DEBATE ｜ Is the Lutheran Doctrine of Baptism Biblical? Jeremiah Nortier vs Marc Gajeton

All right, looks like we are live here and I want to welcome everybody to Standing for Truth.

My name is Donnie and I am your host and moderator for tonight's formal debate on baptism.

It is a privilege to have Jeremiah and Mark here with me to debate the specific question, is the

Lutheran doctrine of baptism biblical? An important question for sure. Mark here would say yes and Jeremiah would say no.

Now what I like to do though before we get into the debate itself is get to know our guests a little bit and kind of break the ice.

I must say it's always great to have new faces for these debates and Jeremiah from the Apologetic Dog YouTube channel, this is your first time here on the program and so I want to thank you firstly for giving us your time for this important debate and why don't we hand it to you first in terms of an intro.

Firstly how are you doing today? Love the Christmas background and a little bit about yourself and your channel there

Jeremiah. Well, thank you Donnie for having me on and by the way, congrats on 12k subs.

So if some of your subscribers want to show the Apologetic Dog a little bit of love, flow over to my channel and like and subscribe.

My channel is an apologetics ministry very similar to yours. I have a running archive of a lot of the preaching and teaching that I'm a part of my church, 12 -5 church.

I serve as a pastor and an elder there. And so what I seek to do Donnie on my channel is to contend for the gospel of grace.

And so when you can see the Apologetic Dog, the verse that I try to ground my ministry in is 1

Timothy 6 .20 that says, Oh Timothy, guard the deposit that's been entrusted to you.

And so people ask me why dog? I'm like, well, it's a guard dog mentality. All Christians and disciples of Jesus were to guard the gospel of grace and we do so by exposing those worldviews that say they have knowledge, but it's false and it contradicts itself.

So I have a very presuppositional mindset when I do those things. And so Donnie, I told my wife,

I would give her a shout out. So shout out to Allie Nortier. She is the babe of all babes.

I love it. That's awesome. Shout out to your wife. That's awesome. And yes, as you said, anybody in the audience, if you like what you're hearing from the

Apologetic Dog, make sure to click the link in the description box. I have linked the relevant links to both

Jeremiah and Mark in the description box. So go give them a subscription,

Mark. I think I've got a website link for you. I'm not sure if you've got a channel exactly, but why don't we, Mark, let's hand it over to you.

Thanks again for being here. You were here a few months back debating the Bible translation topic and you were a true professional.

And so it's a privilege, it's a pleasure to have you back here again for a debate on this important topic.

So for the audience sake, a little bit about yourself and how you doing tonight? I'm doing well.

And thank you again. Thanks for having me back. We're not here to debate Jeremiah's last point, so I'll just leave that there.

I don't think my wife is watching right now anyway, so I think I'm safe. But just to give a little bit of personal background about myself, which is actually a kind of relevant for tonight's topic, you know,

I was raised in the Baptist church from, you know, as early as I can remember, it was my mother who would take us to church.

And I was baptized at the age of eight, September 1st, 1996.

From there, I would say, you know, I fell away from the faith for a time, for a long time, probably between middle school through most of college.

And it was during my time studying for a degree in religion at Liberty University, of all places, that I was convinced of the truths of Lutheranism.

And so I think that's just some personal background people might find interesting, give you a little bit of context as to where I'm coming from, a little relevant to tonight's debate.

And so hopefully, you know, people take that for what it is. Thank you, Jeremiah, for engaging in this debate with me on this important topic.

And again, thank you, Donny, for having me back. My pleasure, Mark. Thank you so much for that introduction.

It's great to have you back. And to Centurion in the live chat, inform me that my mic was a little echoey and I realized the external mic wasn't attached.

So I'm guessing I sound a little better now. So I do appreciate that. And I got to keep up with Jeremiah and Mark here.

You guys sound great, look great. I'm excited for this debate. And Jeremiah, thanks for the congratulations on the 12 ,000 subs.

So this is the first debate, and what a debate, that we are hosting under 12 ,000 subscribers.

And it's also, we've hosted about 250 debates on all sorts of interesting topics. And this is the first time we're having a formal debate specifically on baptism, the great baptism debate.

So I am incredibly pumped for this one. And what I want to do before we get into the opening statements is for the audience to go over the format for tonight.

So again, it is going to be formal, and we are going to be having 15 -minute opening statements.

And Mark, since he is in the affirmative tonight, he is going to be starting us off with that.

Then we're going to have 10 -minute uninterrupted rebuttals, followed by a 15 -minute discussion, everybody's favorite part of a debate.

And how we're going to structure this discussion portion is we're going to break it up into two rounds, 20 minutes each of cross -examination.

Then we'll have five -minute closing statements where the debaters for tonight can wrap up their thoughts and points.

And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved. We're going to have a roughly 25 - to 30 -minute audience question and answer period.

So please make sure if you have a question, we'll keep it as on topic as possible.

And just make sure you're tagging me at StandingForTruth or at Donnie. Just kind of something that stands out, and that way

I won't miss them. And I'll save the questions for an audience Q &A period.

So with that, Mark Gageton, we're going to hand it over to you. And whenever you're ready, you have 15 minutes for an opening statement.

If you need to screen share or anything like that, just let me know. And I can work that from my end.

And there we go. I've seen it pop up. And so it looks like it's up on screen,

Mark. Therefore, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. All right. Well, let's begin.

Oops, sorry. Now, Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and honorable because by him, the

Lord had given deliverance unto Syria. He was also a mighty man in valor. But he was a leper.

And the Syrians had gone out by companies and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel, a little maid. And she waited on Naaman's wife.

And she said unto her mistress, would God my Lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria, for he would recover him of his leprosy.

And one went in and told his Lord saying, thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel.

And the king of Syria said, go to go and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed and took with him 10 talents of silver and 6 ,000 pieces of gold and 10 changes of Raymond.

And he brought the letter to the king of Israel saying, now, when this letter has come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent

Naaman my servant to thee that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. And it came to pass when the king of Israel had read the letter that he rent his clothes and said, am

I God to kill and to make alive that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?

Wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. And it was so when

Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes that he sent to the king saying, wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes?

Let him come now to me and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel. So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot and stood at the door of the house of Elisha.

And Elisha sent a messenger unto him saying, go and wash in Jordan seven times and thy flesh shall come again to thee and thou shalt be clean.

But Naaman was wroth and he went away and said, behold, I thought he will surely come out to me and stand and call in the name of the

Lord his God and strike his hand over the place and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Farpar rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel?

May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage and his servants came near and spake unto him and said, my father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, what has thou not have done it?

How much rather than when he saith to the wash and be clean, then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God and his flesh came again, like unto the flesh of a little child and he was clean and he returned to the man of God, he and all his company and came and stood before him and he said, behold, now

I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. Now, therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

But he said, as the Lord liveth before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it, but he refused.

And Naaman said, shall there not then I pray thee be given to thy servant two mules burden of earth, for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the

Lord. Throughout scripture, indeed, from the very beginning,

God has willed to deal with us, his creatures through created means. Thus out of the ground made the

Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the

Lord God commanded the man saying of every tree of the garden now mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

But after that, they had transgressed the commandment. The Lord God said, behold, the man has become as one of us to no good and evil.

And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever.

Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Now I introduced these passages of scripture to introduce the concept of what we call the means of grace, which is going to be extremely important for this discussion.

And what I mean by the means of grace is that the Holy Ghost employs external and visible means by which he produces in men their illumination, conversion, regeneration, and renovation and appropriates to them salvation in Christ.

Now, the means of grace are threefold. First, the word of God.

Second, the sacraments, which of which there are two, baptism and the Lord's supper. Now, because the word of God is the chief means of grace, we do have to say a few words concerning it before getting into the doctrine of baptism.

And in fact, the sacraments are designated as means of salvation under the general idea of the word.

They are the visible word, as it were. More on that in a little bit. Furthermore, it would seem that the idea of the word as a means of grace would be the least controversial.

And therefore, again, it is important to introduce the concept of the word as a means of grace before moving on to baptism.

So in John chapter 6, verse 63, we read,

It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And in Romans 1, 16, we read, For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the

Jew first, and also to the Greek. And the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two -edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, we read in Hebrews 4, chapter 4, verse 12.

Additionally, the word affects illumination, 2 Peter 1, 19, regeneration, 1 Peter 1, 23, justification, 2

Corinthians 3, 9, and sanctification in John 17, 17. The sacraments, then, are the visible word, as mentioned earlier.

That is, they are rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. The sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace.

The word is added to the element, and it becomes a sacrament, as Augustine says. And with that, we can finally introduce the doctrine of baptism.

What is it, first of all? Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water included in God's command and connected with God's word.

Which is that word of God? Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew, go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now, on these first two points,

I don't think that there will be any disagreement among us that baptism, first of all, is no ordinary institution, and second of all, that it is, in fact, instituted by Christ himself and in ordinance, at the very least, for his church.

But it is the question concerning what baptism gives or profits where the disagreement,

I believe, lies between us. And so what does baptism give or profit?

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Now, it'll be my task during this debate to defend this understanding of baptism, that it works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this.

And the question before us, specifically, is whether or not the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is biblical, which

I think it is. And what I'm going to do with the last few minutes of my presentation is to simply run through the biblical passages touching on baptism.

But before that, we must talk about a few rules or ideas concerning the legitimate interpretation of Scripture.

I think we all agree that Scripture is the very word of God, and that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in and through it.

The voice and way of thinking of the Holy Spirit sounds in its very words. Therefore, we are to draw and hear meaning from the words of Scripture, rather than reading anything back into them.

Scripture is sufficient, as 2 Timothy 3, 15 and 16 make clear.

It is perspicuous, especially in those passages dealing with the chief articles of the faith and what one must know for his salvation.

It is through such passages that the Holy Spirit wishes to enlighten our minds and dispel the natural blindness of our intellect.

With that, I offer a couple of rules for sound biblical interpretation that I would hope you would keep in mind throughout the rest of this debate.

First, that it is in most instances, therefore, we ought to retain the particular meaning of a passage which is called for by the grammatical sense or the nature and phraseology of the words.

And secondly, that individual articles of faith have their own setting in clear passages and statements of Scripture, and it is from these that the true meaning of each locus is to be established without any ambiguity.

For all dogmas could be overturned and destroyed if in the case of passages of this kind we permit some opinion counter to the proper and natural sense of the words, as long as it is so astutely developed and explained that it seems to be in agreement in some way with certain other passages of Scripture.

Now, with all that in mind, again, what I'm going to do here with the last few minutes of my presentation is simply to run through and just read some of the passages in the

New Testament which touch on baptism. And I hope you'll keep in mind everything leading up to this point as we go through them.

And again, I'm just going to read through them, and I'm sure that the remainder of tonight's debate will be focused primarily on, you know, what the best way to interpret these texts and what they mean.

So in Acts 2, verses 38 and 39, 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, for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the

Lord our God shall call. And in Acts 22, 16, we read,

And now, why tarryest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the

Lord. 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. And in Galatians chapter 3, verses 26 and 27,

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power, in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism.

Wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead,

Colossians 2, 10 through 12. For Christ also hath suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the

Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient when once the long -suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a -preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water, 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, who has gone into heaven, is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him, 1

Peter 3, 18 through 22. Now, the next few passages

I did save for the end because they do not specifically mention or explicitly mention the word baptism, and yet, throughout history, these texts have been understood as touching on the doctrine of baptism throughout most of the history of the

Christian church. So, John 3, 5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the

Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And in Ephesians 5, 25 through 27,

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Ephesians 5, 25 to 27. Am I out of time, Donny? No, good question.

