THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM PLACES US “IN CHRIST ” Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Colossians 3:2 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
At 14:53, Regarding 1 Cor. 12:13, it doesn't say anything about baptism "symbolizes" or is a sign. It appears to me that baptism is a reality. Baptism is never called a sign or a symbol, it would seem to me.
Thank you for brining verses and discussion up that matters. As a former credo Baptist, I appreciate you trying to deal with passages that trouble or have troubled you. I don't think the sacrament continuation from circumcision to baptism was described in much detail. Reading in Colossians 2 was nice and appreciated. Listening to you all discuss the true Israel of God and push against a parenthetical church has been appreciated but your view on baptism seems to push you the other direction. I know you both adhere to the 1689 confession thankfully, thus I know you believe in the doctrines of grace. We, paedo Baptist and reformed Presbyterians, acknowledge that circumcision and baptism are passive acts. This general idea of continuity in salvation and the "symbol" as you would call it of baptism are hallmarks of that passive act of man and God movement. Similarly, you all failed to really describe what traditionally reformed Presbyterians believe on the sacrament as a means of grace, just like communion. We take these sacraments as more than pure symbols but the active movement or shadow of God over his covenant community. I am paedo-communion guy myself, but I honor my church and leadership and don't bring this up. As a former Baptist, we never really discussed the administration of communion. Ya'll should do a talk on that next. :) Blessings, Basil
Is baptism essential for salvation? Absolutely! Some denominational pastors, however, claim that there is not one single verse in the New Testament that requires baptism for salvation. They believe that people are saved and their sins are forgiven when people do one of the following: “Just accept/trust Jesus” or “Just have faith alone in Jesus” or “Just invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior and pray the sinner’s prayer.” BTW, that so-called sinner’s prayer is not found anywhere in the New Testament. To people of such mindset, baptism is merely “an outer sign of an inner belief” that has nothing to do with salvation. A like-minded pastor once stated that some of his congregation’s long-time members who professed to be Christians had NEVER been baptized. Their rationale is that if baptism isn’t necessary for forgiveness and salvation, then why bother at all? So what do the KJV Scriptures say about baptism? MATTHEW 28:19-“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” From the Great Commission, Jesus commands that those who would follow Him as Christians must be baptized. MARK 16:16-“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Jesus couples belief with baptism for salvation. It follows that if you don’t believe, you won’t be baptized; hence, dire consequences will follow. Likewise, belief without baptism will produce dire consequences and is inexcusable. Don’t make the mistake of arguing that since Jesus doesn’t mention baptism in the second half of this verse, then baptism is optional. Such a mistake completely ignores the first half of the verse, in which Jesus commands baptism with faith for salvation. The rebellious have alleged that the last 12 verses of Mark (of which verse 16 is one) are “spurious” and should be ignored (because of the command to be baptized for salvation). However, the 19th-century English vicar Dean John W. Burgon proved that those verses are genuine in his book, “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors And Established” (London, 1871). ACTS 2:38-“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” We receive remission or forgiveness of sins through baptism, not before. Beware of “study Bibles” with denominational commentary that contradicts Scripture, claiming that we are baptized AFTER our sins are forgiven or BECAUSE they have already been forgiven through faith alone in Jesus. Such commentary is at odds with other verses about the necessity of baptism for forgiveness of sins and salvation. ACTS 22:16-“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This metaphor shows that baptism opens the door to forgiveness of sins. Again, without such forgiveness, we cannot be saved. Those believing in salvation by faith alone in Jesus will argue that “no amount of water can wash away sins,” as if physical water can literally wash away sins. They miss the metaphor entirely. ROMANS 6:3-4-“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” We cannot walk as new Christians until we’ve been baptized, for baptism emulates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. GALATIANS 3:27-“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We have faith, yet we cannot “put on Christ” or wear the mantle of Christianity until we’ve been baptized. Those professing to be Christians but who reject baptism are not true Christians; they are CINOs - Christians in name only. FIRST PETER 3:21-“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The verse frankly states that baptism saves us. Despite the Scriptures, denominational pastors will continue to deny that baptism is essential for forgiveness and salvation, because the Scriptures are at odds with their man-made traditions and personal beliefs. By downplaying baptism, these pastors put their own souls and those of their congregants in grave jeopardy. The bottom line: Jesus will forgive our sins and save us through His sacrificial blood (Revelation 1:5) IF we obey His commandments for salvation, which are: Hear the Gospel (First Corinthians 15:1-4); Believe the Gospel (John 3:16); Repent of your sins (Acts 3:19); Confess before mankind that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 10:32-33); Be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38); Live the rest of your life in obedience and service to Jesus (Revelation 2:10). These commandments are found by diligently studying the New Testament
THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM IS IN WATER 1 Peter 3:20-21 (20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Mark 1:9-10 (9) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10) And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: Acts 8:38-39 (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (39) And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Baptism is salvific and efficacious. Scripture is clear, church history agrees, majority of modern Christians agree... Baptists thus need some strong arguments brought to the table to defend why they schismed over this topic.
