance for the lengthy reply, I wanted to address multiple topics in your question: It depends how you are defining "sola gracia". The Church affirms, as is taught in the council of orange, that the beginning of salvation is an unmerited grace and sites Ephesians 2:8. This teaching was reiterated at the council of Trent. The church then affirms that, once saved, we are sanctified through cooperative graces (works brought forth through grace and the inward working of the Holy Ghost). If one freely walks away from the gift of salvation through serious sin, then they can loose their salvation. As such, final salvation is brought forth through the continued cooperation of the Child of God in the life of grace. The sacraments, such as baptism, are a means through which Christ's grace and Life are conferred to us through the Church. Baptism is the sacrament in which a person receives the initial grace of salvation. A baby receives the same grace as an adult, and cannot walk away from this gift until the age of reason. But neither can they merit greater reward through cooperation in grace. This teaching defends salvation as a gift, and not something strictly earned. The Catholic Churches teaching on salvation is much richer than a simple, you're in or you're out. The life of salvation begins at conversion/baptism, but our justice and sanctity increase as we cooperate with grace. As we are drawn more into union with Christ, we not only merit greater reward in Heaven, but are transformed and elevated to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The protestant form of Sola Gracia discounts the roll of cooperation in final salvation, but I don't find this view to be biblical. Strict Calvinist's believe that infants can be damned to hell for all eternity. Other protestants hold that ALL infants automatically go to heaven (which is more "extreme" than the catholic belief). I don't find either of these to be founded in scripture. In the end, the fate of infants is left to a divine mystery, and the speculation of the theologians. The Catholic position simply wants to affirm that infants have done nothing wrong to deserve eternal punishment, but neither have they merited heaven due to original sin. Even they still need God's unmerited gift of grace. And this is what our Lord provides through his Church.
I would think that a Mormon baptism isn’t valid bc the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren’t the same persons. Like, their origin story is completely different from that given in the Bible, therefore when they use those words they aren’t even referring to the same persons that we are.
I really like Dr. Ortlund and appreciate his demeanor, but at the end of the day, he's just winging it. I don't particularly care what any person's opinion is on any given theological subject. How has the Church interpreted Scripture on the matter? While there are some issues in the early church that aren't super-clear, baptismal regeneration is one that is very clear. There is no early church document of which I'm aware that supports anything approaching modern credo-baptist thought. As for infant baptism, this is exactly why the Church is important and theology must be done in the context of the Church. Is it really Dr. Ortlund's position that no one got this right until the 17th century? That's conspiracy theory territory. Where is the evidence?
@@TheOtherCaleb That's not at all clear, Caleb. Scripture is actually very clear that baptism regenerates. The Church has always believed it. I'll trust the Spirit-led Church's acceptance of clear biblical precedent over 17th century innovations.
@@Mitenilk08 After digging more, I’d now consider myself a semi-Baptist. Baptism is clearly the general means of forgiving sins, and those with genuine faith (initial peace with God) will, generally speaking, be lead to baptism.
For Dr. Otlund, Dr. Cooper or Austin. In the Church Fathers before Augustine we don't find the idea of total inability taught. Would this mean that regeneration in the Early Fathers means something different than what Augustine and the later Reformers taught?
If i am remembering the timeline correctly it seems Augustine on total inability atleast in part was bore out of the Pelagian controversy. The pelagians had such am extreme view of free will that they ended up destroying God being Sovereign and Original Sin.
Yea it came out of that controversy. I’m wondering if we should consider that the Early Fathers may have had a different definition of regeneration due to the fact that they didn’t hold to total inability.