You have just over a minute, about a minute and 10 seconds. Okay, perfect. And lastly, Titus 3, 4 through 8,

But after that, the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the

Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This is a faithful saying. With the last few seconds left, I would say, perhaps you haven't seen all of these references to baptism gathered at the same time.

So I hope that what you'll do is you'll look at them and try to remove any kind of presuppositions you bring to the text or any tradition and, again, based on all that I've presented up to this point, draw some kind of conclusion as to what these baptismal texts are really suggesting to us as to the proper meaning of the doctrine of baptism.

And again, I'm sure that for the rest of the debate, we'll be focusing on how these ought to be interpreted.

And so with that, I will end my opening presentation. Mark, thank you so much for that 15 -minute opening statement.

Now we're going to hand it over to Jeremiah. Jeremiah, whenever you're ready, you have 15 minutes as well.

And before yours, I'll start your timer whenever you're good to go. Thank you so much,

Donnie and Mark. I appreciated that opening statement. And I just want to also thank my church family, 12

Five Church. Without y 'all, this wouldn't be possible. And thank you so much for all of your prayers.

And so Mark said a whole lot. I really appreciated the verses that he got into there towards the end. And the part on him explaining what baptism is,

I'm very focused on when he said it works forgiveness. So when we asked the question this evening, is the

Lutheran doctrine of baptism biblical? It's no surprise that no, I don't think it is.

And so I want to briefly lay out what I think the biblical view of baptism is. And then I want to show you where I feel like Lutheranism is wrong.

And so firstly, I believe the scriptures teach that baptism is to be firstly by immersion as an act of faith that is to be worked out by regenerated, repentant believers in sanctification.

And so to many people's surprise, baptism doesn't just merely start with Christians and the New Testament, the book of Acts.

Rather, this has a rich history. This begins all the way back to Jewish ceremonial laws or practices.

And so there are many examples in the book of Leviticus of someone who is unclean. They must go through a process of purification.

And it says that they have to be bathed, bathe their body in water so they can be ceremonially clean.

And so this ceremony would be by immersion. This provides the actual backdrop for the New Testament with John the

Baptist. And I believe John the Baptist typifies many things of what Christian baptism looks like.

One thing that they share in common is that you have a baptizer and a baptizee, and they both go down into the water fully immersed, and then they come up out of the water.

And so I'm really glad Mark brought up this important text in Acts chapter 2. I believe this is one of the central defining passages for baptism being for repentant believers.

So I want you to hear Acts 2 38 again, and I want you to hear the next few verses.

So Peter just got done preaching the gospel of grace to this Jewish audience, and they were cut to the heart. What must we do?

Because we feel condemned when we look to the blessing and curses of Deuteronomy.

And Peter says to them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. And so who is this promise of the Holy Spirit, this gift of the

Holy Spirit for? Well, we continue to look in verse 39 where Peter says, this promise is for you and your children.

And so something that wasn't brought up with Mark but is important for the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is they baptize infants.

And a lot of times this is a verse that says this is a means of grace that imparts a regeneration on to an infant.

And so I question that. Is that really what Peter was saying here? Because I agree with Mark when he brought out their grammatical historical method of interpretation.

Words always have meaning in their context. Well, I find it odd if the train of thought is, well, we look at children here in verse 39 and we go all the way back and connect it to baptism.

But why stop there? Why not also include the word repent? Well, even with that falling short,

I don't even think that's really Peter's point here. He says, for you and your children, this would have been a Hebrew expression of covenantal language.

It's because Israel was a nation. They kept strict accounts of their lineage. They kept up with what land promises belong to who in their inheritance.

And so please listen to the next phrase in verse 39. It says, for all who are far off.

Now, this would have been a Jewish idiom referring to the Gentile world. The term afar off is found in many places in the

Old Testament scripture, like Isaiah 49, 57, to show people outside of Israel were worshiping

Yahweh. And so the last phrase in verse 39 is so important to understanding

Peter's point. He says, and everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

Now, personally, I believe this is unmistakable language talking about God's sovereign, unconditional election.

That is the point. That is the underlying point of the whole world, both Jew and Gentile, and why they come to saving faith.

This is echoed later in the book of Acts, Acts 13, 48 says, and when the Gentiles heard the gospel, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the

Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed, Peter goes on to say.

And with many other words, he bore witness and continued to exhort this Jewish people saying, save yourselves from this crooked and crooked generation.

And lastly, verse 41 is very key to understanding baptism. It says, and those who received

Peter's word were baptized. And they were added that day about 3000 souls. This is important because those who receive

Peter's word, this gospel proclamation, they would have received it with repentance.

This means that they would have had a changed mind. In Acts chapter three, we see that to have a changed mind to repent is also to have faith in the name of Jesus.

And so this is the consistent theme we see all throughout the book of Acts. We always see repentance and faith being together.

And those are the types of people, those who are repentant believers, they are the ones being baptized. And so when we read this verse again, so those who received this word, this gospel with repentant faith, they were baptized.

And so baptism is merely a demonstration of someone who has faith in Christ.

And so now I want to pose a question for everybody to think about, including Mark. How do we know that this is normative and prescriptive for the church today?

There are so many truths in the book of Acts that are normative, like the gospel of grace. We see that this was the same gospel that Jesus preaches, the same gospel that was prophesied in the

Old Testament. So when we read the book of Acts, this is normative for us to preach that same gospel. And so I want to say, though, when we're reading through the book of Acts, there's a lot of things that are narrative, right?

They are descriptions, not necessarily things that we are to import and do today.

And so the way that we can distinguish with this grammatical historical method is understanding the nature of the book of Acts.

It's a story. And so the way that we learn what to do today is we go outside the book of Acts and we go to the explicit doctrinal epistles, letters to the church.

That informs us of how we are to read the book of Acts and practice what is being done there.

So this is important because I want to submit that Credo Baptist and Pado Baptist both have a burden of proof.

We both have to show what is normative from the book of Acts. I do a lot of apologetics ministry and encounters with the church of Christ, and I've just noticed their kind of simple answer for why they don't baptize babies is because we don't see it in the book of Acts.

Well, I want to tell you that that's not really a good answer. That doesn't really account for the nature of the book of Acts.

This is a transitional book. This is a evangelical, evangelistic book, right?

We see people going into the uttermost parts of the word, sharing the gospel. And so we got to ask the question, how is an evangelized culture community, somebody that's been evangelized, how should they practice baptism?

What is the definitional prescribed means of what baptism looks like? And so there is a burden of proof,

I believe, if you're Lutheran or you're Presbyterian, whatever that may be, you must show why these household baptisms would include infants who did not receive the word in repentant faith.

These would actually be children that could not confess Jesus as Lord. So what is the standard of proof to how to interpret that and apply it to our lives?

I think Mark would agree with me that we're not going to appeal to some infallible magisterium or infallible church tradition to be able to inform us of this.

No, Mark and I hold to the supremacy of Holy Scripture. And so I believe in order to make this case, there's only two options.

And so option number one, I believe you can go to Old Testament, to the Old Testament, to the nature of the

Old Covenant, which are types and shadows that define categories of how we are to understand definitions of the

New Covenant. So that's one move you can do is you can go from the Book of Acts to the Old Testament, the

Old Covenant. I don't hold that view. I believe in a second view that says, or we can go to the nature of the

New Covenant and allow the New Covenant to define how we should receive the sign and seal of baptism.

And so the way that I would submit to you to do this is look to the Book of Hebrews, the writers making the case to Jews.

Think about those at Pentecost in Acts 2 that were hearing the gospel. He's saying, you have nothing to go back to.

This is just like what Peter said. He says, save yourself from this crooked generation. The Old Covenant were simply types and shadows of a greater fulfillment.

The Old Covenant gave the sign of circumcision to those who did not have changed hearts.

The Old Covenant had priests who had to continually mediate sacrifices that could not forgive sin, and they would do this for both regenerate and unregenerate people.

The New Covenant is something so much better. We have a high priest who is established differently than the high priest of the

Old Covenant. The New Covenant has a perfect mediator that saves completely and does not fail.

This means that the New Covenant is everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.

That's Acts 2 39. And so the Lord promised in Jeremiah 31 what the

New Covenant would look like. It would be they that know me, the Lord says, from the least of them to the greatest, for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.

This is explicitly telling us that the New Covenant are the elect of God, those who know

God relationally and have their sins forgiven, and make note of this, and confess Jesus as Lord.

And so when we confess Jesus as Lord, this gives evidence to a new heart that has repentant faith that was effectually given by the

Holy Spirit in regeneration. The Holy Spirit is the one that begins that good work in you and then brings it to completion.

And so those of us that are in the New Covenant that are regenerated, we are new creations in Christ, and now we live out our faith in sanctification to glorify

God. Jesus said, Let your light so shine before others that they may see your good works and give glory to your

Father in heaven. And so the sign and seal of baptism is a sanctifying work that we participate in, signifying the work that God has already done in us.

And so the New Covenant sign and seal of baptism is not to be defined by Old Covenant types and shadows, but it is for those that profess to know

God relationally. I hope you see that this provides the very foundation of why

Acts 238 through 41 is normative, along with all the other baptisms that we see in Acts.

It is those that is demonstrating their faith, working out their salvation and fear and trembling, which would be sanctification.

This would be regenerated, repentant believers living their lives to glorify God. And so in my final minutes here,

I want to explain why I think the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is not biblical. I've already kind of outlined how their primary mode of baptism is by sprinkling or pouring, and that just simply misses the mark.

It doesn't see the adult baptisms as something as being normative. It skips over examples of like the

Ethiopian eunuch and Philip going down into the water in complete immersion and then coming up out of the water.

And so I believe Lutherans do not see the strong continuity of John the Baptist ministry, his baptism, typifying

Christian baptism, because he would have the Israelites confess their sins, something that I see being normative in Christian baptism.

And then obviously they went down into the Jordan River and came out. And this is all in the backdrop of Jewish purification washings.

And so number two, Lutherans baptize infants in order to be regenerated by the

Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit gives that infant faith. Now, I believe this totally misses the point of baptism being for regenerated, repentant believers in their sanctification.

And so a lot of this stems from, I believe, a misinterpretation of Acts 239, for the promise is for you and your children.

Lutherans have to interpret this to mean, yes, the infants were baptized a part of the household, even though they weren't repentant, they did not have faith, and they could not confess

Jesus as Lord. And so Lutherans look to the old covenant types and shadows in order to define the new covenant sign and how we should receive it.

I believe this goes 100 % against the nature of the book of Acts being normative, and the book of Hebrews telling us, don't go back to those old types and shadows.

And so number three, of course, this brings us to baptismal regeneration. And so I've heard

Lutherans teach a whole lot that baptism's not a human work, but it's a work of God. And I have to hand it to you that in the case of an infant, sure, they're not bringing any of their works to the table.

Everything is being done to them. However, baptism is meant for repentant believers, so I believe that excludes infants.

And so a big problem I see with the Lutherans' doctrine of just regeneration in adult baptism cases.

Lutherans have told me that adults are regenerated when the preaching of the

Word of God goes forth in the power of the Holy Spirit, and that's the moment that they are regenerated before their baptism.

So that brings me to a problem of how we understand the term regeneration, because regeneration is defined as a rebirth, a complete change.

And so in this model, they are regenerated more, a continual application of God later at their baptism.

And so I want us to be consistent with words, because like Mark already said, there's a grammatical historical interpretation that we have to hold to.

Words have meaning in the context in which they gave. And so I'm curious. I want to end with a question for Mark.

Hopefully, I understand where he's coming from here in a little bit. I sent Mark a question.