Great discussion. What I would like to see discussed is not paedobaptism so much but rather adult baptism where the adult may have dementia or otherwise can not express their faith. There was an assumption that infants can not have faith. I personally disagree. I'm concerned that the same line of reasoning would be given for adults in old age that have dementia. The Lutheran view sounds intriguing, especially when it's so easy to find examples of reformed folks that have been baptized but have since renounced their faith. So they had the sign but it was a false flag? What if they return to the faith many years later? Do they get baptized again? As you stated, the pastor is not God and can not read someone's heart and apparently they get it wrong some times. The Lutheran view here sounds stronger. So why not just baptise infants and old folks with dementia under christian care instead of denying these folks the sign? I guess it comes down to would you rather mistakenly baptize a non believer or withhold the sign of baptism from entire swaths of folks because they are unable to express their faith in a form and fidelity that relies on the pastors subjectivity?
I listened to this today while working so I need to hear it again. I have studied this alot and am in a somewhat unique position. Raised reformed and baptized as an infant. My wife and I are presently in a church that is credo but the pastor we had when we came here ( who passed away in 2018) had been baptizing babies in parents homes if requested by the family. Apparently he said that the Biblical case for paedo baptism is very good. He was told by the elders board to stop doing that ( this was prior to our being there) We have not been baptized as adult so we have what they call " associate membership" One of the best books I have ever read was "Children of the Promise" by Robert Booth. I am convinced it is the Biblical position. However...after hearing this today I have heard some points that you make that may change my mind. Thank you for a great show and now I have more homework to do. Thank you ( fyi- my brother in law is home in Canada and doing well!)
@@gdot9046 I need to go back and take some notes when I can listen again. I had it playing in the background so was not focused completely on it. What I remember is the 3 examples that paedo baptism gives in acts that says their families also were baptized. @ 25:25 Does the child now have all the benefits of union with Christ @ 31:30 Do children receive the Holy Spirit and then this point @39:30 Is the spouse of an unbeliever Holy as well as the children are also deemed holy ( set apart) Like I said this has made me see this alittle differently so I need to look into it more. I shared this with my wife tonight so she is going watch it later.
Informative survey on the subjects of baptism. I would like to see more interaction with those who hold to a greater efficacy in the sacrament; if Baptism is a mere symbol that doesn’t communicate the benefits that it signifies then credobaptism makes sense. But if Baptism actually saves us (1 Peter 3:21) and unites us to Christ (Rom 6:3-4) then withholding baptism from any who need it seems like a massive oversight. As Baptists we tend to drill down on the proper subjects and mode of baptism without giving much thought about what baptism is.
I think when Christians are asked if their children are called Christian, they would respond yes. I am talking about children raised by true believers, not people that are baptized but are not following after Christ. We treat our children as members of the new covenant community, do we not? We encourage them to participate in prayer and faith and the means of Grace, as much as they understand and the church has put them within their reach. Yet when they ask about baptism and ask, are they part of the body? we reply?. I love that most of us assure our children, that Christ has lived and died and was resurrected that they should be called children of the most high. Whether the sign is given at an infant or when they can articulate a profession I believe God is glorified.
For 1500yrs baptism was settled doctrine until protestants came round and made it an issue...smh. To this very day it is not settled within protestant circles. What gives?
THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM SAVES US Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
I love how at 37:26 that there is the interpretation that the baptism is when justification happens but they can’t accept it because it disagrees with their theology written their various councils that they seem to think are inspired scriptures
Maybe the paedos agree with Luther. Luther was very angry that people would bring any of human strength into their baptism. It is not obvious that babies are incapable of faith. God can give faith and repentance to whoever he wants to give those gifts.
I think there is an issue, especially against the 1689, if you use the language "seal" according to baptism as a Baptist because that would infer the same point that presbyterians make in their argument. It just doesn't make sense to argue against the seal of baptism and then say "we" agree that baptism is the sign and seal. 43:11
Baptism is essential to salvation because it is when one’s sins are forgiven, when one receives the Holy Spirit, when one dies to sin, when one starts a new life, and when one becomes a child of God in Christ. In other words, “Baptism is the time and place that God forgives and saves.” Thus, when it comes to salvation, baptism is not the what but the when. The moment when you receive God’s saving grace is the moment you emerge from the watery tomb of baptism. That is why baptism is essential to salvation. Baptism “completes our response of saving faith,” which “begins with a confessed belief, continues with repentance, and is completed in baptism.”