@@reverendjenkins8011 Is total inability the very Calvinist concept of “total depravity”? Because that’s a claim on St Augustine that a Catholic wouldn’t agree with (the Canons of the Council of Trent on justification would show this very clearly), even a Roman Catholic coming from a very “Western” mentality. Maybe no other Protestant Reformers wouldn’t claim this kind of reading of Augustine. But we know Calvinists in general use his heavy-handed “pen” against Pelagianism to vindicate he was a prototypical Calvinist-Protestant, due to some texts that can (but shouldn’t) be read in isolation; but that’s NOT accurate from any Catholic point of view. He simply became a kind of “passport” used by Calvinism to make the extreme (and unsustainable, for a Catholic) theology of John Calvin on grace supposedly arguable from Church Fathers. Dr John Bergsma explains that very nicely from investigating his former Calvinist premises on Augustine himself (later he converted to the Catholic Church) until he discovered that the Catholic Bishop St Augustine was the true and only one. So hardly it would be agreeable to a RC to say St Augustine and later Protestant Reformers had one and the same teaching, I guess. Curious fact: St Augustine is the most quoted saint in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with 87 citations (St Thomas Aquinas comes second, with 61 citations).
@@masterchief8179 Yes, I agree that the RC church agrees with large parts of St Augustine's theology. I would argue that he does teach the inability of the will in works like On Predestination of the Saints and On Rebuke and Grace in his Retractions. I know that the RC church doesn't hold that position. I was just wondering if the Early Church Fathers had the same definition of regeneration as Dr's Ortlund and Cooper?
"Its important but you dont need it." What so its optional? Baptsim and obedience is optional? Baptism is closing the deal? Okay so you need to close the deal and if you don't you don't have a deal.
All due respect but I like to be blunt. In the Scriptures, Jesus gave Authority to only the Apostles, where did He give it to Luther? Where does Jesus say “later, my Ancient Church that I gathered you Apostles to help build and continue, will totally screw up and this guy I never met or gave visions to named Luther and some other random ppl will save my Church. They will all start having VERY DIFFERENT beliefs in spite of what I’ve taught you but somehow, every Protestant is right because I gave them all the spirit of truth and He thought it would be funny if they contradict each other”. I see Jesus making promises he would be with His Church until the end and Send the Holy Spirit to guide it and it will Never Be Overcome. I trust in scripture and my Lord Jesus Christ. Last I checked, Christianity didn’t start at the end of the 1400’s. How does that NOT DISQUALIFY your man-made doctrines? I am truly praying for the of protestants since they have left the Church Jesus Christ founded. I’m only saying this because I’m worried for your souls as you have compromised your beliefs on homosexuality, marriage, contraception, abortion, the reverence for the mother of the Savior and Christ Jesus, sacraments, etc ad nauseum. May God have mercy.
A person who claims to be a Christian, but refuses to be Baptized, is self-deceived and is not saved. "And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ~ 1 John 2:3-4.
I find it awful strange of Dr. Ortlund 's position. If we holds that Christians are saved by GOD's Grace Alone and Protestants - also hold faith alone and no work are necessary, then why can't you baptize infants and insists on personal action to received the God's grace from baptism? Since he also recognize that a person with limited mental capacity can be baptized by his/her parents' support then why can't an infant with parent's support? Even more strange and incoherent as he himself testify that baptism is pure symbolism and doesn't do anything.
I wondered why Baptist call themselves Baptists when they believe baptisn is a work and has no efficacy, rather than a command of God and therefore efficacious. The man may do the baptisn , the body grasps the water, the soul the grace. It is a means of grace.
@YAJUN YUAN If Protestants believe that we are saved by God Grace Alone then a person's permission is not necessary. What better to demonstrate this point when infants are baptized. Just as a Jewish child is brought into God's covenant via circumcision when they are 6-8 days old. The new covenant brought about by Jesus is even greater than the old way of bring people to God. So, Dr Ortlund's position is backward and more restrictive.
@YAJUN YUAN Wrong, Adam & Eve were saved prior to their fall. All the old testament people, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc. are all saved by God's grace. Baptism is just the new way of being included into God's family. Stop putting unnecessary barriers for people to be in God's family. Being saved is an on-going lifetime process. Not a one time deal like what false Protestants teach. A lot can happen to a child prior to their age of consent and allow Satan to own them? Do you wait for your child to give their own consent before you give them polio vaccine? You teaching is man-made and not biblical. One need to say "yes" to God's grace daily.
@YAJUN YUAN Jesus is Jewish thus he was joined via circumcision (did you not understand this?). Infant baptism demonstrate we are saved by God's grace alone require . Your beliefs say otherwise, ie we need to personally act in order to be saved. Isn't that against your Protestantism? Work-based salvation?