I asked him, in the case of adult baptism, does faith precede regeneration?

He said yes to the question. The normative case for adults is that faith comes by hearing of the

Word and then baptism follows. And so here's my question now. When adults have faith by the preaching of the

Spirit -filled Word, are they now regenerated before their baptism? Thanks so much.

Okay. Thank you, Jeremiah, for that 15 -minute opening statement. That now concludes the opening statements from the debaters for tonight.

Great work. I appreciate the points, clear, concise, and lots of points for us to discuss throughout this debate.

So with that, we're now transitioning into the round of rebuttal. So we've got 10 minutes on the clock.

And Mark, we are going to hand it over to you. You have a 10 -minute uninterrupted rebuttal. And whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Just make sure to unmute yourself. And also, if you need your screen shared, I can do that as well. Perfect.

Thank you. No, I won't need my screen shared at this time. So thank you,

Jeremiah, for your presentation. I know Jeremiah, he had a lot of questions for me prior to the debate regarding Lutheranism because he primarily, you know, had dealt with other groups in the past besides Lutheran.

So I know he put a lot of work into this, so I'm very appreciative of him for it.

When he began his opening statement with, it seems like a really big emphasis on the necessity for immersion in baptism, which is, it's always strange to me to hear a

Baptist put so much emphasis on the manner of baptizing when baptism doesn't, in fact, accomplish anything, as far as I can tell, in their system.

But, you know, the word for baptism in the New Testament is not always used for immersion.

So, for example, in Mark chapter 7, verse 4, we read, when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.

And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

Now, the word there for washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches, excuse me, is baptizo or baptizmos.

Sorry, my screen is not working very well right now. So, the

Pharisees, they baptized couches. Did they immerse couches?

I don't think so. I believe the word for baptism can be used in a variety of ways.

What it primarily means is a ritual washing or cleansing, not necessarily always immersion.

So, again, coming from a Baptist perspective in which the right is stripped of any real kind of power or efficacy, it's always strange to me when they place such a great emphasis on the boat.

But, you know, from a Lutheran perspective, the main thing in baptism is not that a person be immersed, which, you know,

I find immersion beautiful. And it's not like in Lutheranism we would object to immersion.

It just happens to be that, especially in the case of infants, that immersion is not always a great idea.

But the power is not in whether or not a person is immersed or sprinkled or, you know, whatever mode baptism happens to take place in.

The power is in the fact that God has attached His promise to the water. And so,

I just don't find that to be a very compelling argument against the Lutheran doctrine of baptism.

Again, I would love to see baptistries, and growing up as a Baptist, the symbolism of immersion is extremely beautiful.

And in fact, in Romans chapter 6, you know, Paul talks about being buried into Christ's death in baptism, and immersion does picture that beautifully.

So it's not like we're opposed to it, but it's not necessary. It's not what makes baptism what it is.

Let's see, what are some other points that he made? He made some comments about baptism being for repentant believers.

One of my questions to him would be—and I know we're not in the question period yet, but what does for the forgiveness of sins mean in that case?

Baptism is merely a demonstration for those who have faith in Christ. I don't get that from Acts 2 .38.

And in fact, you know, I have Daryl Bach's commentary on Acts here, and he writes really beautifully concerning baptism until he gets to a point where he just completely misses it.

He writes, the crowd is convinced and wishes to know what to do, a question that recalls an earlier crowd's reaction to John the

Baptist in a scene unique to Luke's gospel. Moved by an emotional and ethical concern, the crowd senses the need to respond to this message.

Peter is telling the audience to change direction from the attitudes that led them to crucify Jesus, and look to God through Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

In fact, that's not what Peter says. He says to repent, which is, as Daryl Bach describes here, to change direction from the attitudes that led them to crucify

Jesus. But he does not suggest to look to God through Jesus for forgiveness, which is not necessarily wrong, but what he specifically says is be baptized.

So it's just, I think it's a really telling example of how people, you know, they try to get around the plain meaning or the plain sense of the

Scripture passages that deal with this particular doctrine. And, you know,

I really want to emphasize that Jeremiah focused mainly on Acts 2 -38, but in my opening statement,

I gave, you know, almost 10 passages dealing with baptism. Of course, you know,

I can't expect him to deal with all of them at once, but the doctrine of baptism doesn't hang or fall on Acts 2 -38.

Not that I think he gave a really good explanation for why we should depart from the plain sense of the words, but he's going to have to deal with all of these other texts that I provided.

And, in fact, what he's going to have to do is to really find ways to get around saying what the texts actually plainly say in order to prove his idea that baptism is merely a demonstration for those who have faith in Christ.

At one point, he mentioned church tradition. No, I will not base my argument primarily on, you know, authoritative church tradition.

However, what I will point out is that church tradition is, in fact, on our side, that for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, people have believed in some form of baptismal regeneration.

And perhaps in our question and answer period, maybe we'll get into some of that.

I'd be glad to supply a number of quotes from early church fathers, councils of the church, you know, off the top of my head, the

Nicene Creed, one baptism for the remission of sins, right? So I'm glad he—I didn't mention it, but I'm kind of glad that he did, because, again, church tradition is on the

Lutheran side in this case. Let's see, he—I did not set a timer, so I don't know how much time

I have left, but— You have exactly a minute and 30 seconds, my boy.

Okay, thank you. So he gave some reasons why the Lutheran doctrine is not biblical. He said that Lutherans look to old covenant types and shadows, which is not really the case.

If you remember in my opening presentation, we look specifically at the text dealing with baptism.

Individual articles of faith are to be sought out in those clear

Scripture passages dealing explicitly with any given doctrine.

So I did give the example of Naaman in the Old Testament, just as a way of showing that this is the manner in which

God has chosen to deal with his creatures from the beginning. I mentioned the tree of life.

Take of it—eat of it and live forever. You know, trees don't normally do that, but that particular tree,

God attached His promise to it. He also said, if you eat of this tree, you'll die. Well, you know, most trees don't kill you when you eat of them.

There's also a great example is the serpent in,

I believe it's the book of—I don't remember what book it's in. And then, of course,

Naaman, the example that I gave in my opening statement. So we find these types and shadows in the

Old Testament, not to base our doctrine of baptism on them, but to show that, you know, this is the way that God has worked throughout history, even prior to the

New Testament. Okay, Mark, thank you so much for that roughly 10 -minute uninterrupted rebuttal.

To be fair, we're going to give Jeremiah equal time. And to be exact, it was about 10 minutes and 15 seconds. And so—

Sorry about that. Oh, no worries. We like to be easygoing here. So Jeremiah, we are going to now hand it over to you.

And you've got 10 minutes for your rebuttal. Whenever you're ready, go ahead. All right.

Thank you so much, Mark. I thought you did an excellent job engaging with a lot of the issues. I do want to try to bring some clarity to some things that you were saying.

When I talked about the types and shadows, I was saying that's mainly Lutheran's reasons for baptizing infants.

So I didn't really make the case for baptismal regeneration for that. So I just want to make sure that you heard me clearly.

I agree that the majority of early church fathers taught a form of baptismal regeneration that didn't necessarily all agree with each other.

But we both hold to sola scriptura. So my final authority will always be Scripture.

And that's not to throw out church history. I'm saying, hey, we should always take prophecies, teachings, and hold fast to that which is good by testing their arguments to what

God's Word teaches. So you made the comment, the

Baptist position merely sees baptism as a demonstration of faith. If I said that, then perhaps

I misspoke because I do think baptism is a demonstration of faith. But I don't think it's an empty sign or seal.

You didn't say that, but I've heard that pejorative thinking being thrown around.

And I don't think it's merely a demonstration. I believe that it's a sanctifying work of the

Holy Spirit. So I do think it's a means of grace, just not in the same way that Lutherans believe.

It's part of our sanctification, which the Holy Spirit in us is growing us more into the image of Christ and walking obedience to what he's called us to.

So I hope that helps a little bit. You made the comment, God attached his promise to water.

I don't think that's the case because I'm about to try to machine gun and explain all these texts that you brought up earlier.

I believe God attached his promise to faith in Jesus. And so I do believe in the

Word of God being proclaimed or something visible, but I don't want to come across like God's created order is not important because I definitely believe that even baptism is a visible

Word of God being proclaimed. So maybe that can come out a little bit more in our back and forth.

Let's see. Oh, and you began by saying, so my position is not that water baptism being immersion is necessary.

I just think that's the ordinary prescribed way we ought to be baptized if we can. So to me, this is a soft disagreement because I've seen ceremonies of sprinkling and pouring and I you know what,

I don't legalistically look at baptism like if like the Church of Christ, if you don't get all in the water, even your pinky, then you're somehow being disobedient to the gospel.

No. So I just I think that's the primary way that we see the the members of the new covenant being baptized, being immersed.

But I agree with you, Baptizo, Baptiza, Baptizmos, those don't always entail a full immersion.

So I want you to hear me clearly say I agree with you so much on some of these points. And so I want to go back to Acts 2 .38.

And so I want to start with this because I think this is so important. Context is everything. And we have to understand with Acts 2 .38

is the context in which Peter is preaching his gospel. Peter is preaching to a Jewish audience.

And so when they say, what must we do in light of hearing this gospel of grace about Jesus as the

Messiah, they are cut to the heart at that reality, meaning they're like, oh, my, we crucified the promised

Messiah. What are we to do? We deserve the absolute judgment of God upon us.

And so Peter is actually giving them words of encouragement, saying, repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name, in the authority of Jesus, and then you will essentially be saved.

And so that's the context there immediately is the Jews are being given the gospel saying, no, there's actually hope and salvation for you.

And so what's interesting is I'm glad to hear Mark say that his case of God's promise being attached to water doesn't rest in Acts 2 .38.

I wouldn't do that because I think it's abundantly clear for the forgiveness of sins is saying, look unto, for, which if you look into the etymology of for, it is unto.

And I love how it says for the forgiveness of your sins. King James says of the sins.

And what Peter is getting at is he's saying, look to Calvary for the forgiveness of sins.

The is the death in an article. This is something very unique, a unique event where he's pointing them at the one who accomplished forgiveness of sins, which was at Calvary.

How do I know that? How do you know that apologetic dog? Well, the same phrase is used early in the gospels with John the

Baptist. He was paving the way for Messiah. And he was saying this is for the forgiveness of sins that is to come.

He was pointing to what the Messiah would accomplish the night before Jesus's crucifixion.

He was taking bread, right? He was doing the Lord's Supper. And he says, you know, take the bread.

This represents my body. Take the wine. It represents my blood. This is for the forgiveness of sins.

And this is showing, pointing them to the next day of what he was about to accomplish at Calvary.

So Acts 2, 38, Peter is simply preaching, repent, which is a repentant faith, right?

And then that is how you have the forgiveness of sins applied to your account and be baptized. Absolutely.

Demonstrate the fact that you have counted the cost, which for a Jew would be repentance or which would be baptism.

This would mean they were forsaking the old Judaism that they cling so close to.

And a lot of times they would have to leave their families. So Mark can ask me more about Acts 2, 38.

I would love it. But I want to go back. I'm going to try to cover all the verses that he did in New Testament.

So a lot of this will have to be from memory. So Acts 22, 16, a wonderful verse that talks about the

Apostle Paul's baptism. It's easy for me to turn there since I'm in the book of Acts. So the context is the

Apostle Paul. He's Saul of Tarsus at this point. And we're reading about something that Ananias says here.

And so Acts 22, 16 says, and now why do you wait, Saul of Tarsus?

Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. Now, like Mark said, the grammatical historical method is king in this conversation.