Very classy, informative discussion on a difficult topic. Done in a way that should not trigger anyone's conscience. Just one point guys that you missed mentioning that paedobaptists also practice credobaptism, in the dutch reformed tradition at least ❤
One of the things that brought me into confessional, Lutheranism was reading about how John Calvin himself believed in baptismal regeneration, albeit differently than Luther or Rome. Also, John Wesley also subscribed to Sacramento efficacy. In fact, if you look at Church, history, before Ulrich Zwingli, you do not see any symbolic view of baptism that does not include efficacy.
@@atcustompainting If you mean in the same sense that Luther or Rome or the East did, no. But he was not a Zwinglian. From the Institutes: "The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord specially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit." -John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion 4.14.17 He believed that baptismal regeneration was true for the elect, albeit in a very convoluted manner (much like his reworking of the Lord's Supper's efficacy to shoehorn it into his theology).
He was not a Zwinglian, although there are writings of Zwingli which give one pause as to whether he didn't teach the same view as Calvin. Calvin did not believe in a bare empty sign which did not correspond with the thing signified. But neither did he believe the water itself conferred grace, any more than he believed the elements of the supper do. The Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession both clearly set forth Calvin's views on these matters. He believed in the "spiritual" presence of Christ in the supper and in baptism.
43:00 to answer your question... Lutheran's don't believe in eternal security/once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints. So yeah you can be baptized and have faith, be born again, but then later shipwreck your faith. (This is the historical Christian view)
But the difference is all in the heavenlies in Christ. Our flesh is unchanged on the earth. The flesh is as bad as it ever was when we are not abiding in our perfect position in Christ.
This was awesome, well done, edifying, and very much appreciated! For many of the reasons you stated I currently share your position. Can you guys talk about Romans 4:9-11? This is a NT reference that circumcision is upon regeneration for Abraham and then in Genesis 17 that sign was commanded by God to be applied to those in his household (I understand this would include servants and older children, not just infants, so thats a good counterpoint). Assuming you make the connection between circumcision and baptism, does this provide precedent for a bifurcated view of baptism? Given this background does it then make more sense to apply this pattern to the household conversions in the NT? I also cant help thinking about how the process of salvation looks different for children brought up in the church as compared to adult converts. My wife and I just had our first child, and since I found out she was pregnant my prayer has always been that the Lord would save our son and that he would never even remember a day that he wasn’t walking with the Lord. He comes to church and stays in the service with us, he participates in prayer with us (even though he can’t talk yet!), he only watches Christian TV shows (with very limited screen time!), when we read the Bible he is with us. When he can talk we will teach him to pray and he will be continued to brought up in the church. That’s most likely a very different picture than most adult converts. It’s experiential and not an exegetical argument but it lines up more with the Presbyterian view of infant baptism. Would love to hear what you gentlemen think on this! I’ve been thinking about it so much more now that I have a kid.
I was well on my way to the Presbyterian OPC and was very happy moving in that direction until a reformed Baptist brother asked me to read Dr Fred Malone book on disciples alone . There just was no way that I could ignore the arguments presented in that book and therefore had to stay in the 1689 camp . I also later became convinced of the 1689 federalist interpretation.
You erred dear brother. The westminster, covenant position is indefensible. The covenant is not conditional. It sovereignly established, unconditionally with believers and their seed in the line of continued generations along the lines of election and reprobation.
@@bm-outdoors they were biblical arguments! Tell me , do you listen to the minister in your church? Does he not seek to explain the scriptures to you ? The first article of the 1689 is all about biblical authority.
Just posted a recent video on my channel answering the best reformed baptist views from Jeremiah 31. Paper by Neil Jeffers. This paper did a great job of representing their views and responding.
I know you guys started with infant baptism and how some believe it's the equivalent of circumcision for the New Testament but it's not. I agree with you, but all these points you guys made about Baptism seems to me going against your theology as Baptist. Rom 6:3-8 Baptism is compared to the death burial and resurrection of Jesus which is what happens to people that are baptize according to scripture. in Acts 22:16 as Ananias told Paul what are you waiting for arise be baptize and wash away you sins calling on the name of the Lord.
They would separate the internal substance of the covenant with the external administration of that covenant which would allow for non believers in that covenant. Am I missing something?
Nice respectful conversation. It seems all you boys need to do is eliminate the unbiblical words 'sign' and 'signify' from baptism and Voila!: You be Lutheran. Here are some helpful words from Luther himself, "In philosophy there is a distinction between 'signum' and 'res,' but in theology 'signum' is 'res.'" Keep up the good work.