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.". . .
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 :)
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.". . .
Cooper contradicts himself concerning the Mormon baptism. If baptism done validly It does not depend on my faith. If the action is the same then by this standard Mormon baptism is legit. However cooper does realize that there must be a limit to how far from faith you can be to make it legit. This is a bit of a cop out to allow for faith not to be a requirement for legitimate baptism and keeping a standard for baptism. At the end of the day he without realizing it is touching on that the understanding of the recipient is what makes it legitimate.
I'll need to listen to this section again, but from my understanding of what Cooper said, it's not that the person's faith wasn't legitimate, but that the person delivering the baptism was not delivering the Word along with the water. I think there is basis for this in the case of Appollos(?) In acts where he received initially received John's baptism but then was baptised into Jesus' baptism.
If Rome could actually make that claim then maybe you'd have a valid point, but the Roman Church is pretty much the epitome of being a "man made" organization.
Three of my favorite TH-camrs. Thanks for all these great interviews - I always learn so much!
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.".
.
.
:)
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
:)
Great job you guys! While I side with Dr. Cooper on the issue of BR, I think it would be very beneficial to the body of Christ if more baptists had a higher view of the sacraments as Dr. Ortlund does. It's very refreshing to hear especially since so many now a days aren't even willing to call them Sacraments but mere ordinances which strip them of all their power. Thanks again for these wonderful dialogues.
Glad you've enjoyed these dialogues!
While I side with Gavin on BR, I listen and benefit from Dr. Cooper a ton. I disagree that calling them ordinances is calling them "mere". Especially if sacraments is charged with the Roman understanding of ex opere operato here. And the greek word μυστήριον (of which the Latin word sacramentum derives) in Colossians 1:26 refers to what has been revealed.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 I define sacraments per St Augustine.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Former Baptist. After learning that other denominations called them ordinances, I got annoyed that we called them "ordinances." Later I understood the definition and significance of sacraments and become even more bothered by the usage of ordinance. Calling them ordinances renders them as mere commands by God, much akin to the Mosaic Law, without any underatanding of why God calls us to practice them. It's with sacramental theology that they gain their purpose, which objectively benefits believers, and not mere dictates.
@@wesmorgan7729exactly! "Ordinance" is an implicitly legal word. Why would we use it, inasmuch as we know that Christ is the end of the law for believers?
As an Orthodox Christian, I find a lot of commonality between my own understanding and Dr. Cooper's Lutheran perspective, more so than with some Roman Catholic articulations. But I think Pastor Ortlund is incredibly thoughtful, and it's refreshing to hear a Baptist perspective that doesn't default to a hyper-Zwinglian belief that baptism's effect is only psychological or that it's a sign whose significance lies entirely outside the act.
To my understanding, Lutheran sacramentology is similar to both Eastern and Oriental orthodoxy. They would rather appeal to mystery than explain through a more detailed model like reformed and Catholics do.
@kevinclass2010 It's interesting you should bring up the Orientals, since I think Lutheran and Calvinist scholastics often accuse each other (not without warrant, IMO) of drifting too close either to monophysitism or to Nestorianism in their respective christologies, e.g., in regard to the communicatio idiomatum and the extra Calvinisticum.
@@kevinclass2010 My only issue with Lutheran eucharistic theology is the plethora of spatial prepositions about the Body's relation to the consecrated bread. Being Orthodox, I don't say the substance of the Body replaces the substance of the bread, in accordance with Aristotelian ontology, as Roman Catholicism insists; nor that the Body is in, with, and under the bread; but rather only that bread "is" the Body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's a mystical identification, with all the accompanying spiritual significance. We say the Church is the Body of Christ as well ("we are what we eat"), yet we don't strap endless prepositions to the statement qualifying the "is."
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is the most charitable and level-headed memorialist I have ever met. Usually they get very heated and irrational and start slinging "works-based salvation" insults at you. I say this as a former memorialist who (to my shame) did the same thing.