So what does it mean, wash away your sins? Well, how would Paul have understood

Ananias here where Ananias said calling on his name? Well, now we go to explicit didactic books like Romans chapter 10, that tells us exactly what it means to call upon the name of the

Lord or calling on his name. Those are synonymous terms. And in that beautiful chapter, that means that when you put your faith in Jesus, believe in your heart, then you are present tense justified.

And so the point is calling upon his name is what washes away sin, not water baptism.

And so, Mark, I would just like to point out that Paul called upon the name of Jesus, the risen

Christ, earlier in Acts chapter 22 in verse 8. He called Jesus Lord and said,

Lord, what must I do? And so Acts 22, 16 simply proves that Paul was already regenerated.

And then he demonstrated his faith in baptism. Ananias was simply being obedient to preaching the gospel and the great commission.

Romans 6, 3 and 4. Love this verse. I'd actually piggyback on the point that Mark brought out earlier.

Baptizo does not always mean full water, wet immersion. It doesn't always mean a wet immersion.

It could be immersed into one's authority. That's exactly what the apostle Paul is talking about.

He's not talking about a physical wet baptism. He's talking about the spiritual unity that we have with Christ by faith.

That's all the context there in Romans chapter 6. Very similar in Galatians 3, 26 and 27.

When it says to be baptized in Christ, just look at the verse before. We are sons and daughters by faith.

That is that unity. That is that immersion that we are in Christ. So that is talking about a spiritual connection that we have in Christ.

And even earlier in the context of Galatians 3 shows us that we receive the spirit by hearing of that gospel.

Colossians chapter 2, great passage, talking about our sin being nailed at Calvary.

A lot of other groups don't understand that fact. But when we read about the circumcision made without hands, this is talking about regeneration.

Then it's the Baptizmos. This is a Jewish reference to a ceremonial cleansing.

And so the audience would have understood what we are doing typifies to a spiritual reality.

And so the powerful working of God there is the baptism made without hands. This Baptizmos, which would be regeneration.

With time running out, 1 Peter 3 simply talks about that it's not a water baptism.

That is an appeal to good conscience. But it is faith in Christ, sanctifying the Lord in your heart. That is how we have a good, clean conscience in Christ.

So he even tells us it's not the washing of water there or the dirt that removes flesh.

And then I'm just going to lump these two together. John 3 and Titus 3. This is talking about being born again.

This is a singular act done by the Holy Spirit. And so in our cross -examination,

I wonder if Mark believes that regeneration is a singular act like a birth or if it's a continual application of what

God does to us. Thank you so much. Okay, Jeremiah, thank you so much for that 10 -minute uninterrupted rebuttal.

Gentlemen, that concludes the opening statements and the rebuttals for this much anticipated great baptism debate.

I want to thank you both for the obvious prep and hard work that has been put into this important debate.

Now, what I want to do for the next two minutes is give tonight's awesome debaters a two -minute break just to prepare themselves for the 50 -minute discussion.

So well -deserved two -minute break. And to the audience, I want to thank you all for the questions that you have tagged me in.

As always, we are going to have a solid audience

Q &A. I've got a ton of questions saved already for everybody. And I want to go over just a couple announcements.

And so the fun continues. The fun continues tomorrow with a debate on the age of the earth.

And this is going to be a clash of the titans debate, as one could say. We've got T -Rock and Mark Reed.

Is the earth young or old? And so what I like to do during the week, as we typically host between four and five debates a week, and we do frequent debate marathons, is

I like to have debates on all sorts of important topics and give you a diversity of debate topics to enjoy.

So age of the earth tomorrow. And then on Sunday, we're going to have

Sunday off, but we will be back here first thing next week for a debate between two seasoned debaters here,

Dan Chapa and Turretin Fan. So this is the Great Limited Atonement Debate.

I'm excited for this one. Important topic and a hotly debated passage in the

Bible. What is the true meaning of 1 Timothy 4 .10? And so this one will be on Monday.

And then the Evolution Debate Challenge Series this year does continue with a couple next week.

We've got one here is all life related through common ancestry, Dr. Dino and Kennedy.

And then another one between Evan and Dr. Dino. So that should be fun as well.

And then basically we wrap up the year with a couple more debates on evolution and other related topics, but we are going to be starting the year strong in terms of 2023.

So we will be having an eschatology debate here. The Great Rapture Debate, Pastor Matt Furse, Pastor Daniel Eldridge will be some solid debates on soteriology.

This one coming up first thing in January as well. Josh Gibbs and Dan Chapa, Free Grace versus Lordship.

And then we've got an epic discussion here. This will be an informal debate in January. Will Kinney, Dr.

Stephen Boyce. And they're going to be discussing the Bible translation issue. And so with that,

I see the debaters are back and well rested. I am sure ready for everybody's favorite part of the debate.

I'm excited for this. The 50 minute discussion. We've got it broken up into two rounds. So 25 minutes rounds here.

And since Jeremiah, you just ended with your rebuttal. Mark, we're going to give you the first 25 minutes to lead the way in this 50 minute discussion portion.

So whenever you're ready, gentlemen, the floor is yours. Enjoy. Just real quick.

You said that baptism is a sign and a seal and not an empty sign or a seal.

And also that it's a sanctifying work of the Spirit, a means of growing us. And you did use specifically the phrase, the means of grace.

Can you elaborate on that a little more for us? Mark, you knocked it out of the park, man.

So there's kind of two thoughts of why I don't believe baptism is empty. And I'll give you an example of how

I think it could be empty. But for one, I believe it's the visible word being proclaimed.

Therefore, it's going out in power. You quoted Hebrews 4 .12. So it can't be empty by its very nature.

And then number two, I believe since it is a demonstration of faith, then that believer possesses the

Holy Spirit, sanctifying us. Second Peter or First Peter 1 .2 talks about how in other places, but sanctification is a work of the

Spirit in us. So we're similar in that you and I both believe that the

Spirit is present. I just don't believe the Spirit is present in regeneration. I think the Spirit is present in sanctification.

Great. OK, sanctification is a work of the

Spirit in us. How does God come to us? How does God work in us? Well, you know,

Ephesians 1 tells us that God is at work in all things. He's working all things together after the counts of his will.

And so within that, I think effectually, Philippians 1 .6 says, he who began a good work in you brings it to completion.

And then Philippians 2 .12 then talks about our perspective. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and we realize it's always

God in us, willing to work for his good pleasure. So God comes to us effectually by the work of the

Spirit. By what means? Just immediately? Well, I think where you want me to go, and I'm fine with going this, but the

Holy Spirit works in tandem with the Word. Is the

Word the Word of the Spirit, or is the Word an instrument that the

Spirit must come to and attach himself to, you know, prior to it actually being effective or effectual?

Can it be both? Can it? So is the

Word able to be separated from the Spirit? No, the Spirit is ever present with the

Word that he himself inspired. That hit right. Okay, good. So if it's the

Spirit's Word, does it ever not bring with it the power of the

Spirit? Ah, so this is good. So I believe when the Word goes forth, it always goes out in power, but I don't think that means it always goes out in regeneration, which you agree to some level on that.

Okay, so how is regeneration caused or affected in a person?

Yeah, so I would appeal, like you're talking about the grammatical historical method, so I want to go to the semantic domain of regeneration, which is defined as a rebirth, a complete radical change of nature.

So I would go to similar passages like you. I would go to John chapter 3,

Titus chapter 3. I would also go to much more than that. But the way that it practically plays out is when the

Word of God, the gospel goes forth and the Holy Spirit quickens a dead sinner's heart, a heart of stone, and changes it into a living heart of repentant faith, that is how one comes to new life, is by that effectual gift of the

Holy Spirit in tandem with that Spirit -in -power Word being proclaimed. So is it by the

Word or not? Does faith come by hearing? Yes, so when

I interpret Romans 10, 17, I also have in mind 1

Peter chapter 1 that talks about we're born again by the Word. It's not an either -or, it's a both -and, the

Word and the Spirit. Right, so faith comes by hearing and we're born again by the

Word. And the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. Essentially the same thing, is that right? Well, I think there's another component, and we're going to get deeper into my

Reformed theology and your Lutheranism, is I believe the Spirit has to specifically regenerate a dead heart.

So He has to come and do that. The Word itself doesn't accomplish that, is that correct?

The Word is an instrument that is Spirit -filled, but it also must be in tandem. The Holy Spirit will not regenerate a heart apart from the proclamation of the

Word, so it's a both -and approach. So He will not do it apart from the

Word, but He doesn't necessarily do it by the Word, is that right? No, I wouldn't divorce it, and I'm not saying you're forcing me to say that, but I see them working together.

The Spirit coming to the Word. So you've got the Spirit and power of the Word going out, and then you also have another dynamic of the

Holy Spirit, which is regenerating a dead heart. And that's God's prerogative at any given point in time where He calls one of His own to Himself.

Is He able to do something similar with water? So this is how

I would see the closest scenario of this happened. Actually, this is similar to my testimony.

I was 14, and I saw someone be baptized. And in that moment, I was like, man, that person loves

Christ enough to demonstrate their faith. I wasn't thinking about it in those terms, but I just saw that. So I was receiving that gospel being proclaimed to me visibly, the

Word, and that's the moment also where I believe God opened my heart in regeneration. By the visible

Word. Correct. So the visible Word struck the eye and moved the heart.

Would you say that? Close. I would say it struck the eye and the Holy Spirit opened the heart.

By... Regeneration. Coming... by... coming... by... through... did He come as He...

You said that He would with the Word. Did He do that with the water? He came and attached Himself with the water and moved the heart that way.

Is that what you would say? I'd say it's close. The Word of God is going out in power, whether it be verbally, because a part of that too was the baptizer preaching the gospel.

So I'm hearing the preached Word. I'm seeing the visible Word. And in conjunction with the

Holy Spirit changed a dead heart to being alive, and a heart of flesh.

I feel like that's my testimony. I think you mentioned...

I don't remember if it was your opening statement or your rebuttal, where you said that... where you disagreed with the idea that baptism is

God's work. I believe you said that it's a human work.

Is that what you said? So what I was getting at is, in the case of adult baptism, baptism is not only

God's work. It has to be a participatory work that we are involved in. Okay.

Um, so you don't disagree on the grounds that baptism can't save because baptism is a work.

Well, with the Lutheran position, if we're talking about infants, then I can't make that argument, because the argument or the infant is not doing any works of his own.

So I'm over here like, I have to tackle that from a different angle. Now we're talking about adult baptisms.

It's unclear how I can answer that question yet, because when I asked you earlier through the chat, because I was learning a lot about how

Lutherans understand baptism, is I asked you, does faith precede regeneration?

And then you said, yes, faith for adults comes first, and then their baptism.

And I'm like, wait, so does regeneration precede baptism for adults in any way?

And so if you could tell me that, it would help me better answer your question. Okay. Yeah, definitely.

Remember to ask me that. I do apologize. I forgot to answer your question during my rebuttal. But so, okay.

Can you give us your brief definition of baptism again, as you understand it?

Yeah, it's a demonstration of one's faith. Oh, the definition that I gave was, it's an act of faith by immersion, by a regenerated, repentant believer in sanctification.

Would you agree with the principle that articles of faith, especially the cheap articles of faith, should be drawn from the passages that deal explicitly with the article, according to the plain sense of the passages?

Yes. What text or texts would you point to that give support to your understanding in plain, unambiguous language?

Oh, well, I basically built that case that if you look to the nature of the new covenant, then it's clear that those that are to be baptized are those that confess

Jesus Christ as Lord. So yeah, some people make false professions, but that's not up for us to decide.

