DIALOGUE: Answering Gavin Ortlund’s baptism questions
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2022
- In this episode Trent sits down with Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund to answer his questions about the case for baptismal regeneration.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Gavin's channel: / @truthunites
The world would be so much better if everyone who had major disagreements could sit down civilly like this.
It starts with willingness.
Fascinating dialog...I started my walk with Christ as a Baptist, and I'm now in RCIA classes to become a Roman Catholic. I so appreciate the charitable way in which you both seek to understand one another, and to find common ground. I still love hearing from the sermons of Charles Spurgeon.
Darla, congrats on RCIA. Normally classes start in September. What has drawn you to the Catholic Church?
These CZcams dialogues might just save greater Christianity. So awesome.
What is "greater Christianity?"
@@HaleStorm49 I think she means bringing unity amongst Protestants and Catholics
Youguys are both so Christ loving with truly a sweet attitude putting a smile on the Lords face. Talking with an open heart to see each other’s views, God bless you both, dear brothers in Christ, Thankyou,
Amen❤️🙏🏾🙌🏾
I am reformed Baptist and thought this was a great discussion. Very respectful and enlightening. Thanks to both of you!
I'm sick, so I've slept through most of this. That's a compliment that speaks to the comforting tones in your voices. Thank you. I'll be sure to return to give a full listen as I'm on the mend.
Hope you feel better❤️
Praying for your healing. God bless.
Really enjoyed this conversation as a Catholic, and honestly Gavin is a very well spoken person whom I enjoyed hearing from as well. Good work Trent! Always appreciate what you do for the faith!!
Love the humility and respect shown by Gavin and Trent.
I still just can't wrap my head around Gavin saying that Baptism regenerates but you are already regenerated before you get in the water. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him though
Yes. Imagine the expression on his face when/if he comes to understand that his position is illogical.
Essentially it seems that someone is "baptized" or receives baptismal grace from the holy spirit once they join the faith. Stepping in the water is merely a symbol to the public not when someone is actually regenerated.
@@Suqwhat But he speciically said that he does believe Baptism regenerates as well
@@ajmeier8114 When he says baptism he is referring to the symbol. It seems he still believes there is a regeneration, i.e. receival of grace and holy spirit, but that occurs through acceptance of faith. That essentially would be his version of Baptism l.
@@Suqwhat You might want to listen to Gavin again. 4:55. He himself says he is NOT saying it is just a symbol.
I’ve watched a few debates of Trent with a Protestant, and I must say, I am far more impressed with Gavin than with the other Protestant debaters I’ve seen. He exhibits Christian virtue, I really like how he comports himself. And I’m quite sympathetic to some of his intuitive points. For instance, if you see someone who has had a radical change in life toward God, I would not take that too lightly. Perhaps they HAVE been regenerated… but I also don’t think we should PRESUME this. We must continue toward the ORDINARY means of regeneration, which is baptism. But God is perfect in distributing His Mercy - and does so when and how He chooses, and is infinitely more FAIR in this application than we could ever dream to be. So I don’t think we need to worry about judging each particular situation ourselves (i.e., “is this person regenerated or not?” etc.). We just need to love catechumens (and others) moving toward baptism, impressing this need for regeneration (even if God in His infinite mercy may have already taken away their sins). In the natural realm, perhaps we can think of this like the case of a man with cancer who has received countless prayers, requests for saintly intercession, and Masses, all asking for his healing. He will still proceed with the ORDINARY means of treatment. But perhaps when going in for surgery the surgeon will discover no cancer. A miracle - which can happen, even though they are not the ordinary means of how are bodies recover from illness and disease. I realize however, that this example, though illustrative, isn’t perfect because an ordinary natural good like a bodily healing isn’t the same as an ordinary spiritual good like receiving grace through a sacrament. But I see another similar spiritual scenario too, and it involves confession. We are told that if someone commits a mortal sin, then they MUST go to confession to once again return to a state a grace. However, if they have PERFECT CONTRITION, then they can be forgiven of their sin and return to a state of grace PRIOR to going to confession. We should obviously never PRESUME that we have perfect contrition - yet, it certainly is something that I think we should all STRIVE for should we commit a mortal sin and not yet been able to get to confession. I think the same way, we should encourage those who have been motivated to seek God and to live His ways to continue to do so with all their heart, even as they await receiving the sacrament of baptism.
Okay… after typing all the above, I looked up “baptism by desire” and see that what I described very much fits within that definition. I love Trent, but perhaps he could have expanded on that a bit more (he only mentioned it in passing). I certainly understand why we need to be cautious about talking about this though, because it is not the ORDINARY means of remission sin, and we don’t want people to think it is. It requires perfect contrition, and while we should all strive for that, we should never EVER presume we’ve had that level of contrition (and neither should pastors or anyone else).
I think an excellent way to help a Protestant understand this who does not believe in baptismal regeneration is to show them they already hold a similar belief regarding confession of faith.
Paul in Romans says that with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. But nobody would say that those without the ability to speak are unable to receive salvation. Or someone who perished before they had an opportunity to verbally confess Christ is necessarily denied salvation.
Baptism in the Catholic view works exactly the same. It along with confessing Christ as Lord are the ordinary means of obtaining salvation.
Most low church Protestants only have these issues with baptism because they haven’t even considered they hold the same beliefs regarding verbal profession
It’s a shtick.
I think Gavin's example of witnessing "John's" faith before Baptism is the same thing as Catholic's see when catechizing catechumens before Easter (baptism). We see the faith, we see the fruits, we see the sparks and fire growing. Yet, it is Baptism that one receives the "First down marker" (football analogy). It isn't the beginning, it isn't the end, it is just the next thing in the journey of salvation. It is the process of entering, growing, and living in the Divine life. I've also seen people leave the process before baptism and after Baptism. So, hopefully they will come back.
I appreciate the debate. I don't know that we will ever know precisely the mind of God. We're just us. It is satisfying talking through it though. As long as those talks don't divide us or cause people to lose their interest in God's love and mercy. Because that is what we want. The how doesn't matter so much.
One more thing I'd like to add for Gavin is that while we participate in God's plan to bring others to Himself, we are not the final tool. Gavin's concerns over the traditions and the rite of Baptism as the Church has defined it seem overly self inflicted. God saves people in whatever means He wants to use. Sometimes that's us and sometimes we are merely a stepping stone. I think sometimes we place too much emphasis on the outcomes of evangelizing others rather than the process. Do what the Spirit moves you to do, ask permission in prayer before doing it, and then let God work His miracles.
Great job Gavin and Trent - I thought the charity and search for truth was quite evident in the discussion.
Actually the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus is the first down marker or as Paul says the seal of our Salvation: not a religious ritual.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Please expound...i'm not quite understanding what you are getting at
Well, it also gives you assurance. You are baptized - you are regenerated. For sure.
@@intedominesperavi6036 yes this is true. As long as we remember that Baptism isn't the goal, it's the entry into the race in which we must finish. (If you like Paul metaphors) But even more than that - it's your birth certificate and adoption papers to our Father's family. Now, how are we to know our new Father? How are we to love our Father and family? How are we to show our gratitude and participate in our Father's kingdom? Baptism is just the beginning of living in the Divine family. So, in this respect, yes we are assured a seat at the table through our Baptism. However, it comes with the responsibility of living in the House of our Father, God.