Actually, embracing the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration and salvation gives me very great comfort and MORE assurance than anything I ever felt in the Born-Again movement.
In my walk in the Messianic Movement right now I am also meeting a bunch of young people who feel the same way as myself. We're kind of quietly pushing leaders of the movement to adopt the apostolic view of the "sacraments" while keeping the distinct beliefs of the movement (a future millenial reign, the Jewish people still being elect in God's eyes [albeit in rebellion and unsaved], a future literal restoration of Israel involving the reunion of the house of israel and judah, etc.).
Thanks guys! Im a strong protestant whose done a good bit of research but these are really helping me grow
These two scholars are the bomb. Love them a ton!!
Baptists should be in the Olympics, those hermeneutical gymnastics are top notch!
Ex-baptist here, now Lutheran (western-catholic).
Silver medal for Lutherans with the belief that babies have faith.
@@angelbonilla4243 Piagetian psychological gymnastics, sometimes. Hermeneutical, not at all.
You did not get your rejection of infant faith from the Bible, nor did anyone get it from the Bible. Some late medieval anabaptists invented the notion.
*John the Baptist had and professed faith from his Mother’s womb.*
_And of the Holy Spirit he shall be filled even from the womb of his mother. ...And it happened that as she [Elizabeth] heard the greeting of Mary, σκιρτάω [leap (for joy), skip, bound] the baby in the womb of her,_ Luke 1:15, , 41
*A psalmist had faith from birth.*
_For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;_
_You are my trust from my youth._
*_Upon You נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי [I have leaned myself] from my birth;_*
_You are He who took me out of my mother’s womb._ Psalm 71:5-6
*David had faith from birth.*
_[You made me trust] מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י while on the breasts of my mother._
_I have been dependent on you since birth;_
_from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God._ Psalm 22:9
*Timothy had faith in the Gospel from infancy.*
_From βρέφους [ an unborn or a newborn child; infant, babe, child in arms] you have known the holy message._ 2 Timothy 3:15
*David and Jesus do not find it incredible that nursing infants can praise God in faith.*
_And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of νηπίων [babies] and θηλαζόντων [nursing infants] You have perfected praise’?”_ Matthew 21:16
Finally, the Son of God did not somehow lose his eternal faith in his Father during his earthly infancy.
Please tell me more about what led you to that because I find myself in danger of following the same path 😂
Ah yes because acknowledging linguistic complexity = hermeneutical gymnastics. How about you listen to what the man has to say with open ears?
@TheOtherCaleb yes.. the closed ears argument
Evangelical churches in America substituted the sinner's prayer instead of baptism. This sinner's prayer then becomes their method of acceptance of the gospel, when Christian baptism is the biblical method of acceptance (Acts 18:8).
According to my Church, Syriac Oriental Orthodox, baptism should be done once. Baptism is the forgivness of sins and one becomes united with Jesus Christ referencing Galatians.
If someone joins from another denomination, we just "confirm" him/her thru the sacrament of Crismation.
Shlomo ahuno
@@barnosho1611 bshayno ahouno
Well, that scripturally inaccurate. And it’s because of this loose talk that allows something like this to be accepted.
Believers want to have a believer's baptism, following their Lord's instructions & the Bible. WE LOVE & APPRECIATE WHAT JESUS DID & TAUGHT. HE'S A LOVING LORD who we want to follow.
@@SusanBurrows-y9ti prefer professors baptism and OIKOS baptisms
As a former SDA, I appreciate what was stated with reference to LDS baptism not being valid and would argue for the same stance on SDA baptism because they also believe in three personages (sometimes called "Powers" or "three great Worthies" by SDA prophetess Ellen G. White).
In Dragonarrr’s question, the closest to Baptist that has baptismal regeneration would be the Church of Christ denomination. If I’m not a mistaken, they split off of the Baptist in the early 1800s.
CofC splitt from Presbyterians, in their faith journey got close to Baps, but in US diverged. In Australia tho Baps and CoC are much closer, shared a bible college campus. British Baps have scholars are more sacremental.
Discuss Theosis next !!!