The differences are immaterial. The ONLY thing that matters is what is right in the eyes of God. Everything else is white noise! Get baptised by full immersion when you have a clear understanding of what you are doing and why you are doing it. That is the Scriptural way.
John 4:1-2 (ESV) 4 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), It would seem that as a disciple and follower of Christ, Judas likely baptized others. Although since he’s not mentioned by name it’s possible that he was given a different task than the others. Maybe instead of going out he remained in camp or elsewhere to tend to other matters such as finances possibly. I know I’m doing a lot of assuming and reading into the text, which is wrong. I just wondered if Judas might be an example of someone who initially professed faith, possibly even baptized, but obviously was never saved to begin with.
@davisbelas3516 There is not one single example in the Bible of saving faith being a “faith alone,” apart from works. Read Hebrews 11 and try to make all of the “By faith” statements to mean “By faith only.” It makes the whole chapter nonsensical. There are examples of Jews who had faith in Jesus but clearly were not saved (John 12:42-43; 8:31-44). The reason is that believing in Jesus only gives one “the right to become” a child of God (John 1:12). One must act on that faith and exercise that “right” to actually become His child (John 3:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith, but it also clearly teaches that salvation is not by faith alone.
@davisbelas3516 THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM SAVES US Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
@@kac0404 Matthew 3:11 “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. ( dose Matthew 3:11 say water baptism is going to continue ?
Acts 9:26-40 Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in water. And earlier in the chapter is an example of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 9:12-17. The act of receiving Holy Spirit is what is referred to as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t discount the ordinance or sacrament of water baptism. Saying that water baptism was only for John the Baptist would cause a lot of questions for many parts of the New Testament where water baptism takes place.
@@artistart55 John’s baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord; prepare the people for the Lord. (Luke 1:16-17) “And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
@artistart55 Why was John’s baptism no longer acceptable? Several reasons come to mind: Paul wrote the Ephesian Christians that there was now only one baptism - Christian baptism. (Ephesians 4:5) “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” NKJV So by the early 60’s, Christian baptism was the only valid one. But Christian baptism is based upon Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. (Romans 6:1-5) “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,” Therefore, since Christian baptism was instituted on the Day of Pentecost, John’s baptism was no longer acceptable after that day. These men in Acts 19 had been baptized with John’s baptism after the Day of Pentecost and they had to be baptized with Christian baptism. Notice they were not “rebaptized.” They had not been properly baptized at all. They had been immersed, but not scripturally immersed.
Your argument that Jesus was ordained as a priest through John’s baptism has no basis. He was neither descended from Aaron nor part of the tribe of Levi. The Book of Hebrews makes it clear that His High Priesthood is of a different order. I am also fascinated to hear you quote Ezekiel who claims that the “new” covenant involves “everyone” knowing God and having His Torah written on their hearts. This comes after one of you claiming that “in Jesus” everyone “dies to Torah.” Jesus said plainly that both Torah and the Prophets will be in undiminished effect for as long as heaven and earth remain. Jesus also said that He “only came” for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Your theology ignores the fact that the Bible never claims that God will redeem anyone other than Israel. It also is founded on the concept that Messiah dissolved all the promises God made to Israel. If that is the case, then God cannot be trusted, and your so-called covenant theology is merely a mental exercise. The glaring fact is that Messiah did not come to start a new religion. I encourage you both to forget all the “doctrine” you’ve been taught, start at Genesis 1, and read the book through with open minds and hearts.
A discussion with Pastor Matt Everhard would be illuminating
I agree. Pastor Matt would be great at representing the Presbyterian view, and they could have Chad Bird on to represent the Lutheran view as well
THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM PLACES US “IN CHRIST ”
Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Colossians 3:2
3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
At 14:53, Regarding 1 Cor. 12:13, it doesn't say anything about baptism "symbolizes" or is a sign. It appears to me that baptism is a reality. Baptism is never called a sign or a symbol, it would seem to me.
Ya he was contracted sever time in single topic
Thank you for brining verses and discussion up that matters. As a former credo Baptist, I appreciate you trying to deal with passages that trouble or have troubled you. I don't think the sacrament continuation from circumcision to baptism was described in much detail. Reading in Colossians 2 was nice and appreciated. Listening to you all discuss the true Israel of God and push against a parenthetical church has been appreciated but your view on baptism seems to push you the other direction. I know you both adhere to the 1689 confession thankfully, thus I know you believe in the doctrines of grace. We, paedo Baptist and reformed Presbyterians, acknowledge that circumcision and baptism are passive acts. This general idea of continuity in salvation and the "symbol" as you would call it of baptism are hallmarks of that passive act of man and God movement. Similarly, you all failed to really describe what traditionally reformed Presbyterians believe on the sacrament as a means of grace, just like communion. We take these sacraments as more than pure symbols but the active movement or shadow of God over his covenant community. I am paedo-communion guy myself, but I honor my church and leadership and don't bring this up. As a former Baptist, we never really discussed the administration of communion. Ya'll should do a talk on that next. :)
Blessings,
Basil
Appreciate the likes. :) Sola Deo gloria.