@YAJUN YUAN why is that a problem?
Great for doing this for both of you.
I love that you two talk together like this!
Trent, thanks for having this conversation with Dr. Ortland. These dialogues are very fruitful. A couple of thoughts.
First, I would caution against your analysis of Saint Disymus. Contrary to what you stated I think one could infer that he believed Jesus to be at least more than man if not God. “Remember Me when you come into your Kingdom.” The man saw a bloody Jew hanging on the Cross and yet confessed Him as King. One could infer that perhaps he even recognized Him as God.
Second, the thief experience doesn’t bypass baptism. On the contrary, what baptism signifies and makes present is the very experience Saint Disymus actually experienced. Namely, he experienced a baptism by blood. Instead of signifying his baptism with Christ through water he actually is baptized with Christ on the Cross. In fact, one could say every believer who is baptized is Saint Disymus. Everyone could also say that every man baptized and yet not attaining eternal life would be the other thief. For the other thief was raised on the wood with Disymus and yet his desire was to come down from it and turn back to his old ways. Disymus knew that he was receiving his “due” for his sins and looked towards the NEXT LIFE and not the return to the old one.
I’ve only just started watching the conversation so this comment by no means captures all the good points I am sure you will bring up. But I think we should challenge any Protestant who wants to object to baptism on the basis of Disymus. On the contrary, Disymus is living out in real time what baptism works in us. May we all follow his example of admonishing the sinner, accepting divine Justice, and confessing the world to come and not seeking to come down from the cross as the other thief does.
Is it still baptism of blood if he was already being killed and dying before that, and also due to him not being killed for being a Christian?
@@justsomevids4541 I would say he was a Christian in the strongest since of the word. “Whoever confesses Me before men him I will confess before My Father in Heaven.” In the middle of Saint Disymus nothingness Christ pulled out of him a unifying inclination towards Him. Because of his sins Saint Disymus justly hung on the wood of the cross. By Gods Mercy the same one who was justly hung was brought into Heaven. This is the same as baptism. “Baptized for the remission of sins.” That is, Justice is served by the sentence of death (if you eat the fruit you will die) and mercy is extended by the redirection from the dead (Raised to newness of Life). “Always carrying the dying of the Lord so the life of the Lord made be made manifest in me.” “I no longer live.” “We were crucified together with Him.” All sin is ordered to death as it’s end. It is Christ who takes our end and makes it the beginning to a new END. “I am the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the END.” Death meets its end in baptism by “newness of Life” growing out of it. Saint Disymus is the fullest expression of this. He deserved the cross, willingly accepted it, and was extended a gift that he did not deserve. This is the Christian life.
One way that Gavin is classier that most is he never chooses a thumbnail picture that makes his guest or debate partner look bad or silly. I lose a little respect whenever whenever the thumbnail picture of the host looks respectable, and the opponent doesn't.... would love to see Trent take Gavin' s lead in this area.
I am so glad to see that I am not the only one who noticed this. I find that even the tittle that Horn gave this video is very arrogant. Gavin titled this same video: Trent Horn and Gavin Ortlund on Baptism
God bless you both for your loving attitude with open hearts. You sure are putting a smile on the Lords Face.
Ray and Anne Ortlund was so a part of my growth in Christ. Particularly as a young wife, Anne's books helped so much.
We need more of these
This was such a great dialogue.😊
He has a blog post where he denies that Acts shows that parents act of desire can work on behalf of their children which is the historic view of the Church. Clearly baptism, like the eucharist, was seen as more significant by the earliest Christians than by protestants today, so why should we accept the latters interpretation when the historic view is left open by the text?
I have a friend who was a Calvinist and became Catholic. His Calvinist friends, before his conversion to Catholicism, were convinced he was saved and now they say he was never saved. You need some big time mental gymnastics to be a Calvinist.
They need to believe this to uphold their beliefs
@@jackdaw6359 Oh I know. It just becomes nuts at some point
My former Baptist church had a similar experience when we left. They knew I was an "on fire" Baptist. And a year later my parents became Catholic too. This must have caused some cognitive dissonance.
Mostly Catholics believe you can lose your salvation and some Protestants: I am not a Calvinists but preservation of the Saints by God's Grace is Biblical.
Nobody can declare a person is saved or not saved : ONLY God sees the regenerate heart of the individual both you all declaring Protestants as heretics or outside the true church is just as ignorant as saying someone never was a Christian by Calvinists.
You don't stop being a Christian just because you change churches.
Even if you join a church that many think have questionable teachings.
Which would go both ways from a Roman Catholic or Protestant perspective.
@@davidjanbaz7728 nobody is saying you don't remain Christian if you reject the Catholic Church and become a Baptist.
The issue most would have is that such an action puts your soul in serious jeopardy
This was great.
This was an awesome crossover! I’d be so cool if you could have one of these with Jay Dyer…but Maybe Fr. Patrick or Ubi Petrus would be an interesting dialogue.
I have a serious concern about baptism in the Baptist Church. I was baptized in the Baptist Church in 1994 by immersion. It was not valid because is was not a Trinitarian baptism. The pastor said: Dead to sin, risen to new life in Christ. I was baptized Lutheran when I was 8 weeks old and that is the baptism the Catholic Church accepted when I was confirmed.
Boy. Sir Gavin would greatly appreciate theological freedom when the day he comes home to the Catholic Church.
God willing
This has been a good program. I'm what you might call a High Church Anglican or Anglo-Catholic ( I prefer that as a reference), and believe in Baptismal Regeneration as the normal way that God works, I do believe that there are exceptions. The Blessed, Holy Trinity is free to do as He pleases, but He hasn't given me permission to do whatever I want to do. Again, thanks for the debate.
Exactly! The Church is bound by sacraments given to the Church by and through Christ, but God is NOT bound by sacraments.
That's my thought(nothing original with me). I don't consider myself Protestant, and especially Evangelical, because the language used by them is so different from the historical language of the Church, especially that used by the Church Fathers and in the Ecumenical Councils. The emphasis there was on Christ, but there was a definite order, with the Bishops, and Apostolic Succession. There was also a definite emphasis on the means of Grace, and particularly the Holy Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ. He's given Himself for me and gives Himself to me,a most unworthy sinner.
I was going to say the same thing as Trent. I share the concern with Gavin that emphasis on ritual can easily lead to ritualism in that people believe they're good to go simply because they performed a physical act. But I don't think any tradition really avoids this problem which is fundamentally an individual misunderstanding of doctrine and theology. The same problem can easily happen with security of salvation. One can conclude that they are good go no matter what simply because they prayed a prayer for salvation once upon a time. This is problematic in precisely the same way.
Baptist views are characterized as just a sign sometimes--you're right. It's just that it's Baptists doing that characterization.
Depends on which Baptist you ask. Unfortunately, many judge Baptists by their own anecdotal observations. For historic and confessional Baptist views, check out Stan Fowler's More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism.