Hi Austin
I haven’t seen the previous videos yet if you mentioned but within which faith tradition were you baptized as an infant and how come?
Excellent discussion. Thank you all. (From a low church Lutheran Pietist 😉)
It seems to me that belief needs to come before baptism. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.
And Acts 18:8
On infant baptism from memory i read that Martyn Lloyd Jones, the British preacher, did an extensive investigation into infant baptism. And after a long investigation reading many books he finally came to a conclusion about infant baptism. The conclusion he came to was there was no conclusion. The New Testament was unclear he said and it was not possible to come to a conclusion about what the teaching is about infant baptism according to the bible.
Not sure what denomination MLJ belonged to.
Interesting! I've heard of him but not in relation to this subject
Looks like he was a free church minister.
@@micahmatthew7104 Thanks. Although i am not sure what a free church minister is
Congregationalist.
@@angelbonilla4243 Thanks
Too bad Baptist churches don't have liturgical services in the same way as the Lutheran/RCC/Orthodox churches.
That would be interesting to see. I've heard there are some liturgical baptists
I've been to one that was like a high church Presbyterian or Methodist.
The Center for Baptist Renewal has some good liturgies, they might be able to direct you to a liturgically minded Baptist church
@@micahmatthew7104 Thank you
@YAJUN YUAN liturgical services are mostly made up of text from the Bible. There's usually at least 4 explicit passages read out of the scriptures, along with most of the other things taking at least a very heavy influence from scripture, if not directly quoting it. Compared to the services I've been to that were closest to baptist, those usually have one reading followed by a very long sermon. Less scripture.
Yes I would absolutely love and appreciate if they could talk about marriage divorce and remarriage views from Roman catholic, EO and prodestant perspectives and the church fathers .... I have probably studies this topic for the last 4 years and it's confusing and complicated and I have only looked into the prodestant discussion on this topic , but I understand the RC church views marriage as a Sacrament and in some cases divorce and remarriage as mortal sins (I'm not sure) please help bring clarity if possible
I'm curious, at 1:15:08 Dr. Copper says "we don't tie all of our salvation or assurance just to 1 particular experience" but with most Lutheran's I know, as well as most Lutheran doctrine I hear, they DO in fact tie all their assurance to their baptism, which most of them have no recollection of experiencing...? Just not sure how to square that..
Also, I very much enjoyed the discussion. Both men seem genuine and kind and very well informed, but I wish they would "go into" a lot of the things they said "we won't get into that right now" lol
You can't square it, it's not biblical.
Great conclusion to this saga! I do wonder why the West no longer agrees with Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants are damned due to them still being under man's curse? It seems incoherent to believe in original sin and believe that unbaptized infants are saved no matter what. I agree that Scripture doesn't affirmatively answer the question.
P.S. I second a discussion between Drs. Cooper and Ortlund on the Eucharist. I also would love to see y'all tag-team a discussion with the guys at Reason & Theology since they usually do 2-on-1 and 3-on-1 debates.
That's an interesting idea!
It puzzles me why baptism of infants isn’t exceptable because they don’t choose to be baptized, but infants were circumcised into God’s people ‘Israel’ without their consent.
Another thought, a decision later doesn’t guarantee that a person will follow Christ just because their intellect was involved.
In Orthodox Theology there isn’t original sin, just ancestral sin so infants aren’t sinners.
Polycarp refers to his baptism as an infant.
Besides, Our Blessed Lord said, "Let all the children come to Me". Isn't it diabolical to prevent them from going to Him? They say it's choice. Would one really want his/her child choose hell? Wouldn't one rather place the child on a path to heaven, then if the child wishes he/she can choose to leave that path and head the opposite way. Parents choose the schools, the clothes etc of what there babies will wear because they (parents) know that those things are good for them. Why shouldnt they choose for them something that is even of a greater good (like bringing the child into Communion with God through baptism)?
In the Acts of the Apostles, somewhere it's written of how Peter baptised the entire household (they didn't exclude the children), in fact in one of his sermons, Peter urges people to get baptised and says that "these gifts and promises are for you and your children".
Lastly, Church history. All the early Christians, those who had just got the gospel message from the apostles and a few generations after them, baptised their infants.