Is baptism essential for salvation? Absolutely! Some denominational pastors, however, claim that there is not one single verse in the New Testament that requires baptism for salvation. They believe that people are saved and their sins are forgiven when people do one of the following: “Just accept/trust Jesus” or “Just have faith alone in Jesus” or “Just invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior and pray the sinner’s prayer.” BTW, that so-called sinner’s prayer is not found anywhere in the New Testament. To people of such mindset, baptism is merely “an outer sign of an inner belief” that has nothing to do with salvation. A like-minded pastor once stated that some of his congregation’s long-time members who professed to be Christians had NEVER been baptized. Their rationale is that if baptism isn’t necessary for forgiveness and salvation, then why bother at all? So what do the KJV Scriptures say about baptism?
MATTHEW 28:19-“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
From the Great Commission, Jesus commands that those who would follow Him as Christians must be baptized.
MARK 16:16-“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Jesus couples belief with baptism for salvation. It follows that if you don’t believe, you won’t be baptized; hence, dire consequences will follow. Likewise, belief without baptism will produce dire consequences and is inexcusable. Don’t make the mistake of arguing that since Jesus doesn’t mention baptism in the second half of this verse, then baptism is optional. Such a mistake completely ignores the first half of the verse, in which Jesus commands baptism with faith for salvation. The rebellious have alleged that the last 12 verses of Mark (of which verse 16 is one) are “spurious” and should be ignored (because of the command to be baptized for salvation). However, the 19th-century English vicar Dean John W. Burgon proved that those verses are genuine in his book, “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors And Established” (London, 1871).
ACTS 2:38-“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
We receive remission or forgiveness of sins through baptism, not before. Beware of “study Bibles” with denominational commentary that contradicts Scripture, claiming that we are baptized AFTER our sins are forgiven or BECAUSE they have already been forgiven through faith alone in Jesus. Such commentary is at odds with other verses about the necessity of baptism for forgiveness of sins and salvation.
ACTS 22:16-“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
This metaphor shows that baptism opens the door to forgiveness of sins. Again, without such forgiveness, we cannot be saved. Those believing in salvation by faith alone in Jesus will argue that “no amount of water can wash away sins,” as if physical water can literally wash away sins. They miss the metaphor entirely.
ROMANS 6:3-4-“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
We cannot walk as new Christians until we’ve been baptized, for baptism emulates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
GALATIANS 3:27-“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
We have faith, yet we cannot “put on Christ” or wear the mantle of Christianity until we’ve been baptized. Those professing to be Christians but who reject baptism are not true Christians; they are CINOs - Christians in name only.
FIRST PETER 3:21-“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The verse frankly states that baptism saves us.
Despite the Scriptures, denominational pastors will continue to deny that baptism is essential for forgiveness and salvation, because the Scriptures are at odds with their man-made traditions and personal beliefs. By downplaying baptism, these pastors put their own souls and those of their congregants in grave jeopardy.
The bottom line: Jesus will forgive our sins and save us through His sacrificial blood (Revelation 1:5) IF we obey His commandments for salvation, which are: Hear the Gospel (First Corinthians 15:1-4); Believe the Gospel (John 3:16); Repent of your sins (Acts 3:19); Confess before mankind that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 10:32-33); Be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38); Live the rest of your life in obedience and service to Jesus (Revelation 2:10). These commandments are found by diligently studying the New Testament
THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM IS IN WATER
1 Peter 3:20-21
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Mark 1:9-10
(9) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
(10) And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Acts 8:38-39
(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
(39) And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Baptism is salvific and efficacious. Scripture is clear, church history agrees, majority of modern Christians agree... Baptists thus need some strong arguments brought to the table to defend why they schismed over this topic.
Great discussion. What I would like to see discussed is not paedobaptism so much but rather adult baptism where the adult may have dementia or otherwise can not express their faith. There was an assumption that infants can not have faith. I personally disagree. I'm concerned that the same line of reasoning would be given for adults in old age that have dementia. The Lutheran view sounds intriguing, especially when it's so easy to find examples of reformed folks that have been baptized but have since renounced their faith. So they had the sign but it was a false flag? What if they return to the faith many years later? Do they get baptized again? As you stated, the pastor is not God and can not read someone's heart and apparently they get it wrong some times. The Lutheran view here sounds stronger. So why not just baptise infants and old folks with dementia under christian care instead of denying these folks the sign? I guess it comes down to would you rather mistakenly baptize a non believer or withhold the sign of baptism from entire swaths of folks because they are unable to express their faith in a form and fidelity that relies on the pastors subjectivity?