@@TruthUnites I’d venture that of modern baptists, 75% or more would hold to a symbolic view. I say that even though many of my friends are reformed baptists who purport to hold to the 1689. And, the “which baptist you ask” response is really a problem. This is a key question, if baptism is salvific. This is why I will trust the judgement of the Church, which has been remarkably consistent on this issue, over this or that group. Anglican here, by the way.
@YAJUN YUAN I don't think it's a crypto argument for anything. It is a fact that if baptismal regeneration is true, then it matters whether infants are appropriate candidates or not. If baptismal regeneration doesn't matter, then it's less an issue. So you still need to deal with the question of baptismal regeneration. Then, once you've done that, you can deal with the question of infants. You might still come to the conclusion it's not appropriate, as the Churches of Christ do.
@YAJUN YUAN Yes, I acknowledged that Churches of Christ take that position. I didn't say that wasn't possible (though it is wrong).
@YAJUN YUAN Because the issue has been settled. Even Eastern Orthodox, who don't embrace Augustinian views of original sin, still embrace the idea of ancestral sin that is removed at baptism. And both have always applied it to infants.
I couldn't help but feel Ortland was just using Horn as like a survey participant or a piece of research for a new book or something, the way he asked the questions and the balance of things were. It was very amusing either way.
I really enjoyed this debate! So substantive and gratefully void of ad hominems! I'm wondering, Trent, would the Catholic take on "John" be similar to a courtship leading up to marriage? There are all kinds of joys discovered about the other as we fall in love with the other person, and this can lead to an engagement. But there is no marriage until the wedding. The fact that the wedding hasn't happened yet, though, doesn't negate the genuine love that is blossoming within the couple. In fact, we would expect that there would be some romantic displays of love and affection prior to the wedding. The "moment of saving faith" would be akin to accepting the proposal, but the marriage doesn't occur - that is, they aren't husband and wife - until the marriage ceremony. Likewise, someone can "commit to Christ" but isn't a part of God's family until a valid baptism occurs. Would this be correct?
Hello. I am an honest Roman-Catholic. I need some help in one Biblical area. Can you help me with this issue? Many try to explain the 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 "contradiction. I haven't yet found a catholic answer to this issue. Can you please answer this question?
Just my thoughts...
Sacraments, rituals and tradition are helpful in the sense if the object of faith in such activities is GOD.
However, a lot of people in some denominations can easily criticize and judge people engaging in these activities to be wrong or evil without truly knowing what's really in their hearts. ❤🙏❤🙏❤
"Unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum"
"One baptism for the remission of sin"
There's no use professing that if you don't believe it. If anything is the unanimous tradition of the fathers, it's the nicene-constantinople creed.
@YAJUN YUAN It just says "sin." And there's only one, not two or three.
@YAJUN YUAN That's stretching it.
I don't see why I can't use the plural while affirming that in the case of infant baptism only remits one sin. Baptism does remit all sort of sins.
If you want a singular, then that would mean baptism only remits one type of sin. That's not right.
@YAJUN YUAN If infant baptism becomes the norm that would not mean there's no more adult baptism.
Even if there's no more adult baptism but only infant baptism (hypothetically), which you argue would make baptism only remits one kind of sin (original sin), the fact that baptism has the power to remits all sins needs to be professed. So for the Church who does infant baptism, even when everyone is baptized as infant such Church would need to say that baptism remits all sin because that's the power of baptism (even if baptism is never used to its full potential because everyone is baptized as infant).
@YAJUN YUAN
The fact that original sin exists in everyone and the fact that everyone has to be born again (which means being baptized) to be saved.
Those two means that baptism remits original sin too.
@YAJUN YUAN They become immaculate (without the "conceive" qualifier since they're not in conception).
When someone is baptized and he/she dies, she would go to heaven straight away without the need of purgation in purgatory (baptism not only remits all sins but also remits all temporal punishment due to sins)
Great discussion and polite also. For me, the authority of the church to bind and loose explains a lot when the scriptures aren’t clear. That’s why Sola scripture doesn’t work to me.
Bind and seal what? How would you explain the purpose of that authority it to a 5th grader?
Hello Trent! Can you do a video on the accuracy of the Noah's Ark bible story?
Acts 4:12, then subsequently Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Matthew 28:19, Luke 24:47, 1Cor 1:13. Intrested why the saving name associated with baptism was not doscussed? What is the saving name that was used by St. Peter and St. Paul? St. Peter says there is no other name? Who was he referring?
Trent, as it relates to Gavin's assertion that he seems to witness regeneration before baptism throughout his ministry, would it not be good to note that as Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity"?
I understand that not all calvinists are hypercalvinists but some are. Also many calvinists believe that belief in predestination is necessary for salvation and arminians for example are not saved.
Hey Trent! First of all, I wanted to say thank you for this dialogue, it was really helpful and meaningful. Second, I would like to ask you or anyone who is reading this for advice. My family and I are going to baptize my niece this friday, however, her parents are both atheists and are only going to do it to please my mother. However, both she and I will do everything in our power to raize her in the Catholic faith. Her father is an ex-catholic but he is very respectful and sometimes even defends the Catholic faith. He is really smart and loves philosophy, and he's even read the Summa when he was Catholic. Do you think we should postpone her baptism? pls pray for us!!
No. Don't postpone. I was baptized as a baby and not raised in any faith. I once had an interaction with God and He made it known that my baptism was important and because He knew I wouldn't be raised in the faith, He gave me special gifts to help me recognize REAL Truth.
@@tabandken8562 tysm for your reply!!
4:10 to 5:40--Gavin's definition of Baptism sounds eerily close to the Catholic view BUT then Gavin says he doesn't believe Baptism to be the cause of bringing one from death to life which seems to contradict the very words in the opening of his definition. So, I am struggling to understand his understanding of Baptism.
What am I missing???????
Faith may bring you into a relationship with God, but Baptism brings you into relationship with God's Church. If you're not part of the Church that Christ established you are rejecting Christ on His terms and only accepting Him on your terms. That doesn't mean that God cannot work through you, or through unborn children or children that die before Baptism, as God is not bound by the sacraments, but we have been told that if we love God we will serve him on his terms and He requires you be Baptised. That's why Baptism saves you, washes away your sins and sanctifies you for salvation. Remember, on many occasions, the Bible contrasts belief with disobedience. So if you believe, you obey. If you don't obey, not matter how much you claim to believe, you're just fooling yourself. So get Baptised and join His Church, i.e. His body.
p.s. great discussion, went very well.
Would it feasible to say Dismas was Baptized by Desire, or no?
Hi Dorakin, allow a Catholic nobody a chance to respond.
TLDR: Yes, it is feasible to say Saint Dismas had a baptism by desire ~
There is a strong argument that Saint Dismas was baptized by desire: if anything, Saint Dismas would have been the "biblical prototype" for the concept of baptism of desire. Granted it might not be the best way to phrase it-I'm open for a better phrase-ology.
I think the main point that Trent is pointing out is that the Gospel accounts of Saint Dismas do not explicitly show us that Saint Dismas has the reason based faith that Christians traditionally acknowledged to be the "must haves" to have faith in Jesus.