I would say we Baptists view the difference is that one is part of the nation/religion of Israel based on ancestry (although one could later join) whereas being a member of the Church is based on personal faith.
@@servingseniorsandshut-ins6209
If infants can't have faith, then how do they go to heaven? If you say by grace apart from faith, then is that not a denial of sola fide?
@@StBindo To me personally, babies and heaven is a mystery that I do not feel has been clearly reveled in Scripture, and I leave it in the hands of my loving heavenly Father to take care of. I know many Baptists, however, believe in an "age of accountability" before which children are not responsible for sin as they could not personally choose Christ.
@@servingseniorsandshut-ins6209
I was raised Baptist, so I agree that many believe that, but I have yet to find it clearly taught in scripture.
I just think that God can grant faith to infants in the same way he does for adults - both are helpless without Gods grace.
have you ever heard any of ken Johnsons studies on the Dead Sea scrolls and the essenes??? I would love your intake on it
The Baptist church I attend recognises infant baptisms if the individual was confirmed as a believer.
Not familiar with any Baptist recognizing infant baptism. Nothing in scripture speaks of infant baptism.
@@glenarledge1825nothing speaks of (insert age here) baptisms
Hi! Roman Catholic here: In the medival era many theologians distinguished that, though unbaptized infants do not experience the beatific vision they also have not merited torment in hell. This led to the teaching by St Thomas on Limbus Infantum. The state of natural happiness for the unbaptized, yet deprived of the beatific vision. This teaching is not defined, but permissible. Just as it is permissible to speculate on the salvation of infants through extraordinary means.
@YAJUN YUAN According to the medieval theologians, yes. But again, this is not a defined teaching, but permissible. It has been the widely held belief of the Church since the time of St Thomas. A number of early church fathers held a similar belief, such as Gregory Nazianzen when he stated "It will happen, I believe, …that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. …For from that fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that he is worthy of being honored, any more that it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserve on that account to be punished” (Orations, XL, 23).
@YAJUN YUAN
Sorry in advance for the lengthy reply, I wanted to address multiple topics in your question:
It depends how you are defining "sola gracia". The Church affirms, as is taught in the council of orange, that the beginning of salvation is an unmerited grace and sites Ephesians 2:8. This teaching was reiterated at the council of Trent. The church then affirms that, once saved, we are sanctified through cooperative graces (works brought forth through grace and the inward working of the Holy Ghost). If one freely walks away from the gift of salvation through serious sin, then they can loose their salvation. As such, final salvation is brought forth through the continued cooperation of the Child of God in the life of grace. The sacraments, such as baptism, are a means through which Christ's grace and Life are conferred to us through the Church. Baptism is the sacrament in which a person receives the initial grace of salvation. A baby receives the same grace as an adult, and cannot walk away from this gift until the age of reason. But neither can they merit greater reward through cooperation in grace. This teaching defends salvation as a gift, and not something strictly earned.
The Catholic Churches teaching on salvation is much richer than a simple, you're in or you're out. The life of salvation begins at conversion/baptism, but our justice and sanctity increase as we cooperate with grace. As we are drawn more into union with Christ, we not only merit greater reward in Heaven, but are transformed and elevated to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
The protestant form of Sola Gracia discounts the roll of cooperation in final salvation, but I don't find this view to be biblical. Strict Calvinist's believe that infants can be damned to hell for all eternity. Other protestants hold that ALL infants automatically go to heaven (which is more "extreme" than the catholic belief). I don't find either of these to be founded in scripture. In the end, the fate of infants is left to a divine mystery, and the speculation of the theologians. The Catholic position simply wants to affirm that infants have done nothing wrong to deserve eternal punishment, but neither have they merited heaven due to original sin. Even they still need God's unmerited gift of grace. And this is what our Lord provides through his Church.
I would think that a Mormon baptism isn’t valid bc the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren’t the same persons. Like, their origin story is completely different from that given in the Bible, therefore when they use those words they aren’t even referring to the same persons that we are.
43:08 please respond to me Dr. Ortlund, it is not an entrance to the church. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is, that’s just the fact of scripture.