I would love you see you dialogue with Chad Bird about baptism
I listened to this today while working so I need to hear it again. I have studied this alot and am in a somewhat unique position. Raised reformed and baptized as an infant. My wife and I are presently in a church that is credo but the pastor we had when we came here ( who passed away in 2018) had been baptizing babies in parents homes if requested by the family. Apparently he said that the Biblical case for paedo baptism is very good. He was told by the elders board to stop doing that ( this was prior to our being there)
We have not been baptized as adult so we have what they call " associate membership"
One of the best books I have ever read was "Children of the Promise" by Robert Booth. I am convinced it is the Biblical position.
However...after hearing this today I have heard some points that you make that may change my mind. Thank you for a great show and now I have more homework to do.
Thank you ( fyi- my brother in law is home in Canada and doing well!)
Which points did you like that may change your mind?
@@gdot9046 I need to go back and take some notes when I can listen again. I had it playing in the background so was not focused completely on it.
What I remember is the 3 examples that paedo baptism gives in acts that says their families also were baptized.
@ 25:25 Does the child now have all the benefits of union with Christ
@ 31:30 Do children receive the Holy Spirit
and then this point
@39:30 Is the spouse of an unbeliever Holy as well as the children are also deemed holy ( set apart)
Like I said this has made me see this alittle differently so I need to look into it more. I shared this with my wife tonight so she is going watch it later.
I remember when I use to argue like this when I was credo
Informative survey on the subjects of baptism. I would like to see more interaction with those who hold to a greater efficacy in the sacrament; if Baptism is a mere symbol that doesn’t communicate the benefits that it signifies then credobaptism makes sense. But if Baptism actually saves us (1 Peter 3:21) and unites us to Christ (Rom 6:3-4) then withholding baptism from any who need it seems like a massive oversight. As Baptists we tend to drill down on the proper subjects and mode of baptism without giving much thought about what baptism is.
I think when Christians are asked if their children are called Christian, they would respond yes. I am talking about children raised by true believers, not people that are baptized but are not following after Christ. We treat our children as members of the new covenant community, do we not? We encourage them to participate in prayer and faith and the means of Grace, as much as they understand and the church has put them within their reach. Yet when they ask about baptism and ask, are they part of the body? we reply?.
I love that most of us assure our children, that Christ has lived and died and was resurrected that they should be called children of the most high.
Whether the sign is given at an infant or when they can articulate a profession I believe God is glorified.
For 1500yrs baptism was settled doctrine until protestants came round and made it an issue...smh. To this very day it is not settled within protestant circles. What gives?
THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM SAVES US
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Yes please please do a podcast on the primary, secondary and tertiary issues found in the Christian churches!!
I love how at 37:26 that there is the interpretation that the baptism is when justification happens but they can’t accept it because it disagrees with their theology written their various councils that they seem to think are inspired scriptures
So you believe without baptism, thou shalt not be saved? Can you provide evidence of that?
@@pirateturns360 mark 16:16
I'm pretty much in the middle on this topic but tend toward a more Covenantal view
Maybe the paedos agree with Luther. Luther was very angry that people would bring any of human strength into their baptism. It is not obvious that babies are incapable of faith. God can give faith and repentance to whoever he wants to give those gifts.
I think there is an issue, especially against the 1689, if you use the language "seal" according to baptism as a Baptist because that would infer the same point that presbyterians make in their argument. It just doesn't make sense to argue against the seal of baptism and then say "we" agree that baptism is the sign and seal. 43:11
Baptism is essential to salvation because it is when one’s sins are forgiven, when one receives the Holy Spirit, when one dies to sin, when one starts a new life, and when one becomes a child of God in Christ. In other words, “Baptism is the time and place that God forgives and saves.” Thus, when it comes to salvation, baptism is not the what but the when. The moment when you receive God’s saving grace is the moment you emerge from the watery tomb of baptism. That is why baptism is essential to salvation. Baptism “completes our response of saving faith,” which “begins with a confessed belief, continues with repentance, and is completed in baptism.”
Very classy, informative discussion on a difficult topic. Done in a way that should not trigger anyone's conscience. Just one point guys that you missed mentioning that paedobaptists also practice credobaptism, in the dutch reformed tradition at least ❤
The Ephesians were Baptized twice. People need to figure out why twice
You should do episode on who has the authority to baptize.