I think there is a case to be made that Saint Dismas might have recognized Jesus as the Messiah. At the very minimal, Saint Dismas knew that Jesus was innocent of the crimes charged against Him. But seeing that neither the Pharisees nor the scribes (the biblical educated scholars) were not able to make the old Testament connections to Jesus (such as but not limited to Genesis 3, Psalms 8, 22, Isaiah 7, 42, 53 and Daniel 9 etc etc. There are too many to list), it seems a far stretch for a crucified man be well aware of the identity of Christ. Even Jesus's disciples were not able to make these connection till after the crucifixions: case and point is the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24)
such as ...
Jesus was the Divine Son of God - not an angel, not a super prophet.
Jesus was Man - was of human flesh, actually died, and actually rose from the dead.
etc.
This opens up a real discussion of what are the "must haves" of Christianity aka "Mere-Christianity" that at least from my discussions with Christians, tends to be a subjective list of what they think is essential. Which then draws us back to the big discussion of the question on authority: is there a divinely instituted office that Christian faithful can trust into discerning out these complex questions.
@@daneolaso7206 If nobody in Jerusalem suspected that Jesus was the Messiah, why was he welcomed triumphally in the city? I always thought that in Jerusalem the general sentiment was that Jesus probably was the Messiah, but they misunderstood what that meant. I don't think Dismas managed to recognize Jesus as the begotten Son of God, and person of the Trinity, but he believed the rumors about him (the Messiah that preaches the Kingdom to come), instead the more well learned jews in Jerusalem thought that the Messiah was the one that would fight off the Roman Empire, and they didn't give weight to what Jesus preached, which is why they lost their respect for Him on the cross.
I understand that Catholics define sacraments as visible signs of invisible grace being conferred. Therefore, the ritual itself has efficacy for the recipient. If that's correct, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the definition, then why don't Catholics commune infants?
in the Eastern Catholic churches and Eastern Orthodox churches, they do baptism, chrismation (confirmation) , and first communion all at once for infants. :)
Just off the top of my head...
I think the concepts that are lacking in Gavin's theology relates to the idea that God is not bound by time neither in his being or in how he interacts with human being's spiritual condition. God desires to call everyone to him, and does so temporally when causality in our reality allows the opportunity. God already knew before any of his temporal actions upon mankind, who will heed, via their free-will, those callings, and who will not. By our nature God knows that human beings, trapped in temporal causality of free-will, need expressions of demarcation within causality to service free-will. So he instituted sacraments, first in Judaism and then in Christianity, to serve as demarcation points of faith. Human nature needs these demarcations to serve faith in our reality. We call this service to faith as the temporal graces we receive.
Baptism is just such a demarcation that God created for the nature of man in this temporal existence. It serves as a faith marker in our reality of something that has happened, and is happening, inside our free-will, toward God for which God knows the temporal outcome, which we do not. It is our expression of free-will via a "clear conscious" toward God. It is required in faith because temporal causal expressions of faith are always present in someone who is coming to know, or who is actually in, Christ. These expressions of temporal faith are graced to us though the timelessness of God's spiritual existence acting upon our temporal nature.
Spiritually, baptism and the indwelling of God's spirit happen at the same time in the eyes of God because he is not bound by our concepts of time. Only to our perceptions do they appear to be separate demarcated points of faith. And God designed it that way in our reality in order to service the causality of free-will. That's why Cornelius, and those at Pentecost, had the spirit indwelled before Baptism, while everyone else in scripture had Baptism before the indwelling of the Spirit by the laying on of hands. Typically, Baptism happens before spiritual indwelling because the nature of human beings demands causal demarcations in order to properly form faith in God.
Sometimes temporal lack of opportunity reverses those demarcations but one thing is for sure...they never exist absent one another. So if someone ever says Baptism is not necessary for normal faith formation unto salvation, they are woefully wrong.
If someone displays the gifts of the Holy Spirit prior to Baptism then the reality is that they should have been baptized long ago, probably immediately when they first accepted faith in Christ. They should not have waited for the Spirit to manifest in them prior to being baptized. Not baptizing them, or never baptizing them, has an extremely negative impact on faith formation because of incongruent demarcation points in our causal free-will.
God knew what he was doing when he gave us the sacraments in an order for proper faith formation. God knows human temporal aspects of free-will and how to properly form faith in someone who he knows will accept him in Christ as savior. We have a duty to abide in those temporal demarcation mechanisms God created for our own temporal and spiritual good.
So when Gavin is searching for causality of salvation in Baptism verses the indwelling of the Spirit, he's looking in the wrong place for it. And because of this, he's missing the whole point of Baptism's role in God's interaction with mankind via their free-will in faith and belief in Christ. God's interactions with someone is from God's timeless nature and knowledge of past and future temporal reality, and acting upon the person in such a way that their faith is formed properly in this reality, based on causal demarcation points. This is why pedo-baptism is just as valid as any other type and time of baptism. Because its validity is based on God's timeless knowledge of an individual's faith throughout their lives and not on our own knowledge bound within our own causal timeline.
These concepts of God's timeless nature is a key aspect of the more esoteric parts of theology which underlies our reality. It is a key to faith and underlies every aspect and teaching of the Catholic Church even when not expressly stated or ideated.
Baptism washes away our original sin. So it is essential to our salvation. So if one believes in faith alone saves, then there is nothing else required for their salvation, no need for baptism, the sacraments, the commandments, or even a church.
Baptism for them is just a symbol, a formality, not even required, etc. once saved always saved.
Faith and reason must always come together. If it seems unreasonable it is usually false. God is a logical God.
@YAJUN YUAN The deposit of faith of scripture and even Church teaching informs us on these facts. God interacts with man temporally within time, but God is not bound by it as he has foreknowledge of all things which puts him outside of time. This is also why God does not change, he's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Heb 3:8) because he is not bound by time...God just is.
Ps 89:4 - "For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,"
2 Peter 3:8 - "But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Heb 11:3 - "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made." In other words, the universe was created out of invisible things outside of the physical (visible) universe.
Jimmy Akin had a short blog post on it (jimmyakin.com/2012/06/is-god-outside-of-time.html) and quoted John Paul II saying:
"These facts of revelation also express the rational conviction to which one comes when one considers that God is the subsisting Being, and therefore necessary, and therefore eternal.
Because he cannot not be, he cannot have beginning or end nor a succession of moments in the only and infinite act of his existence.
Right reason and revelation wonderfully converge on this point.
Being God, absolute fullness of being, (ipsum Esse subsistens), “inscribed in the terminology of being” "[General Audience of Sept. 4, 1985].
From Akin's post, John Paul II was using early church teaching from the Christian philosopher Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy, around the year A.D. 524:
"It is the common judgement, then, of all creatures that live by reason that God is eternal. So let us consider the nature of eternity, for this will make clear to us both the nature of God and his manner of knowing. this will be clear from a comparison with creatures that exist in time.
…for it is one thing to progress like the world in Plato’s theory through everlasting life, and another thing to have embraced the whole of everlasting life in one simultaneous present. (Boethius Consolation, V.VI.)
And there are plenty of more references from the early Church and throughout Catholic theological teachings through the centuries.