We're supposed to say, hey, if you confess Christ, then now let's demonstrate that out the way that we read in the book of Acts, which are people that discern their sin, repent of it, and then look to Jesus in faith.

So that's how I'd begin. I don't want to eat all your time up. You said in Acts chapter 2, 38 and 39, that baptism is unto the forgiveness of sins.

Is that right? Well, I was saying the word for means unto, and I'm saying, and then it's also further qualified with the, the definite article.

So I think it's clear that Peter is saying, look to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

Well, does he say look to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, or does he say be baptized unto the forgiveness of sins?

Right. And so the question is, what is the forgiveness of sins? And I would say that unambiguously, that's what

Jesus Christ accomplished to Calvary. So is baptism, is it baptism in Acts 2, 38, is it baptism that is unto the forgiveness of sins?

So it's repent and be baptized. And I would say it's as easy as this, repent, be justified, and then be baptized, which would be sanctification, be justified and be sanctified.

That's the call that Peter is calling the Jews to. What, what is, what is, what is repentance?

Repentance is metanoia, to change the mind. And is that sufficient for salvation?

Now I'd go on, I would say yes, but it's always qualified in the context of faith.

So it's always a repentant belief. And I would say 100%, that is the very instrumentation of our justification.

So when Jesus began his ministry, he began preaching, repent, repent for the kingdom of God is at hand, or repent and believe the gospel for the kingdom of God is at hand.

And Peter elsewhere says, repent and be converted. And in Acts chapter 2, he says, repent and be baptized.

Do you see any parallel between those formulations of what is necessary for salvation?

Um, you said Peter said, repent and be converted. What were you? Yes, I believe it's Acts 3 .19.

Okay, repent therefore and turn back that your sins may be blotted out. Yeah, repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.

Okay, just making sure I was on the same page. So, um, you're asking if there's a parallel between what Jesus said in Mark 1 .15

and then Acts 2 .38. Is that the, am I understanding you correctly? Yeah, do you see a parallel in those formulations or constructions?

And, um, and I would also add in Jesus's, um, uh,

Great Commission. Command, not the Great Commission, but on the Emmaus road where he says that the repentance and the remission of sins would be preached throughout all the world.

Would you see a parallel between those constructions? Well, it depends what you mean by parallel, but I do see them being related. I think

Peter is being faithful to that gospel proclamation and the Great Commission.

So that's what I see going on in Acts 2 .38. I see a Mark 1 .15 and I do see a Mark 16 .16

going on, but we have to understand the proper categories of justification, which is by faith, and then sanctification is by works.

Um, is repentance taken, is it, does it always only ever mean, um, just the, was it, what is it?

You said the change of one's mind. Is that what you said? Yeah. Does it always only ever mean that? Um, so literally the word metanoia, that's the definition of it.

So if you're asking, is there a context in which it can mean more, possibly. So I would say repentance is a change of mind that also engages the heart to live differently.

Okay. Um, let me see. Let me move on here. Hopefully I don't sound like a politician.

No, not at all. I appreciate your answers. Uh, let's see.

In interpretation, when is it correct to depart from the plain sense of scripture? I think that,

I think that's kind of subjective because what I think is simple and plain might not be what you think is simple and plain.

So here's the big move that I think is important for like Acts 2 .38. Acts is a narrative, right?

And so in order to glean principles that apply to us, we need to look to didactic texts like the epistles.

So I'm saying we go to the epistles learn didactic teaching. Then we go back to Acts and figure out, ah, this is what applies to us.

Maybe you agree to that to some degree. Uh, yeah, I think I do. Um, but I, I won't, um, do anything other than ask questions right now.

I'll stay in my lane. Um, so what's the hermeneutical principle for, um, for taking baptism to mean something other than, uh, uh, a rite of washing with water?

I'm sorry. I was looking at the question that popped up. Repeat that. Uh, what's the hermeneutical principle, uh, that guides you when you determine that, um, baptism in any given text is not to be, uh, understood as water baptism?

Great question. So I look first to the semantic domain of baptism, which there's different forms, baptizo, baptizo, baptizmos.

They're not identical. They're related. And so, but something that they share is it always means immersion.

It just means into a particular context. And so I would say when you look through the Greek Septuagint, even to the

New Testament, being immersed can be into a context of suffering or into one's authority or into water.

And so to directly answer your question, context would determine which definition we would go with.

Okay. Let me see. I, I don't think I got, uh, all the, so I think first Peter three, you said, um, was, is not water baptism, was not talking about water baptism.

Is that right? Correct. So what is the contextual clue, um, that leads you to that conclusion?

There's a few, and thank you for bringing this up because I spent so long on Acts 2 38. I had to rush through the rest.

So I will try to be brief here. So in order to understand baptism, verse 21, verse 20 is very important to understand verse 21.

And so when we read while the ark was being prepared, that in which a few, that is eight persons were brought safely through water.

I believe there's three things we need to keep in mind. We need to keep in mind the ark, the eight persons with Noah and then water.

And I would say what is being salvific for Noah and his family is not the water.

That's actually judgment, but it is the ark. And so we keep those three in mind going to baptism, which corresponds to this.

So there is a typology going on that saves us something that is salvific. And so the first clue is it would not be the water because that was an instrument of judgment, but it would be the ark that, that, um, we are baptized into Christ.

He is the ark of our salvation. And then the next big clue is not as a removal of dirt from the body.

I think a lot of people listen to Pentecost, the Peter sermon and concluded, oh man, this water saves us.

And he's almost like, no, it's not your water baptism that saves you. It's being immersed into Jesus.

That gives us a, a clear conscience. Last point is we actually get a working definition earlier in first Peter three about what a good conscience is.

You go back to verse 15, but in your hearts, honor Christ, the

Lord is holy. Always being ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for you, the hope that lies within you with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience.

So sanctifying the Lord in your heart would be trusting in him by faith. That is the ark that gives us a clean conscience.

That's the appeal. So, uh, are you suggesting that baptism in this text means ark?

So the like figure we're into even baptism, that is the ark does also now save us, not as the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

Is that how you read that text? Right. What saved Noah from the watery judgment was the ark.

And so that's, that's typology for Jesus being the ark of our salvation by faith.

But so what does baptism stand for mean in this content?

To be immersed. So to be immersed into Christ, not the ceremonial washings of water baptism.

I would say that he is explicitly saying it's not water. It's not the thing that washed away dirt from the body. So baptism in this context means being immersed into Christ, but not through water.

No, you know, he, no water in this context is judgment. And so how do we avoid the judgment and the wrath of God by sanctifying the

Lord in your heart? That's the appeal of being in the ark of Christ. That's the baptism that now saves.

Okay. Um, you like that? What's that? I'm just kidding.

No, uh, uh, sorry. I'm not, I'm trying to not do anything other than that.

You're being so kind. Um, let's see.

What, what is the one of your verses? What's that? Let's go to another one of your verses. Yeah.

I'm trying to remember which, uh, other one you, um, talked about where, uh, baptism does not stand for water baptism.

Repeat that question. I'm sorry. Uh, so I, I was trying to remember, and maybe you can tell me, um, what, what other texts you said water baptism does not mean water baptism in those cases.

Basically all of them, but specifically, uh, all the ones that I do think are water baptism, but Romans six,

Galatians three, Colossians two, for example, and yeah. Okay.

Which one you want? So, so you said there were two that are speaking of water baptism and the rest do not.

Is that right? All the ones in Acts when you see baptism is water baptism. I also think baptism in the great commission, both in Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are talking about water baptism.

I think it's more of the letters that primarily are not talking about water baptism, but the spiritual reality of what water baptism points to.

Okay. Got it. Let me see here. I'm surprised we've not talked about John three or Titus three yet.

Yeah, I know you, uh, kind of dismissed those ones outright. So yeah, let's talk about John three.

Uh, let's see. John three. The reason why I didn't get to him as I was starting with the verses that you gave and you gave that last.

So is John three talking about water baptism? No. Is it talking about baptism in any sense?

Yes. What baptism is it talking about? Okay. So here's the context. I think

Nicodemus has on his mind, earthly categories of being, uh, born in an earthly sense.

And I think he would have in mind the water baptism of John. And I think Jesus is given that slight rebuke saying,

Hey, you're a ruler of Israel. You don't know what your own scriptures, the Hebrew scriptures actually teach about spiritual realities.

So baptism is relevant as we see it come out later in verse 22, where Jesus and his disciples, um, were baptizing where water was plentiful, but it was, they got into disputes with Jews over purification.

Right. So there's a rich history of what that means. And so, yes, Nicodemus was thinking earthly and Jesus was trying to get him to think heavenly.

Uh, so if Nicodemus is thinking earthly and Jesus is trying to get him to think heavenly, why did

Jesus mention water? Oh, well, water referring to in that passage. Yeah.

Well, it's almost a direct quotation of Ezekiel 36 about a spiritual cleansing of the

Holy Spirit that God said, I will do these things. Now this matches the context perfectly in John three, because he says, uh, truly, truly,

I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. You must be born from above.

John one says, this is not the will of man, but this is the will of God. And so this is a

Ezekiel 36 reference. The rest of the context of, uh, surrounding this particular, um, uh, engagement where baptism is mentioned, including afterward, um, are those instances referring to water or a waterless baptism?

Are you talking about verse 22, 23? Yes. John three? No, it's, it's, it's definitely

John's water baptism. A hundred percent. Um, what's the, what's, what's the reason that do you think,

I guess, uh, that you, you could suggest that John would record this encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus, um, and have in mind a waterless spirit baptism and yet surround the discussion, the conversation with water baptism.

So I kind of, yeah, and I appreciate the question. I kind of addressed it already. So I do think

Nicodemus was thinking about John's earthly baptism. Jesus is trying to get him to think in Ezekiel 36 categories that you need the

Holy Spirit to open your heart and your eyes to see the kingdom of God. And so this he's saying,

God is going to do these things. Don't marvel at the fact that the spirit is the one that does these things. That's out of our human control to which it seems like the

Lutheran can kind of control that environment. When you say, Hey, when you hit the water, that's, that's a guarantee for an infant to get the

Holy Spirit. What do you, what do you think John's intent as the author of the gospel was in the context clearly shows us that, that he is saying

Nicodemus was thinking earthly, physical birth, physical baptism, like water,

John's water baptism. And Jesus is trying to get John to thank heaven, where I think that's the, the meaning and intent of the apostle

John writing this. What's going on? I was enjoying this sophisticated discussion so much that I looked over and I was like, wow, we're already 22 minutes in.

You gentlemen kept that first round of cross -exam professional and very easy to moderate.

So you're giving me an easy job tonight. I do appreciate it. Lots of excellent feedback and lots of kind words in the chat, especially.

So with that, we are now going to enter the next 25 minute phase of this epic discussion with Jeremiah from the apologetic dog leading the way.

And so whenever you're ready, the floor is yours, gentlemen. Go ahead. Mark, so many good questions.

I have a number of questions I want to get through, but we may can pick back up in Titus three or something like that and keep going through a lot of those verses.

So my big question is when an adult has faith by the preaching of the spirit filled word, are they now regenerated before their baptism?

So, yes, I think I answered this question in our tech, but just to clarify, obviously it was a pretty quick question.

But first of all, I'd like to point out spirit filled word. That's actually what we

Lutherans believe. We don't detach. You like that. I did that for you. Thank you.

Thank you. You're paying attention. I appreciate that. But yes, so if you remember in my presentation,

God works through means and the means are threefold. The word is the primary means of grace, and apart from it, there is no means of grace.

So baptism and the Lord's Supper, the sacraments are, as you also have indicated, the visible word.