Please do a video on the "do you teach your children pray to God" topic that John brought up.
One of the things that brought me into confessional, Lutheranism was reading about how John Calvin himself believed in baptismal regeneration, albeit differently than Luther or Rome. Also, John Wesley also subscribed to Sacramento efficacy. In fact, if you look at Church, history, before Ulrich Zwingli, you do not see any symbolic view of baptism that does not include efficacy.
John Calvin did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. I have read almost all of his Treatises, commentaries and his institutes fully at least once.
@@atcustompainting If you mean in the same sense that Luther or Rome or the East did, no. But he was not a Zwinglian. From the Institutes:
"The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord specially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit." -John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion 4.14.17
He believed that baptismal regeneration was true for the elect, albeit in a very convoluted manner (much like his reworking of the Lord's Supper's efficacy to shoehorn it into his theology).
He was not a Zwinglian, although there are writings of Zwingli which give one pause as to whether he didn't teach the same view as Calvin. Calvin did not believe in a bare empty sign which did not correspond with the thing signified. But neither did he believe the water itself conferred grace, any more than he believed the elements of the supper do. The Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession both clearly set forth Calvin's views on these matters. He believed in the "spiritual" presence of Christ in the supper and in baptism.
Please make this technical, long and arduous. Thank you,
I know right? Theology is where it's at!
Matthew 3:11, would then Peter not be referring to Israel as priests to all the world in end time eschatology?
43:00 to answer your question... Lutheran's don't believe in eternal security/once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints. So yeah you can be baptized and have faith, be born again, but then later shipwreck your faith. (This is the historical Christian view)
But the difference is all in the heavenlies in Christ. Our flesh is unchanged on the earth. The flesh is as bad as it ever was when we are not abiding in our perfect position in Christ.
I had to stop watching because I was getting annoyed by Justin's constant interruptions of Jon.
He wasn’t answering how believer received the Jesus grace he was an answering what Jesus did. Contradiction.
This was awesome, well done, edifying, and very much appreciated! For many of the reasons you stated I currently share your position.
Can you guys talk about Romans 4:9-11? This is a NT reference that circumcision is upon regeneration for Abraham and then in Genesis 17 that sign was commanded by God to be applied to those in his household (I understand this would include servants and older children, not just infants, so thats a good counterpoint). Assuming you make the connection between circumcision and baptism, does this provide precedent for a bifurcated view of baptism? Given this background does it then make more sense to apply this pattern to the household conversions in the NT?
I also cant help thinking about how the process of salvation looks different for children brought up in the church as compared to adult converts. My wife and I just had our first child, and since I found out she was pregnant my prayer has always been that the Lord would save our son and that he would never even remember a day that he wasn’t walking with the Lord. He comes to church and stays in the service with us, he participates in prayer with us (even though he can’t talk yet!), he only watches Christian TV shows (with very limited screen time!), when we read the Bible he is with us. When he can talk we will teach him to pray and he will be continued to brought up in the church. That’s most likely a very different picture than most adult converts. It’s experiential and not an exegetical argument but it lines up more with the Presbyterian view of infant baptism.
Would love to hear what you gentlemen think on this! I’ve been thinking about it so much more now that I have a kid.
We’re covenantal but I really appreciate this conversation. I have benefited greatly from your channel. God bless what you fine gentlemen are doing!
I was well on my way to the Presbyterian OPC and was very happy moving in that direction until a reformed Baptist brother asked me to read Dr Fred Malone book on disciples alone . There just was no way that I could ignore the arguments presented in that book and therefore had to stay in the 1689 camp .
I also later became convinced of the 1689 federalist interpretation.
You erred dear brother. The westminster, covenant position is indefensible. The covenant is not conditional. It sovereignly established, unconditionally with believers and their seed in the line of continued generations along the lines of election and reprobation.
You would do well to study such men as Herman Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, David Engelsma, Hendrik Dekok, and other continental Reformed.
@@atcustompainting
Yea those guys are great
Sounds like you have itching ears and are seeking for the doctrines of men rather than replying in the scriptures and gods grace for your salvation
@@bm-outdoors they were biblical arguments!
Tell me , do you listen to the minister in your church? Does he not seek to explain the scriptures to you ?
The first article of the 1689 is all about biblical authority.
Just posted a recent video on my channel answering the best reformed baptist views from Jeremiah 31. Paper by Neil Jeffers. This paper did a great job of representing their views and responding.
I know you guys started with infant baptism and how some believe it's the equivalent of circumcision for the New Testament but it's not. I agree with you, but all these points you guys made about Baptism seems to me going against your theology as Baptist. Rom 6:3-8 Baptism is compared to the death burial and resurrection of Jesus which is what happens to people that are baptize according to scripture. in Acts 22:16 as Ananias told Paul what are you waiting for arise be baptize and wash away you sins calling on the name of the Lord.