@@jotunman627 Baptism washes away sin by our faith in the promise God has made to us through that temporal sacrament. Without faith, baptism means nothing. Even our Catholic Church teaches that (CCC 1253.) Baptism does not save us by merely "the putting away of the filth of the flesh" (i.e. Sin. 1 Peter 3:21) it saves us because baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (a.k.a. "faith." 1 Peter 3:21.)
God promises by our faith, sins can and will be forgiven by our acts and actions toward him. And God gifted us with sacraments for our edification of these temporal demarcation points in our faith. Baptism is just such an event and is a temporal gift of God, just like faith, that through cooperation with our free-will, reinforces our faith formation (CCC 1253-1255) which, when properly sought and formed, grants us eternal life.
These concepts are hard for people to understand who have never contemplated the eternal nature of God. I don't expect everyone to get it as it's a very high level understanding of God that comes from a maturity in Christ that not everyone has obtained. But the fact is that this is what scripture teaches and what the Church has taught from the beginning (see my other reply to Yajun Yuan.)
Isn't it a little weird, Gavin, to say that others should quote Protestant confessional sources when critiquing them (which I agree with, by the way) in your argument that the view of baptismal regeneration can result in formalism? By your own standard, formalism isn't a legitimate argument unless the confessional sources of those supporting baptismal regeneration (e.g. the 39 Articles, Catholic Catechism, etc.) themselves teach formalism. Just seemed like an odd argument to be making in light of your question to Trent re: formalism.
Also since he is a Baptist does he get to pick and choose what confessional to follow? Isn’t the 39 articles Anglican? Or is there a confessional that all Baptists must follow?
yeah I tried to frame it as directed toward a street-level practice, and to be considered as such. Apologies if that didn't come through.
I think there is less plausibility in Ortlund's interpretations, but I can see some degree of plausibility. I would REALLY like to see discussion of actual quotes of Church fathers; the common Protestant objection that they are too vague needs to be confronted. As with all of these kinds of discussions, it merely shows there is a need for authority to give us certainty on important issues like this, which affect salvation and unity. I appreciate Trent describing it, but Ortlund should go witness for himself the solemn Catholic baptism of an infant to understand the centrality of faith and responsibility in the rite.
My thought about Dr Ortlands position on “fruit” disclosing a persons disposition as regenerate.
I know many people who are extremely sincere and yet are sincerely wrong. They anchor their character to an exemplar of some kind and then live their life in a morally good way. They are looked at by those around them as “good people.” This kind of analysis fails to take into account that mankind can and does acquire virtue by the impressions made upon their being. This “virtue” or fruit can be seen in people all over the world regardless of their belief in Christ or in some other exemplar. Remember, biologically and historically we are an animal that desires a higher being to pattern our lives after. Did the pagans sincerely believe in Hercules? Yes, I don’t doubt it. Did their belief in Hercules impress upon them a new way of living their life? Yes, I don’t doubt it. But is Hercules real? No, and yet that which was not real had a profound impact on the psychology of man. Many people “believe in Jesus” not by the gift of faith but by a psychological and metaphysical “need” to have an authority and exemplar to pattern their life after. “Not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom.” “Nobody can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit.” “With their mouth they confess Him but in their works they deny Him.” Not because they don’t do good works but because they do those good works by acquires virtue and not the virtue which is unto Gods glory.
We are made alive in Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit after belief and Repentance of the individual.
You misjudge people that have changed lives by this Spiritual transformation by God not merely a religious ritual.
Jesus spoke against human traditions that negated God's teaching ( Corban).
Applying (Lord Lord ) to non-Catholic Christians is a self incriminating statement. Love you Pharasees thinking
Jesus also spoke against making hypocritical judgments : that plank is blinding you're vision.
@@davidjanbaz7728 David, what I said can be as applicable to Catholics as well as Christians. For instance it could be said of us (as Chrysostom rightly states) “they have the form of godliness but deny its power.” Now the “form” is in the sacraments. But it’s the Catholics who “deny its power” who don’t receive the Sacraments worthily (as Judas didn’t). However, the flip could be said of most Protestants. “They do not have the form of godliness because they deny its power.” The Catholic who receives a Sacrament and denies its power is no different then a Protestant who receives them not (not all Protestants but a good chunk) because they deny its power.
“And the earth helped the woman and swallowed up the flood which the dragon spewed from its mouth.” God gave us the Signs from the earth to effect our salvation. “From earth you are, to earth you shall return.” The Sacraments effect death in us so the life of Christ may also be manifested in us. Hence, we die with Him in baptism and yet are also raised with Him to “newness of life” by the very same baptism. Justice and mercy kiss in baptism. “Righteousness will sprout from the earth.” That is, the very same who went in the water with Christ will rise up with Him out of the water.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Hebrews states the true Temple is in heaven not on Earth: this is where Christ offered His blood of the New Covenant. Jesus is the true "form" not religious rituals which Jesus came to free the Hebrews from and open God's Kingdom to All people.
That's why Christians don't have to keep Jewish sacraments or practice animal sacrifices anymore.
JESUS SAVES !
@@davidjanbaz7728 I agree with just about everything you said. But, your gravely mistaken by saying his temple is only in heaven. Solomon, prefiguring Christ, builds a temple on earth and says to God “when you hear in THIS PLACE (temple on earth), THEN hear in heaven. Hear, and forgive.” Now the “THIS PLACE” is the Church and the Temple in Heaven is the Head. And this Church is heard because in this place Christ is truly, really, and substantially present. “Behold you are God in the Heavens above and in the earth.” “The earth is my footstool.” “Worship AT HIS FOOTSTOOL.”
Therefore, Scripture has overthrown your position as untenable.
@@davidjanbaz7728 there’s no separate baptism of the Holy Spirit
Beautiful dialogue between my two favourite apologists 🥰🥰🥰, Hi trent can you make a video about Jesus intercession? If the father and the son are one To whom is jesus interceding?🥰
@Thoska Brah Thanks for your reply it makes a lot of sense, does that mean Jesus is praying for us?
On the topic of Cornelius and the Thief:
With regards to the Thief, I don’t think it can be argued he’s an exception in any sense. The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that a covenant (and thus it’s requirements) is inaugurated in blood, which is to say the New Covenant and it’s requirements didn’t begin until *after* Christ had died. Given the Thief received his pardon and Christ’s promise *prior* to His death, it is an example of an Old Covenant conversion in which baptism was not absolutely necessary.
On Cornelius, I likewise see no reason to hold there to be an exception. God has a well established precedent of working through the unregenerate to make His will known, and I’d see no reason to conclude Cornelius falls outside of this. As Trent said, God used this instance to show that He had indeed opened salvation up to the Gentiles. Immediately after the event of Cornelius and his family speaking in tongues, Peter has them baptized, and I think his statement adds weight to the necessity in light of God’s revelation:
“Can any withhold water that these might be baptized?”
God’s sign through Cornelius, unbaptized and thus unregenerate, demonstrating that salvation had indeed come to the Gentiles was the catalyst for Peter to administer the Sacrament of Baptism which, consistent with Peter in his Epistle, then saved Cornelius and his family.
TL;DR, I don’t think either of these can rightfully be labeled “exceptions”.