So the sacraments are comprehended under this idea of the word of God because they have the word and promise of God attached to them.

I like the word sacrament. I also use the word ordinance. You and I define sacrament a little bit different, but we're on the same page a lot of the time.

So this leads me to my next question. Does this particular regenerated adult believer continue to receive regeneration later in their baptism?

Later in their, you mean after they have been baptized? Do they continue to receive regeneration?

I would say no. Regeneration, as you have also, I believe, said, is the rebirth.

Now, what we're talking about after the rebirth is the renovation, the continual renewal of the person and conforming of the person to the image of Christ.

So he's no longer being born again in that proper sense.

He is being renewed day by day, and this is pictured by baptism.

Baptism is a daily dying to sin and rising to newness of life in Christ.

That's what Paul says in Romans chapter six. That pleases me to hear because I've talked with other

Lutherans, and I guess not all Lutherans are on the same page because I have heard that even though adult has had faith, been regenerated, that there's a continual application of God working in their baptism, and it's still in this purview of regeneration.

But you're saying, no, regeneration has already happened, and it's not regeneration happening for this adult in their baptism.

So they're not being regenerated in any sense in their water baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?

I would say the regenerative power of baptism is still active in their life.

Um, so if we're going to speak properly, you know, concerning the ordos ludus, regeneration precedes renovation and the proper or sanctification,

I believe, is the term that you like and prefer. So I just, maybe it's a matter of terminology, but I prefer to use such terms as renovation or sanctification or renewal, rather than speaking of it as a daily regeneration.

No, I agree with you wholeheartedly that regeneration ought to be seen as a singular event, not a continual application.

Because to say that there's a continual application, I'm saying it's to conflate the birth with the growth.

That is to also say to conflate regeneration with sanctification. And so if we keep the ordos ludus, we have proper categories.

So I actually appreciate you saying that. So this leads me to my next question.

When the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit always goes out with power in the

Word, correct? Correct, because it is the Spirit's Word. You know, the

Word is God -breathed. It's inspired. It's God -inspired.

By virtue of it being His Word, it can't not go out without His power.

It can't be separated from the Holy Spirit. It's His very Word. Yes, I was hoping you would say that.

So my next follow -up point into a question is, so Martin Luther wrote his classic

Bondage of the Willed, basically a magnus opus on total depravity. And he expound upon scriptures like 1

Corinthians 2, 14, where the natural man cannot un duname, meaning that he does not possess the ability to discern spiritual truth.

And so do you believe in this definition of total depravity that the unregenerate man is not able to receive the gospel because he is spiritually dead?

Unable to receive the gospel? I would rephrase that probably as unable to respond positively to the gospel, unable to accept it of his own natural reason and or abilities.

Right, 100%. I'm with you there. Okay, so this is where it gets good. Because you as a

Lutheran, you reject the doctrine of irresistible grace, something that I would believe, which means there's a moment in time where God effectually calls a spiritually dead sinner to newness of life in regeneration by the

Holy Spirit to repent and believe the gospel. So am I on point of saying you reject that?

I reject the idea of irresistible grace. Yes, correct. And also the idea that the

Holy Spirit works effectually only in those he chooses.

That is his elect. I would also reject that particular idea because for us, for Lutherans, the

Word actually does and gives what it signifies.

So we don't separate the sign from the thing signed or signified.

We would say that those two agree most exactly. And therefore, the same thing that he's offering to the elect person who will or will not receive the gospel at that time, because an elect person does not necessarily receive the gospel the first time that he hears it, right?

Theoretically. And the unregenerate person or the person who is not elect, which only

God knows. He's offering the same grace through the Word and the sacraments to both of those people.

And it's not a different kind of grace or a different kind of offer in one case from the other.

Okay, so to kind of recap where we're at. So we both agree on total depravity, meaning that man is unable to respond positively to the gospel.

We agree. By his own natural powers, correct? Right. So I think maybe it'll be brought out that we somehow disagree, but I think we agree that he is unable to respond possibly by his own natural faculties.

So it's not the spirit that quickens, you know, irresistibly calls him to repent and believe the gospel.

So here's my next question. So how does someone who is spiritually dead respond, who is unable to respond positively to the gospel at all?

So put it like this. If there's two people, one rejects the gospel that came out that was spirit filled, right?

And he rejected it. And a second person receives the gospel. How does that second person receive the gospel?

How does he receive it? Uh, I'm not really, would you say that that's a different question from why does he receive it?

No. Or is that the same? Is that the same question? Why does he, why does one receive it and not the other? Okay.

Okay. That sounds the direction I'm going. Uh, well, the simple answer is, I don't know, but in the case of the person who does receive it, he's regenerated by the spirit through the word.

So do you see from my perspective, a problem with this? Because I agree in total depravity, someone's not able to, but this such powerful word, which

I believe, but we'd believe it differently goes out. And I'm saying if it's spirit filled in such a way where it's, you know, with power, all these things, um, which

I agree to a level, but that should save everyone on one hand.

But we both deny that that's the case. And then some respond positively, but he's spiritually dead.

So there's nothing in him that responds. So I, I appreciate you saying,

I don't know, but I think this is the big breakdown in Lutheran's understanding of regeneration, because I would actually go to John three,

I would go to Titus three, five to say, this is the Holy spirit doing regeneration that works alongside with the proclaimed word.

Do you like to respond to that? Yeah. So this is definitely what would differentiate us from, in general, the

Reformed, because we, in Scripture, we don't see this idea of the spirit converting apart from his word.

And this idea of an inner effectual call toward one group of people and another kind of call, if you can call it that, um, for another people.

So the, uh, you know, I brought up Romans chapter one, where the gospel is the power of God.

You brought up yourself, uh, what is it? Peter, uh, first Peter, uh, born by the incorruptible, um, word.

And so this is what Scripture itself indicates for us is that it's the word of God, because it's the power of God, because it's his very word, uh, that regenerates.

And so we would rather than have as election as our starting point, um, the clear passages of Scripture concerning the means of grace, like the word of God, baptism, the

Lord's supper. And I have respect for where you're coming from. Um, I believe the clear passages go the exact opposite way because of who

God is and his absolute sovereignty. We can build from there. We can start with the creator, right?

Who's absolute, who's eternal, um, has omniscience, knows all things. And then creation is categorically different than the creator himself.

And so do you see how from on the outside looking in, I'm saying this is the biggest problem with baptismal regeneration for adults, because, and you're honest, you're saying,

I don't know how this totally depraved sinner comes to newness of life because the spirit field word was hitting his heart, but something causes him to reject it with this person.

But something mysterious over here allows this person to respond positively, right?

Because in that case, you're saying, oh, it's a powerful word over here. We're not sure. So, well, just to respond to that really quickly, that's, uh,

I would say probably kind of a misrepresentation of what I'm saying, because, you know, I w

I would say the reason one person rejects it is because of the hardness of his heart.

The reason one person, the other person accepts it is because the Holy Spirit regenerated him by the, by the power of his word.

Okay. What, what's that? So, so how does the other one not have so much hardness of heart and respond to that spirit field word over the one that rejects it in his calloused heart?

That's not the question that I try to answer. I try to stick with the biblical, uh, text, which is to say that when a person is regenerated, he's regenerated through means of the word in the sacraments.

Yeah. Well, I know you would say that, but I want the audience to hear, like, I think this is the big crux and the whole conversation, because classically you have two positions,

Arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianism says, Hey, not total depravity.

That person, all men has libertarian free will. And it's the, the final factor lies within man's categorical ability to choose to receive that gospel.

Calvinism, like Lutheran say, no man is totally depraved, dead in his sins and his trespasses.

So some type of divine intervention has to quicken the soul. And then

Ephesians two says, but God was merciful. He is the one that saved us by his grace.

And I would say that's the answer is the Holy Spirit categorically regenerates along with the word.

But what that means is when the word goes out on other people, it doesn't always go out with regeneration, but it still goes out with power to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and justice in those, those categories that Jesus spoke about in John 16.

So do you agree? Do you think in some way that this might be, you know, y 'all see it as a mystery, but is it fair for someone like me to say,

I just think it's an inconsistency? I'm glad you managed to squeeze a question in there.

So, so yeah, and I'm also glad that you brought up, you know, this distinction between Calvinists and Arminians because we

Lutherans don't fall into either air. So we, we, we stick on the straight path and we simply confess what scripture says.

And so, yeah, it's, it's absolutely, you know, I think fair to be, what's the word, you know, to, to, to, to be uncomfortable with this idea of mystery, but, you know,

I'm, I'd much rather stick to the plain words of scripture and say what scripture says than to invent an erroneous doctrine on either side of the issue.

So do you agree with me though, that what is clear is subjective, meaning that you and I are going to have differing opinions on what is actually, so on what is clear, but I think we can, we can agree on what's didactic, can we not?

Um, well, you hold to the perspicuity of scripture. Is that right? A hundred percent.

Do you not? Of course I do. And, and scripture, you know, it describes itself as being a light.

And what does the light do? But it illumines and it illumines the darkness of our hearts, of our intellects.

Um, so as far as clear being subjective, uh, do

I think that's the case? Um, in some cases, but not, um, not,

I don't think that that's the primarily the case, especially when it concerns chief articles of the faith, um, you know, about how is one to be saved?

How is one to live the good life? And this is what Paul says in his epistle to Timothy, that the word of God, uh, you know, it's complete and sufficient for, to teach the man, you know, everything that he needs for faith and good works.

And so I firmly believe this, especially when it comes to chief articles of the faith. Everything you said, I agree with.

I would include baptism under. Say again. Which I would include baptism under.

I think baptism is clear also. Because I'm concerned it's a chief article of the faith. Um, but you would agree that people can be saved apart from baptism.

Correct. Um, uh, so I would say that baptism is the, uh, normative means, uh, that God has, uh, instituted for salvation.

But, you know, obviously some people don't have the ability to get baptized. Um, and so, you know, the word of God saves, baptism saves.

So tell me if this is a good summation and it's not, it's not identical, but how you view adult converts is almost how

I see the normative means for, um, baptism. Yeah.

Well, in, in the case of adults. Yeah. Um, and what actually, what, you know, one question I didn't get to ask you was, you know, are infants saved?

How about, how about you save it? Cause we got about seven and a half minutes and I have two big questions. And so I'll be like,

Hey, what was that question you had for me? We could talk on, or we can talk on Titus three, five. So thank you.

So I hope the audience sees that. What I think here, the big divide is Lutheranism holds a total depravity, but they reject irresistible grace.

And I think that's an inconsistency, but Mark said it's a mystery and I respect that.

And so I'll give you one last final word about to move on to my next question. It's a mystery in a certain respect.

It's not a mystery as far as, you know, how is a person converted? And that's by the word of incorruptible word of God.

The mystery is how some people respond to the spirit filled word as where some others just continue to reject.

It's a mystery. Well, it's not a mystery how they respond. How they respond is because they are enlightened by the word itself.

Right. So how do they respond to it? Now the question as to why some believe and others don't.

I guess that, that is the particular mystery. I'm wanting people to resonate on what

I think is inconsistency and you to some degree call a mystery. That's all good. Next question is.

And, you know, as I said, I'm glad to stick to the plain sense of the passages concerning the chief articles of faith than to try to resolve.

We all have our mystery boxes that God has not commanded or asked us to look into.

So next question, are the non -elect people in the new covenant? Are the non -elect people in the new covenant?

Are there non -elect people in the new covenant? Well, what do you mean by that?

Do you mean by that? Has Jesus died and paid for the sins of the entire human race?