They would say though that those references to baptism are (dry) and spiritual not referring to the act of physical baptism.
They would separate the internal substance of the covenant with the external administration of that covenant which would allow for non believers in that covenant. Am I missing something?
Would love to see y'all discuss this with a lutheran
Nice respectful conversation. It seems all you boys need to do is eliminate the unbiblical words 'sign' and 'signify' from baptism and Voila!: You be Lutheran. Here are some helpful words from Luther himself, "In philosophy there is a distinction between 'signum' and 'res,' but in theology 'signum' is 'res.'" Keep up the good work.
“It signifies that the old Adam in us should…be drowned and die…” LSC
The differences are immaterial. The ONLY thing that matters is what is right in the eyes of God.
Everything else is white noise!
Get baptised by full immersion when you have a clear understanding of what you are doing and why you are doing it.
That is the Scriptural way.
Is it safe to assume that Judas would’ve been baptized?
No, it's not safe to assume. Baptism wasn't a requirement for salvation while Christ was alive. The Bible never says that Judas was baptized.
@@kac0404 baptism still isn’t a requirement to be saved, faith alone in Jesus is all that’s required.
John 4:1-2 (ESV)
4 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
It would seem that as a disciple and follower of Christ, Judas likely baptized others. Although since he’s not mentioned by name it’s possible that he was given a different task than the others. Maybe instead of going out he remained in camp or elsewhere to tend to other matters such as finances possibly. I know I’m doing a lot of assuming and reading into the text, which is wrong. I just wondered if Judas might be an example of someone who initially professed faith, possibly even baptized, but obviously was never saved to begin with.
@davisbelas3516 There is not one single example in the Bible of saving faith being a “faith alone,” apart from works. Read Hebrews 11 and try to make all of the “By faith” statements to mean “By faith only.” It makes the whole chapter nonsensical. There are examples of Jews who had faith in Jesus but clearly were not saved (John 12:42-43; 8:31-44). The reason is that believing in Jesus only gives one “the right to become” a child of God (John 1:12). One must act on that faith and exercise that “right” to actually become His child (John 3:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27).
The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith, but it also clearly teaches that salvation is not by faith alone.
@davisbelas3516 THE BIBLE SAYS BAPTISM SAVES US
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
the blind lead the blind....
water baptism was only for JOHN THE BAPTIST ❗
Wrong!
@@kac0404
Matthew 3:11
“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.
( dose Matthew 3:11 say water baptism is going to continue ?
Acts 9:26-40
Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in water. And earlier in the chapter is an example of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 9:12-17.
The act of receiving Holy Spirit is what is referred to as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t discount the ordinance or sacrament of water baptism.
Saying that water baptism was only for John the Baptist would cause a lot of questions for many parts of the New Testament where water baptism takes place.
@@artistart55 John’s baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord; prepare the people for the Lord. (Luke 1:16-17) “And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
@artistart55 Why was John’s baptism no longer acceptable? Several reasons come to mind: Paul wrote the Ephesian Christians that there was now only one baptism - Christian baptism. (Ephesians 4:5) “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” NKJV So by the early 60’s, Christian baptism was the only valid one. But Christian baptism is based upon Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. (Romans 6:1-5) “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,” Therefore, since Christian baptism was instituted on the Day of Pentecost, John’s baptism was no longer acceptable after that day. These men in Acts 19 had been baptized with John’s baptism after the Day of Pentecost and they had to be baptized with Christian baptism. Notice they were not “rebaptized.” They had not been properly baptized at all. They had been immersed, but not scripturally immersed.
Your argument that Jesus was ordained as a priest through John’s baptism has no basis. He was neither descended from Aaron nor part of the tribe of Levi. The Book of Hebrews makes it clear that His High Priesthood is of a different order. I am also fascinated to hear you quote Ezekiel who claims that the “new” covenant involves “everyone” knowing God and having His Torah written on their hearts. This comes after one of you claiming that “in Jesus” everyone “dies to Torah.”
Jesus said plainly that both Torah and the Prophets will be in undiminished effect for as long as heaven and earth remain. Jesus also said that He “only came” for the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
Your theology ignores the fact that the Bible never claims that God will redeem anyone other than Israel. It also is founded on the concept that Messiah dissolved all the promises God made to Israel. If that is the case, then God cannot be trusted, and your so-called covenant theology is merely a mental exercise.
The glaring fact is that Messiah did not come to start a new religion.
I encourage you both to forget all the “doctrine” you’ve been taught, start at Genesis 1, and read the book through with open minds and hearts.