So are you saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus gave the Apostles not connected with a water baptism OR is the water baptismal ritual Save you ??? Lyida is also someone who believes first and then is baptized in Acts16: 13-15. The others of her household would have believed first and than Baptized after their Repentance and made alive by the Holy Spirit just as Lydia was !
@@davidjanbaz7728 water baptism is the means by which we are regenerated and made part of Christ’s body. The New Testament is extremely consistent in that. Lydia is likewise no exception, as believing in God, or Him predisposing one to receiving the Gospel, do not necessitate regeneration, implicitly or explicitly.
We would also agree that one gets baptized *after* they believe, with the exception being infants.
So the order remains: Believe -> Get baptized; baptism remits our sins and makes us part of the Body, therefore, it is not believing alone that attains this effect.
@@Cathologia No buddy Only God can forgive Sin as the Jews rightly said to Jesus and Then He proved that His miracles are evidence that He is God and can do this also.
The Apostles went baptized when they received the Holy Spirit and neither was I.
@@davidjanbaz7728 we agree only God can forgive sins, and He does so through the Sacraments of Baptism (initial) and Reconciliation (ongoing). Second, you don’t actually know the Apostles weren’t baptized. Given the consistency of the New Testament, strengthened by the fact that Paul (an Apostle, outside the Twelve) was, I’d argue the case is probably better that they were.
Again, as the case in Cornelius, the Spirit coming upon a person does not necessitate their regeneration. The Spirit works through the unregenerate very often within Scripture.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. The thief on the cross is not responsible for his ignorance of his baptism and he is not held accountable.
Non-baptized individuals who are not responsible for their ignorance can be saved. - Just as:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation"
People, who have never heard of Christ or his gospel or His church, people who in their circumstances, aborted babies, intellectually disabled, living in remote places of the world, etc. can also be saved. God is all merciful.
But - “If you were blind, you would not have sinned; yet, now you say ‘We see’, so your sin persists.”
The problem with going to the origin of that tradition to criticize it, the people you're talking to don't care. They'll just say "well, we don't believe that" or "he's not infallible, only the bible is"
My understanding about baptism is, baptism is a facility ordered by Christ but it doesnt mean baptism is the only way for Christ to save People.
You are correct. The Church is bound by the sacraments in its mission to save souls, but God is not bound by the sacraments in His desire to save souls.
Here's what I wrote on Gavin's video a few weeks back, in case it's helpful. I think Gavin is still equivocating with the word "regeneration" here, not using it in its truly historic meaning.
Sorry, this is long. To be fair, I don't think Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans (I'm Anglican), or Lutherans believe or teach that salvation begins at baptism for everyone. Certainly, that is not always the case. In fact, the whole idea of baptism of blood and baptism by desire pretty much assumes that not to be the case. Instead, baptism is the new birth, but it doesn't mean there wasn't life before that. In a human birth, there is life from the moment of conception. But if the child is not born, then there is no continued life. Baptism can be thought of similarly.
Also, I think there's a definitional problem re: regeneration. Gavin seems to be using the word in the way that the Puritans started using it in the 18th century and the way most Protestants now use it, which essentially equates it with conversion and, because of the Puritans' Calvinistic tendencies and a belief in perseverance of the saints, also equates to final salvation. Those with a historic view of baptism generally don't think of regeneration that way. It's not conversion. We still need to be converted, even after we are regenerated. Regeneration involves forgiveness of sins, entry into the Church, a delivery from death, and an outpouring of the Spirit. But it's just a beginning. It may or may not be tied immediately to the renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). Salvation is organic.
Here's my stab at answering your six questions:
1. Did baptism save Cornelius? Yes, for the reasons I mention above. I think Gavin's equivocating on the word "save" here. When one understands "save" to mean simply the things that I mention baptism does above, then there's no problem saying he was "saved" when he believed and he was "saved" at baptism. It's only if you view salvation as a punctiliar thing that is set in stone forever once it "happens" to someone that there's a problem here. While salvation is by grace through faith, it is a process, not a simply punctiliar thing. In any event, I think Cornelius is overblown. The NT is explicitly clear about the ordinary way things should happen. Faith, repentance, and baptism for remission of sins. Acts 2, Acts 9 and 22 (Paul's conversion story), and John 3 are pretty clear about this. See also Romans 6. But that doesn't mean God can't work outside of the ordinary means He has ordained. The point of the Cornelius story is to enlighten the apostles that the very same thing that happened to the Jews can also happen to the Gentiles. What's more, Cornelius was immediately baptized, so there isn't much of a separation between his belief and baptism. And there's certainly nothing in this passage or any other NT passage that suggests he was baptized to proclaim his faith (I understand you don't take this position, but many Baptists do). Gavin's point about laying on of hands is also not helpful to his case, since the early Church (and the Eastern Church today) practiced confirmation at the same time as baptism. So laying on of hands would have normally occurred at baptism. I'm also not sure how Acts 9 helps Gavin's case. Ananias said he came to do two things for Paul: 1) to have Paul regain His sight and 2) to fill Paul with the Holy Spirit (v.18). This is fulfilled in v. 19--1) immediately he regained his sight, and 2) he rose and was baptized. The parallelism there couldn't be stronger.
2. Why not read Romans 2:29 the same way you read 1 Peter 3:21? I think the answer here is pretty simple. Just read Romans 6 also. I don't think anyone ever thought Romans 6 was referring to anything other than baptism until the Reformation. All the stuff described in that chapter happens in baptism. That's Paul's point--live into your baptism--you're different now. Plus, there's nothing logically inconsistent with believing in baptismal regeneration and believing that circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit. In fact, Paul directly connects the ideas of Romans 2:29 and Romans 6 in Colossians 2:10-12. Someone who is baptized IS circumcised of heart according to Paul (assuming right disposition and acceptance of the benefits in faith of baptism). And if Paul believed in baptismal regeneration (as he clearly did), then his language makes perfect sense. It only doesn't make sense if you think Romans 6 or Colossians 2 are referring to some sort of spirit baptism.
3. How is baptism part of the perseverance described in Hebrews 10:22? Since baptism is God's work, perseverance is all about leaning into that. God baptized me and began His work then. I can be confident that if I continue in faith, He will continue His work. As Martin Luther said, when you're tempted, "Remember your baptism." Obviously, he saw the connection between baptism and perseverance. Romans 6 is also pretty clear on how baptism and perseverance relate. As an aside, where in church history have the passages in Hebrews about water, like this one, ever been interpreted to mean anything other than baptism?
4. Can Trent point to anyone between Augustine and the Reformation who affirms the salvation of unbaptized babies? I'm not sure why this question is relevant or why the general exceptions described above (e.g. baptism of desire) couldn't apply to infants. I don't think the church as a whole ever dogmatically taught that unbaptized infants were consigned to hell. Augustine's views on this were never officially adopted, though many did follow him, and they were softened by Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard. On the other hand, if I were Gavin, as a Baptist pastor, this question would scare the crap out me. There may be millstones involved for some folks who have discouraged baptism of children and infants. There also seems to be a logical fallacy here by Gavin. The fact that there might be controversy on some issues doesn't undermine in any way those issues for which there was no controversy. For instance, there might have been controversy on what happens to babies who die before baptism. There was no controversy, however, about whether babies (or anyone else) needed baptism or what baptism offered to the recipient. You can't use controversy about issue X to undermine settled issue Y, where X is not a necessary condition for Y to be true.