I know y 'all reject particular redemption. No, I'm just saying. So like in the case of an infant that's been regenerated, but God knows that some will grow up, fall from the faith, be apostate and dying and go to hell.

And I'm saying, but wouldn't that be a non -elect person taking the sign of the new covenant and therefore being in the new covenant on your view?

So is the question essentially, can a non -elect person believe and be saved for a time?

Is that? No, the question is, are there non -elect people in the new covenant? I guess

I'm struggling because it's not like the kind of terminology that I use that I'm familiar with.

As far as speaking of someone being in the new covenant, because when

I think of the phrase being in the new covenant, the new covenant includes both

Jew and Gentile. It doesn't distinguish. But I'm saying non -elect, someone that will not reach glorification, because y 'all affirmed the you in an unconditional election, right?

Probably in a different way than you would. Fair. But I'm not sure. We'd have to talk about that.

Okay. Let me define it this way. Is it fair to say that there are infants that will be regenerated, but fall away and not reach glorification?

And while they were on earth, they were in the new covenant, meaning that they were baptized? Yes. I guess to answer your question as best

I can. Thank you. So here's where I'm getting at with that setup question, because you know

I'm coming after you. So Jesus was their mediator being in the new covenant, right?

Yes. Okay. So Hebrews 7, Hebrews 10, Romans 8, talks about how

Jesus is a perfect mediator who cannot fail to save. So in what sense did

Jesus mediate and intercede for the non -elect? In what sense? I'm sorry.

Can you give me the scripture reference again? Hebrews 7, 25, Hebrews 10, 10, and 14, and then

Romans 8, 33 -ish. Therefore, he is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

And then 2, 10, 14. Do you read that as he cannot fail to save them? Right. Save to the uttermost.

Really, when you exegete it out, it means that he cannot fail. He cannot fail.

So. He's a perfect mediator, better than Moses and the high priest of the Old Testament.

So in what sense does he mediate and is a better mediator and high priest to the non -elect who actually don't end up saved?

So he's a, you know, I'd have to look at this some more.

When a person is not saved, it's because of his own unbelief. So it's not that nice to fail to save anyone, and in our system, in fact, he's saved the entire human race because he's died for the entire human race.

He hasn't died only for a particular people. So how did he mediate for the non -elect?

We don't recognize a failure on Jesus's part. Well, Jesus saves to the uttermost completely.

Read, if you don't mind, read Hebrews 10 .10, since you're close there. So God wills to save people through means.

He doesn't simply save people apart from means. And so, you know, a person who doesn't avail himself of the means which

God has instituted for his salvation, that's not God's fault that that person does not attain salvation.

It's the fault of the person who does not avail himself of the means that God has instituted for salvation.

OK, so Hebrews 10 .10 says, and by that will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, for by a single offering, he has perfected for all time those that are being sanctified.

So what is perfection here? Is it not talking about he will make sure that they will be saved as a perfect mediator?

Hang on, you said 10 .10. I don't see the part about...

Oh, 10 .10 and 14. So by that will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all.

Every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices. Christ doesn't do that, obviously.

He offered the one sacrifice for all. This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God from that time, waiting till his enemies are made his footstool, for by one offering, he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

And what's the issue that you're saying? Donny, I would like to ask one last question, if you're

OK with that. Of course, yes. Go ahead, Jeremiah. I'm sorry, I needed you to repeat what the question was.

I know, but that's fine. I'll let it stand as is. And so I really got a two -parter, but one's a setup. Do we look to Abraham or Isaac as the father of our faith?

Abraham. Right. So feel this.

Abraham had faith, then he received the covenant sign. So don't

Lutherans really look more to Isaac to receive the covenant sign, who received the covenant sign and then had faith later?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. So I think we should look to Abraham as the example of how we should receive the covenant sign.

He had faith and then received the sign. Lutherans really look more to Isaac, who received the sign and then had faith later.

So the thing is receiving the sign and not necessarily how or when you receive it.

It's kind of like baptism. Just because it's not immersion doesn't make it ineffectual.

So the mode is not what makes the sacrament the sacrament. What makes the sacrament the sacrament is the word of God, the promise of God, the offer of the forgiveness of sins, grace, salvation attached to the earthly elements.

Okay, gentlemen. Excellent 50 -minute discussion. A 50 -minute, an hour discussion really always goes by so fast when it's in a debate and a cross -exam.

So I could easily listen to another 50 minutes of you gentlemen ask each other questions.

That really was a professional cross -exam. So I do appreciate it. Again, I want to thank you both for the obvious prep and just all the work that you both put into this important debate.

So with that, we do have five -minute closing statements. And so with five minutes each, that means to the audience, you guys have 10 more minutes until I am basically shutting down the

Q &A. So if you have any questions for the debaters, please do make sure you're tagging me.

And I do already have a ton of fantastic questions for the Q &A. So with that, Mark Gageton, we're going to hand it over to you.

And you've got five minutes whenever you're ready. I'll give you a one -minute warning at the four -minute mark. And go ahead.

I'll start the timer on your first word. All right. Thank you. So thank you again to both

Jeremiah and Donnie. Donnie for setting this up. Jeremiah for especially taking the time to look into the

Lutheran doctrine concerning baptism. I know you put a lot of work into that.

And so thank you for engaging on this important subject with me tonight.

And for everyone, I want to stress that this particular subject that we're engaging in is not some frivolous or useless pursuit, but rather that it's of the utmost importance.

Because baptism is one of two sacraments, sacred mysteries instituted by our crucified and risen

Lord to remain perpetually in the church and to distinguish her from the rest of the world. In Ephesians 4, it is listed among the seven foundational unities of Christianity.

There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one

Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all who is above all and through all and in you all.

Moreover, not only is baptism an ordinance and institution of God, but if we remove our presuppositions and peel back our traditions and let the

Holy Spirit himself speak, whose word scripture is, we'll also come to the conclusion that baptism is much more than that.

It is a sacred gift of God to which he has attached inestimable blessings and the fullness of his grace.

In baptism, we are united with Christ, as Paul says. We put on Christ. We receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the

Holy Spirit, as Peter tells us, not because it is some good meritorious work done by us, but because that that is where God points us to obtain his benefits in Christ.

My friends, if the prophets and apostles had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it?

How much rather than when they say it to thee, wash and be clean, receive this most comforting doctrine and share it with your children too, because they too are sinners in need of a

As the father of two children and godfather to many others, I can assure you of that fact.

But Jesus says, let the little children come to me and forbid them not. He desires them in his kingdom as well.

And he normatively accomplishes this through holy baptism for the salvation of his beloved infants.

What I've presented here tonight really just scratches the surface, and there are far more learned men on this topic out there than me.

If I have even the least bit piqued your interest in exploring the topic further, I highly recommend searching out the many valuable resources there are on baptism from a

Lutheran perspective. Bookofconcord .org is a free website. There are many pastors and teachers on YouTube and Apple podcasts, and you can also feel free to reach out to me via any of the available media or social media websites on which you can find me.

Profile is public. You can easily search for me. I'd be glad to point you to some other resources.

Thank you all for your time and patience. Thank you again, Donnie and Jeremiah, and God bless all of you.

Mark, thank you so much for that five -minute concluding statement. I appreciate it. Jeremiah, we're going to hand it over to you now, and whenever you're ready, you've got five minutes as well.

The floor is yours. Well, thank you so much, Donnie, for having me on,

Standing for Truth, and thank you, Mark. I really enjoyed this dialogue. I hope we can continue to be friends, because I want you to know that I count

Lutherans as a part of the faith. We share such a rich history together in terms of the

Protestant Reformation, where Martin Luther championed sola scriptura and justification by faith alone.

So those are things that I would agree are perspicuous and clearly taught in Scripture, and so we should lock arms on those things.

Baptism is important, Mark. I have a boy of my own, and I loved how you appealed to it when

Jesus talks about not forbidding the little children to come to him, because my heart for raising up my little one is to teach him the things of the

Lord and the admonition of the Lord. And so I want to do that biblically, though. I want to do that the way that the

Lord prescribed. And so his whole life, he will see baptisms, he will hear me talk about how that is a representation of the gospel, and his life will be one of me calling him to faith and repentance, looking to Jesus by faith alone.

And so I just want to say little children are very important for the kingdom.

We are to evangelize and disciple our children, but we do it in the way that the New Testament prescribed.

And so when we look to the nature of the new covenant, it is those that know

God relationally by faith and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. And so my personal opinion,

I think Lutheranism. Luther himself, I think he struggled with the vestiges of leaving

Rome. And so as a Reformed Baptist, I champion what's called semper reformanda.

I believe the church should always be reforming. And so I want to call my Lutheran brethren to say, hey, let's look at the totality of scripture that bears out that we should be baptized in light of our confession of Jesus Christ.

That's not to discount that God uses means, that he uses means of grace, that he uses physical things in this creative world to teach us things.

So some of that, in my opinion, just misses the bigger issues. With that being said,

I want to highlight the number one massive inconsistency that I hope you saw was brought out tonight is

Lutherans affirm total depravity, meaning man is unable to respond to the gospel, but they deny irresistible grace, that they are in a conundrum.

I think they know it and they have to put it into this mystery box because they're saying it. The answer can't lie within man.

The answer can't be an irresistible calling of the spirit in some categorical way, supernatural way that the

Holy Spirit works in some and not others. Because I think what would help the Lutherans out is to hear the fact that we believe the gospel goes out in power.

It goes out to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and of judgment. That's powerful. But that doesn't always entail regeneration.

And so I think Martin Luther and Melanchthon, that was his protege that came after, they couldn't see another category of the spirit working in tandem with the spirit -filled word.

And so it comes out in how they articulate the doctrine of regeneration, and they have no answer to how a dead sinner comes to newness of life.

If you appeal to the spirit -filled word, great. Well, then what happened to the person that rejects it? It's a mystery.

And so I think that is the massive inconsistency. I think something else that gets brought out is when we read how perfect of a mediator

Jesus is to those that know him, well, he says to the uttermost, he cannot fail.

His once -for -all death is sufficient for those who are being sanctified. Another problem in Lutheranism is they believe that non -elect people can be regenerated by the

Holy Spirit and then fall away and show that they were not of God's elect.

And so I don't understand how Jesus mediates for them, because in Romans 8, the

Apostle Paul says that Jesus' death was for us, and not only his death, but also his resurrection was for us, those that are in Christ, therefore has no condemnation accredited to our account, and then he continues to intercede on our behalf.

And so I just want to encourage people, we want to be consistent. And so when we're employing this grammatical historical method of interpretation, you have to look at words in their semantic domain.

Go to BDAG. This is the highest scholarly lexical work for how we understand words in ancient eyes, how the original audiences would have understood them.

And then we look to surrounding context to see which one of those definitions work, and we let all of Scripture speak to the issue.

And so I think baptism is not merely an empty sign, but in fact, it is a demonstration of faith that believers have the indwelling

Holy Spirit, and so it cannot be empty by definition because the Holy Spirit is present in sanctification, not regeneration.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Jeremiah, for that five -minute concluding statement.

Gentlemen, great debate, great work. This really was worth the wait, I've got to say. And we've also got a lot of questions.

So to the audience, I am going to officially shut down the Q &A now in terms of gathering questions.

So we've got more than enough here for, let's say, roughly 30 minutes. And what we typically do here on the channel is whoever the question is for, we just make sure they get the last word, but we allow both debaters to provide some input and points on each question.

So with that, we're just going to start all the way at the beginning and get some of these questions in.

So this one comes in from Nakia Boyer, and this is a question for the apologetic dog.

And so he's asking, in your opinion, why was

Jesus baptized being sinless? If he didn't do it for any particular reason involving the process of salvation.