Huh ??? You got the list ??
I really like Dr. Ortlund and appreciate his demeanor, but at the end of the day, he's just winging it. I don't particularly care what any person's opinion is on any given theological subject. How has the Church interpreted Scripture on the matter? While there are some issues in the early church that aren't super-clear, baptismal regeneration is one that is very clear. There is no early church document of which I'm aware that supports anything approaching modern credo-baptist thought. As for infant baptism, this is exactly why the Church is important and theology must be done in the context of the Church. Is it really Dr. Ortlund's position that no one got this right until the 17th century? That's conspiracy theory territory. Where is the evidence?
@@TheOtherCaleb That's not at all clear, Caleb. Scripture is actually very clear that baptism regenerates. The Church has always believed it. I'll trust the Spirit-led Church's acceptance of clear biblical precedent over 17th century innovations.
@@Mitenilk08 After digging more, I’d now consider myself a semi-Baptist.
Baptism is clearly the general means of forgiving sins, and those with genuine faith (initial peace with God) will, generally speaking, be lead to baptism.
For Dr. Otlund, Dr. Cooper or Austin. In the Church Fathers before Augustine we don't find the idea of total inability taught. Would this mean that regeneration in the Early Fathers means something different than what Augustine and the later Reformers taught?
If i am remembering the timeline correctly it seems Augustine on total inability atleast in part was bore out of the Pelagian controversy. The pelagians had such am extreme view of free will that they ended up destroying God being Sovereign and Original Sin.
@@Adam-ue2ig you mean the Anselm/Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. The original sin doctrine of the West that the Eastern Church never accepted.
Yea it came out of that controversy. I’m wondering if we should consider that the Early Fathers may have had a different definition of regeneration due to the fact that they didn’t hold to total inability.
@@reverendjenkins8011 Is total inability the very Calvinist concept of “total depravity”? Because that’s a claim on St Augustine that a Catholic wouldn’t agree with (the Canons of the Council of Trent on justification would show this very clearly), even a Roman Catholic coming from a very “Western” mentality. Maybe no other Protestant Reformers wouldn’t claim this kind of reading of Augustine. But we know Calvinists in general use his heavy-handed “pen” against Pelagianism to vindicate he was a prototypical Calvinist-Protestant, due to some texts that can (but shouldn’t) be read in isolation; but that’s NOT accurate from any Catholic point of view. He simply became a kind of “passport” used by Calvinism to make the extreme (and unsustainable, for a Catholic) theology of John Calvin on grace supposedly arguable from Church Fathers. Dr John Bergsma explains that very nicely from investigating his former Calvinist premises on Augustine himself (later he converted to the Catholic Church) until he discovered that the Catholic Bishop St Augustine was the true and only one. So hardly it would be agreeable to a RC to say St Augustine and later Protestant Reformers had one and the same teaching, I guess. Curious fact: St Augustine is the most quoted saint in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with 87 citations (St Thomas Aquinas comes second, with 61 citations).
@@masterchief8179 Yes, I agree that the RC church agrees with large parts of St Augustine's theology. I would argue that he does teach the inability of the will in works like On Predestination of the Saints and On Rebuke and Grace in his Retractions. I know that the RC church doesn't hold that position. I was just wondering if the Early Church Fathers had the same definition of regeneration as Dr's Ortlund and Cooper?
The Clash of the Titans! This is Epic!
Ha! Bwahahaha.
Very interesting to hear this ^_^
"Its important but you dont need it."
What so its optional? Baptsim and obedience is optional?
Baptism is closing the deal?
Okay so you need to close the deal and if you don't you don't have a deal.
I think like a Bapto-Lutherist, therefore I am. God help me, Amen.
Lol what is that?