5. What is happening to those who seem to get regenerated in faith? Why shouldn't I understand them as similar to what happened with Cornelius? See answer to Number 1. What happened to Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch? They were immediately baptized. Why? Because it was necessary. Again, I think part of this is an equivocation on terms, re: what regeneration means. It doesn't always mean the first working of the Spirit, as you seem to imply. In fact, your own story confirms your meaning of regeneration to mean something completely different than what the more traditional approach means. You should check out "Signed, Sealed, and Delivered," by Bishop Ray Sutton, which I think does a great job explaining what regeneration means and doesn't mean.
6. Can you understand my concern of a formalism that leads to presumption? Based on what you think baptismal regeneration means, i.e., that it seems to secure eternal salvation forever, yes. But that's not what happens in baptism and I don't think any tradition that teaches baptismal regeneration believes it does. It's a beginning. And proper catechism makes clear that we walk with God daily; we don't rely on some mechanistic view of baptism as automatically delivering final salvation. If I were you, I'd worry more about the young kids in Baptist churches whose faith is crushed because they are denied baptism because "you weren't nice to your brother today". Baptist theology, as it pertains to children, is ultimately Pelagian in many ways, as it focuses on the work of the individual as necessary to justify baptism, rather than the work of God in baptism to justify the individual. The fact that one is poorly taught doesn't change what the actual teaching is. I could just as easily argue that revivalism and decisionalism that comes out of the baptist and similar traditions create presumption. And, more to the point, it's a Calvinistic view of predestination that leads to presumption. If I believe "once saved, always saved," I get to the same presumption.
Lastly, there is a real blessedness to the objectivity of the sacraments. Read Doug Wilson's book "Reformed is Not Enough" for a good Protestant perspective on that. Salvation is tied to membership in the Church, and baptism brings that about. So in some ways, part of the problem here is one side viewing salvation as primarily subjective, individualistic, and spiritual, while the other side sees an important objective, corporate, physical component.
Sorry for how long this is!
Long, but excellent replies. Complex questions require long answers.
On 4 given his Calvinism, how can he have any assurance at all when it comes to the death of infants? We’re they atoned for? Who knows?
Sorry just a quick word as I don't have the time right now to view this vid but I believe that it is an obligation on parents to baptize the child to bring the child under Christ's salvation. Baptism is an exorcism (of original sin) that are entrusted upon parents by God. God didn't need to give us the parents the child but for the child to be their ward and custodian for God in the world. The child is thus a blessing to the parents. (Those who die without being baptised or without being in the church are saved through Grace if they have loved as a Christian is to love, in my opinion, and also as the Cathecism of the Catholic Church teaches, even if not exactly in those words.) God bless us all. Have a wonderful day everyone! 💙
If we can believe, as I as a Catholic do, that it is the grace of God that filled the blessed Virgin Mary so that she is the Immaculate Conception and the mother of God. Is not it this same grace that gives me faith to know that Christ Jesus is LORD! So truly we are saved by grace to the glory of God our Father in heaven
So that no one may brag or take credit. It is a mystery but we are predestined by grace because no man can know Jesus Christ is LORD except God give them grace to have faith and no one can come to the Father except through the Son.
w/love
Yeah, Yeah but who gave you the keys Mr. Ortlund?
Can someone please align these series into one line, just like Marvel cinematic universe.😉
It would be very much helpful .😄
I was raised in a Church of Christ that does not believe in pedobaptism but does believe in baptismal regeneration.
There is no way for us to unequivocally know who is and is not a Christian unless we learn how to examine someone's heart. You can only fully know if YOU are a Christian. So, outward "fruit" can and have been misleading. Someone can be of the faith for decades and then leave. They came to the realization that they were not Christian. A Christian, by definition, will never stop believing. A Christian, by definition, will not continue living in sin without thy Holy Spirit's convicting nudge.
1257 and 1261 of the Catechism sir. Would have been a perfect response instead of dancing around the question at the 50min mark regarding infant salvation
from G.R. Beasley Murray ---- "“In light of the foregoing exposition of the New
Testament representations of Baptism, the idea
that Baptism is a purely figurative rite must be
pronounced not only unsatisfactory, but out of harmony with the New Testament itself.
Admittedly, such a judgment runs counter to the
popular tradition of the denomination to which this writer belongs... but the New Testament belongs to all of us and we shall all be judged by it”
“There is no gift or power which the apostolic
documents do not ascribe to baptism”
What is Gavin Ortlund missing? There is NO doctrine and teaching more clear in the NT than this one.
The example of speaking in tongues was discussed, but the issue with that is, that speaking in tongues was a specific gift of the Holy Spirit for the apostolic age and those times. Speaking in tongues is no longer a common gift of the Spirit. Hasn't been a common gift of the Spirit for centuries. It is very very rare. It is not spoken of by the fathers after the 1st century. In our modern times, it is now used by demonic and demons for deceit. A manifestation of the preternatural and demonic.
Gavin says he’s willing to change his mind, but just can’t deny the regeneration that he sees in his fellow brothers in the faith. But he’d be the first to say they were never saved in the first place if they later denounce their faith. He’s trying hard to not see that baptism does save as 1 Peter says.
Good. I'm not alone in seeing how Gavin is avoiding the reality of 1 Peter. He has a lot to lose if he does.
@@m4641
Very true.
Acts 10:47 does not say that Cornelius and his companions were justified without Baptism. Nothing there says that their sins were remitted or that they were “saved,” and didn't need baptism. It was a "kick in the pants" to St. Peter more than to Cornelius.
A mistake I see BoD Catholics make is assuming Sacramental Baptism is NORMATIVE and not NECESSARY (which denies all dogmatic statements on the topic) Your Protestant friend is correct by equating Cornelius and the accepting Christ experience, except both are "kicks in the pants" not sanctification.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354:
“1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”[Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 354]
While Ott seemed to have accept BoD. He is not being consistent. But his above definition is constant with the Fathers of the Church which the Council of Trent says if we find a unanimous.teaching in the Fathers it is dogmatic.
Fr. William Jurgens Church Fathers expert:
“If there were not A CONSTANT TRADITION in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ IS TO BE TAKEN ABSOLUTELY, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found SO CONSTANT AS TO CONSTITUTE REVELATION.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]
The Ecumenical Council of Vienne defined that:
"All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation" (Denzinger 482).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, de fide:
“I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803]
Here Vatican I says that the Sacraments are NECESSARY but one does not need to receive ALL of them, so for them to remain necessary, then ONE sacrament is necessary, ie. Sacramental Baptism. Notice also the "desire" word is missing which is found in the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent was dealing with Protestantism which denied Free Will.
Just finally i would say when Catholic Apologists attack Protestants for accepting an invisible Church, they are doing the same thing with an invisible "sacrament. " ( BoD)
Baptism of Desire was taught prior to Vatican II and 1. The 6th session of the Council of Trent, Chapter 14, clearly teaches it. The Great Latin Doctor Saint Ambrose taught it.