Hahahahaghahah
All due respect but I like to be blunt. In the Scriptures, Jesus gave Authority to only the Apostles, where did He give it to Luther? Where does Jesus say “later, my Ancient Church that I gathered you Apostles to help build and continue, will totally screw up and this guy I never met or gave visions to named Luther and some other random ppl will save my Church. They will all start having VERY DIFFERENT beliefs in spite of what I’ve taught you but somehow, every Protestant is right because I gave them all the spirit of truth and He thought it would be funny if they contradict each other”. I see Jesus making promises he would be with His Church until the end and Send the Holy Spirit to guide it and it will Never Be Overcome. I trust in scripture and my Lord Jesus Christ. Last I checked, Christianity didn’t start at the end of the 1400’s. How does that NOT DISQUALIFY your man-made doctrines? I am truly praying for the of protestants since they have left the Church Jesus Christ founded. I’m only saying this because I’m worried for your souls as you have compromised your beliefs on homosexuality, marriage, contraception, abortion, the reverence for the mother of the Savior and Christ Jesus, sacraments, etc ad nauseum. May God have mercy.
A person who claims to be a Christian, but refuses to be Baptized, is self-deceived and is not saved.
"And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ~ 1 John 2:3-4.
I find it awful strange of Dr. Ortlund 's position. If we holds that Christians are saved by GOD's Grace Alone and Protestants - also hold faith alone and no work are necessary, then why can't you baptize infants and insists on personal action to received the God's grace from baptism? Since he also recognize that a person with limited mental capacity can be baptized by his/her parents' support then why can't an infant with parent's support? Even more strange and incoherent as he himself testify that baptism is pure symbolism and doesn't do anything.
I wondered why Baptist call themselves Baptists when they believe baptisn is a work and has no efficacy, rather than a command of God and therefore efficacious. The man may do the baptisn , the body grasps the water, the soul the grace.
It is a means of grace.
@YAJUN YUAN If Protestants believe that we are saved by God Grace Alone then a person's permission is not necessary. What better to demonstrate this point when infants are baptized. Just as a Jewish child is brought into God's covenant via circumcision when they are 6-8 days old. The new covenant brought about by Jesus is even greater than the old way of bring people to God. So, Dr Ortlund's position is backward and more restrictive.
@YAJUN YUAN Wrong, Adam & Eve were saved prior to their fall. All the old testament people, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc. are all saved by God's grace. Baptism is just the new way of being included into God's family. Stop putting unnecessary barriers for people to be in God's family. Being saved is an on-going lifetime process. Not a one time deal like what false Protestants teach. A lot can happen to a child prior to their age of consent and allow Satan to own them? Do you wait for your child to give their own consent before you give them polio vaccine? You teaching is man-made and not biblical. One need to say "yes" to God's grace daily.
@YAJUN YUAN Jesus is Jewish thus he was joined via circumcision (did you not understand this?). Infant baptism demonstrate we are saved by God's grace alone require . Your beliefs say otherwise, ie we need to personally act in order to be saved. Isn't that against your Protestantism? Work-based salvation?
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.".
.
.
500 years of the bible being a final authority, and you still can not figure out what Baptism is. Sola Scriptura is not scripture, it is opinion.
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
:)
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.".
.
.
Cooper contradicts himself concerning the Mormon baptism. If baptism done validly It does not depend on my faith. If the action is the same then by this standard Mormon baptism is legit. However cooper does realize that there must be a limit to how far from faith you can be to make it legit. This is a bit of a cop out to allow for faith not to be a requirement for legitimate baptism and keeping a standard for baptism. At the end of the day he without realizing it is touching on that the understanding of the recipient is what makes it legitimate.
I'll need to listen to this section again, but from my understanding of what Cooper said, it's not that the person's faith wasn't legitimate, but that the person delivering the baptism was not delivering the Word along with the water. I think there is basis for this in the case of Appollos(?) In acts where he received initially received John's baptism but then was baptised into Jesus' baptism.
Hey, the JV league.
Baptist and Lutheran churches started by men. Catholic church started by Jesus. Why stick with a man made church?
If Rome could actually make that claim then maybe you'd have a valid point, but the Roman Church is pretty much the epitome of being a "man made" organization.
@@pete3397 Our Lord Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine, so I got what you mean ;)
I thought Peter started the Catholic Church?😂
This is honestly one of the most cringe Roman Catholic pop apologetics talking points of all time 😂
@@Battousai-hd6is Its exhausting