@@palermotrapani9067 Sorry I disagree. The Council of Trent makes no mention of Baptism of Desire nor Baptism of Blood. The use of the word "desire" was to combat the Protestant heresy which denied Free Will. So one must desire or have no reservation to receiving the Sacrament.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, de fide:
“If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
[Denzinger 861]; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2,p.685]
The theory of Baptism of Desire is from Augustine. He came to the conclusion after long contemplation. But it is not apostolic Augustine supported Baptism of Desire at first, but later retracted, after the Pelagian Heresy. Augustine NEVER cited Ambrose as the source of his theory, which later theologians did.
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324]
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
"It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81]
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495:
“Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.” [Denzinger 165]
According to Pope Leo there can be no way to separate sanctification and the waters of Baptism., so I can not see how anyone could support Baptism of Desire.
@@billstrom351 Well if by that you mean Baptism with Water, using Trinitarian Formula or Desire are both valid forms of Baptism, then we agree. My point is to refute the "I am more Catholic than the Church" type Catholics who say Baptism of Desire is a modern teaching since Vatican I or Vatican 2.
@@palermotrapani9067 I never heard of people denying Baptism of Desire (BoD) because it is a recent teaching. The problem came recently because the supposed "rare case" has been expanded to include everyone, and makes the Sacrament of Baptism "NORMATIVE"-- Vat II speak for the Sacrament of Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. This is where you get Bishop Barron's practical universalism, or Rahner's "Anonymous Christians." This is destroying the mission of the Church--salvation..
When in fact the Church holds it by Her dogmatic definitions that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary, not just as precept but by means.
The non denomination call out by Trent is spot on. It’s such a cop out. Had two southern Baptist brothers at my last job. They would cope and say we’re now Non denomination. Both have concubines and use the lords name in vain constantly. At this point Christianity is a label trend for Neo conservatives. Non denomination is the new trend among low IQ passion driven Americans. Teutonic Knights would 100% give them the sword.
@YAJUN YUAN Catholics did. It's called the Council of Trent. Need to do some studying on history. Another example of a Low IQ response. We have all ready addressed these issues 500 years ago.
Have you read John 15:12 and every single scripture in which Jesus teaches to love your neighbour? I could say the same about every single Catholic I know, and I know many because 98% of my family and friends are Catholic, 80% of them live with their partners without being married, they support abortion, gender mumble jumbo homo-s, practice New Age, etc. Still I will never say and actually I never have thought that they have a lower IQ, I love everyone enough to see them with loving eyes, I believe the reason they behave like this is that the Catholic priests are not doing a good job and they choose the sinful life over a sacrificial life, just because to them is fun and easier.
How can someone like Ortlund be so confident that he is right and that Oriental Orthodox, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans and Lutherans are wrong. Is he like the foremost best Greek scholar in the world?
This is why I asked question 4 (about the long legacy of the damnation of unbaptized babies). We all face questions like this. E.g., how can you be sure the current majority Catholic view is right and everyone in the West for a thousand years was wrong?
He doesn't have to be right to know that they are wrong. The overwhelming odds are that they are both wrong.
@@TruthUnites This is why it matters what the WHOLE church taught. I notice you only mention the West. What did the east teach? When did any council define this question? It seems to me you're making a logical fallacy here. You're suggesting that because there was some differentiation on X it is relevant to Y, which was uniformly taught. I don't see how that follows.
Maybe he is enlightened by somebody else, to go against the tide of 2,000 years of learned people, the church fathers, the saints, bishops, ecumenical councils of the church, etc. - the faith and morals are protected from error (".....the gates of hell will never prevail")
St. Paul: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”
@@jotunman627 It sounds like you are making the argument that if people are taking Paul's counsel and searching for a church where there are "no divisions" and the members are "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” then they would find that in the Catholic church?
Just my thoughts... Catholicism is most of the time the target of all criticism from non catholic christian denominations.
This dude has some piercing blue eyes
I think there are a lot of problems with Trent’s hermeneutic. I don’t think he realizes it, but he superimposes into the Bible often what is not there. Gavin is much better along the lines of hermeneutics than Trent is.
He seems like a Catholic in the making.
I just saw that Gavin Ortland is working on a book titled, “Why Be Protestant”. He posted a photo of his chapter topics. Many of them are Catholic topics…such as the Eucharist, the papacy. It looks as though he’s targeting Catholics to convert. I hope Catholic You Tubers do not promote this man any further. We don’t need to give him a bigger audience. ‘Which one of the 9,000 (approx) Protestant denominations should I choose?’ seems like a more fitting title for a book (sarcasm). I don’t like people targeting our faith, because it’s sacred to me. Catholicism is the truth.
Dr. Horn, why didn't you give the same tittle to this video that Dr. Ortlund gave? I find Dr. Ortlund more humble and accurate -"Trent Horn and Gavin Ortlund on Baptism". You both presented your views, it wasn't only Dr. Ortlund asking you questions.
Speaking in tongues is one of the easiest things to fake
Here's something I really cannot understand. In the Bible baptism seems to be a public declaration of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God.
With infant baptism, the baptized is deprived of that event. I grew up in a Catholic background in a very Catholic town. The Catholics I knew paid very little attention to the things of God and almost never read God's Word. It was never mentioned. In fact, as a practical example of Biblical ignorance, I can remember being about 29 and wondering if Jesus has been crucified in Rome or in Jerusalem.
It just seems that infant baptism gives people a false sense of security and they end up spending their whole entire lives in a state of spiritual limbo. Been there. Seen it in the lives of my own family members and in the families of almost all my Roman Catholic friends.
Not so with adult baptism. It a whole other dynamic.
Go and watch the video... It covers your comment
Do they not have mass readings where you are or have you never attended any Easter or Palm Sunday liturgy....
The first reading from the old testament (usually) second reading from one of the espistles and the Gospel reading... Then there's the psalm... At every Sunday and most weekday masses.
It boils down to the ignorance the people around you and yourself not a deficiency in the church's teaching or the scripture in the church.
I'm happy to have left my Baptist faith.
This is a very strange comment, how can you be a Catholic and wonder if Jesus was Crucified in Rome or Jerusalem I mean if youve been to any of the Easter mass it would have been clear to you he was crucified on Golgotha and you'd know he was betrayed in Gethsemane. I don't mean to be rude but every Catholic mass goes through the bible so it's embarrassing for anyone to claim they had a Catholic background then try to impose their ignorance on some sort of collective biblical illiteracy.
it's an interesting question. in the Old testament the Tabernacle and Temple rights were very specific that offerings HAD to be voluntary. you could not be compelled to participate in the atonement rituals or the symbolic saving ordinances of the Mosaic law that would later be replaced with faith, Repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
It was a very radical doctrinal shift to claim that agency was no longer a necessary component of saving ordinances.This is a primary factor in the.phenomenon of "Catholic in name only."
furthermore the laws that govern a just and fair God will not allow someone to be saved due to a decision they had no part of. if this were possible then those who never had the opportunity to be baptized could not be condemned for decision they also had no part of.
Babies don't need water baptism.