Excellent question. How long do I have to answer this, Donnie? Take your time. We're not overly strict.

I would say maybe no more than a couple minutes per question. I'm not going to get all preachy. So I think the verse is around Matthew 3, 15, where Jesus says it's necessary to fulfill all righteousness.

So the context of John the Baptist was to call Israel to repentance, meaning they were stuck in Second Temple Judaism, and they needed to get ready for the arrival of Messiah.

This was prophesied in Malachi to happen, so it's being fulfilled in their very eyes. And so Jesus is identifying with the command for Israel to repent and to be baptized by John the

Baptist. That's why Jesus identifies with the people of Israel. And so he is baptized, not for the forgiveness of his sins, but because he identifies with sinners.

And so the reason why that's important for Christian baptism is Jesus also identifies with us being truly man, being under the law.

But there's a connection between John's baptism and the Christian baptism. So by extension,

Jesus identifies with the Gentile church as well. I appreciate it there,

Jeremiah. And Mark, over to you. The floor is yours. Yeah, it's actually a really beautiful passage.

John sees Jesus coming, and he announces, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

And I mean, you hit the nail right on the head in your question. Jesus was sinless. And what

Luther actually points out is that, and I agree with him, I think this is exactly where this begins to take place, is this in his baptism is where he begins to take upon himself the sins of the world.

And Luther, he writes to him about this, and he has the most beautiful flood prayer that we pray in each of our baptismal services about Jesus sanctifying for all time the waters of holy baptism in his own baptism.

And the parallels that you can look at are, I believe it's on the Day of Atonement where the one

Lamb is taken, and the hand is placed on the head, and the sins are placed on the scapegoat, and that that scapegoat is sent into the wilderness.

Well, where does Jesus go immediately after his baptism? Well, the Holy Spirit leads him into the wilderness for his 40 days of temptation.

So there's certainly so much more going on there in Jesus' baptism than I think probably, you know, if not all of our

Reformed brothers, you know, a lot of them, I think they don't recognize is really going on there.

Okay, thank you very much, Mark. And Jeremiah, the question was for you, so you get the last word, go ahead.

Yes, I will agree. There is a lot more going on, especially you got the whole

Trinity on display. So, I mean, we could go into a full discussion of what it means that the

Holy Spirit was descending on Jesus like a dove. I mean, this marks his earthly ministry.

So he's sinless. I agree with everything you said there. I could agree with where we part ways is the further application of baptism on infants and so forth like that.

So I didn't hear much disagreement with you in that. I did want to tell you that I love

Martin Luther's hymns, and I listen to A Mighty Fortress Is Our God a lot. Good.

Yeah, I'm glad to hear that. He's certainly my favorite hymn writer as well. Sorry, Donnie. Sorry, I didn't mean to.

No, that's okay. More than appropriate in that case. Okay, gentlemen, thank you for your responses on this first question here.

So, okay, now we've got a question for Mark. And it looks like it's a two -parter. So we'll work through this together.

And question for Mark from Free Grace Fellowship. Appreciate it. Part one, how do you reconcile the

Lutheran notion that baptism imparts faith to the infant when in Scripture we see consistently that baptism follows after faith, repentance, education, et cetera?

So we get this from the understanding of the essence of baptism itself, that it's for the forgiveness of sins, that in baptism we are buried with Christ and we're raised with him.

In baptism, we put on Christ. We clothe ourselves with Christ like a garment.

You know, baptism saves us. All these passages that I pointed to that speak in unambiguous terms about what baptism is and what it does, we say, yes, it does this in the case of infants too.

There's obviously a distinction between adults and infants in that infants don't have yet the right use of reason.

And that's why we recognize baptism as the normative means of grace for their salvation, because they're sinners too, in need of a

Savior. They're born at enmity with God. I don't think Jeremiah would disagree with that.

And, you know, there are some early church councils, the Council of Carthage in 418, where Pelagianism was refuted specifically on the grounds that these

Pelagians were arguing that infants don't need to be baptized because they either don't have original sin or baptism doesn't wash them of original sin.

And they were anathematized for it. So, you know, we didn't get into a whole lot of that, but, you know, as I mentioned in my closing, if you're interested in more of that kind of stuff, especially the history or the reception of the doctrine of baptism, you know, throughout church history,

I'd be glad to communicate outside of even this debate. Okay. Thank you,

Mark. Appreciate the response. Jeremiah, over to you. Floor is yours. Mark's such a nice guy, so I hope

I don't seem too fiery, but, you know— Bring the heat, Jeremiah. When I hear

Mark saying, we just, we look to the simple language of, like, Acts 2 -38. I'm like, man,

I'm glad to hear you say earlier, not everything rests on that because that is a narratival text.

So I would say go to the explicit teaching first and then let that inform you how we're to glean what's being said in Acts.

And so when he quotes from Romans 6, when he quotes from 1 Peter 3, 20 and 21, it's so interesting because you saw him try to ask me about those questions.

It's so easy when you let the entire context inform you what Paul's talking about. Romans 6, baptism in Christ, where in the context would this tell you that this is a physical wet immersion when everything is evidence to the contrary?

We died with Christ. Well, that's a spiritual reality, right? So this is talking about a spiritual baptism.

Now there's, you got to think, he's already writing to Roman Christians who have already been water baptized.

Therefore, Romans is telling them the spiritual realities of what their baptism pointed to, that they were buried with Christ and have risen to walk in newness of life.

These are all spiritual truths that have a physical application. But when

I hear the Lutherans, it's the exact opposite. We differ on the principle and the application. They're making the application the principle, and then sometimes the application just kind of disappears.

So I'm trying to think what else he said. And I deal with a lot of Church of Christ, and I was very pleased to see how different Lutherans and Church of Christ are.

But very similarly, when I hear 1 Peter 3, 21, look at the context, have the whole story of Noah in mind to help you be informed.

Because I know Mark loves the King James Bible, right?

And didn't you say that's your favorite translation? But it's not, you know, and I listened to one of your other debates.

That's your favorite translation. When it says eight souls were saved by water, it's like we have to understand that these eight souls were preserved through water.

We know that based on the semantic domain of those words given in the King James, but other translations.

And ultimately, the story of Noah helps us inform us knowing that the ark is the type of Christ.

Jeremiah, appreciate the response. Mark, this time the question was for you, so you get the last word. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm glad that Jeremiah recognizes a,

I would say, vast difference between Lutherans and the Church of Christ. We were the original

Reformers after all, and we do maintain that we are saved by grace through faith alone, apart from works.

Amen. So one thing that I didn't get to get into that I was gonna include in my introduction, but one of the things that drew me to Lutheranism was, you know, part of this idea of it be, what's the word, identifying with Christianity as an ancient faith and, you know, believing these metaphysical realities that Scripture points to.

For example, being baptized into Christ, we recognize this as a real metaphysical reality of participation and union with Christ in a way, in a mysterious way.

I don't know if Jeremiah likes that word mysterious, but, you know, we love mystery. It's very mysterious how we are, in some metaphysical way, united with the

Son of God, who bore our human flesh for our salvation. It's beautiful.

When you strip Christianity of this kind of mystery, you're left with something far less beautiful.

Let's put it in nice words. But I am surprised that Jeremiah continues to go with this idea of waterless spirit baptism, because all of the non -Lutheran commentators that I read, you know,

Daryl Bach, Thomas Schreiner, they reject this idea of a waterless spirit baptism.

They do not see it as indicated in the text anywhere.

It's one thing to recognize baptism being used in some places as metaphorical, but the context will clearly indicate, and I don't think that Jeremiah demonstrated that in any of those cases.

Thank you. Okay, Mark, thanks for the final word on that specific question. Now we've got one for Jeremiah.

So this comes in from Clint Little. Thanks for the question, Clint. And gentlemen, thanks for keeping this debate fun as well.

So here we go. Why would the spirit tell us that belief and baptism, in brackets he puts in water, are explicitly included in nine examples within the book of Acts?

Yeah, Clint Little is the Church of Christ, so he follows me around and does not like anything that I say, and it's similar.

What I would tell Clint is understand Acts is telling us a story. So how do we glean what we learn from Acts to us today?

I don't think the common mantra of Church of Christ that says we speak where the Bible speaks and we're silent where the

Bible is silent, if we just do what the early Christians did, then we'll be Christians, that doesn't answer anything.

And so it comes out when you start looking at Romans chapter four. They have to redefine works to be works of law, works of merit, all these other things.

And so to answer his question, why would the spirit tell us that belief and water baptism are explicitly included in nine examples?

Well, it's understanding the proper categories of justification and sanctification. I mean, it's literally that simple.

The Apostle Paul would look at us like, yeah, this is what happened, but here's what directly applies to you.

And these are the proper categories to understand Acts 238. Yes, I think that's clear, but I think

Acts 238 has to be clear within the entire context. That context has to also work harmoniously in all of Scripture.

And I also want to add, I do not believe in a waterless, spiritless baptism.

Now, there are cases with baptism where I don't think it's talking about water, but it's talking about immersion in a particular context.

So that's not to say that that's waterless, but Paul is giving a spiritual reality. So when I hear the term spiritless,

I'm over here saying it's a spiritual reality. And when we're being baptized, it's sanctifying, which assumes the spirit is at work in us.

Where we really differ is I don't believe water baptism carries regeneration. So I want the audience to hear that's one of the big differences here.

We don't believe regeneration is carried within baptism. And so I know Clint Little, being a

Church of Christ, they reject the whole category of baptismal regeneration. But all it takes is a few questions to get them to say, yeah, you're unregenerate before baptism.

And then when you come out of the watery graves of baptism, you're now regenerate. And we're like, baptismal regeneration.

Appreciate it there, Jeremiah. Mark, we can hand it over to you if you had some points you wanted to add.

Go ahead. Yeah. If I said waterless, spiritless baptism, I misspoke.

So I did not mean to represent your position in that way.

Waterless spirit baptism is how, if that's better.

So I do apologize if I misspoke in that way. But, nevertheless, well, based on what

I know about the Church of Christ from listening to Jeremiah, I don't think we would agree in all respects.

But as far as I know, you know, it's interesting, Jeremiah, he talks about the didactic portions of Scripture, that is, the epistles interpreting for us the narrative portions of Scripture, as in the

Book of Acts. And yet, you know, I don't know if there's anywhere in Acts off the top of my head where a waterless baptism is spoken of as far as Christian baptism.

For example, Everett Ferguson, in his book, Baptism in the

Early Church, his summary on Acts, he writes that the accounts of conversion in Acts ordinarily include mention of baptism.

The practice of Christian baptism involved the use of water is distinct from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And where any details are given, an immersion is either implied or consistent with what is said.

He goes on to say some other things. But it's interesting to me that Jeremiah would still insist on this idea of waterless baptism in the text that he insists are supposed to be interpreting

Acts, which does not teach or does not, you know, give us instances of a waterless baptism.

Mark, thanks so much. Jeremiah, this time you get the last word. Go ahead. Yes, because I get to help bring some clarity here.

So Acts is telling a story. So we see that these are descriptions of water baptism.

In the didactic text, Paul is giving us theology in light of those wonderful truths in Acts and in the gospel.

And so, for example, in Romans, Paul is talking to a community that was already water baptized, and now he's giving them the main principle of what their baptism signified, meaning that they have died with Christ.

That's a spiritual reality. Paul is making that so clear in Romans. And so I hope people hear me say that the context of the book actually informs how we're to understand within even more context.

And so when we look to another place, like in 1 Corinthians, it begins with household baptisms.

Guess what? I think he's talking about water baptisms. But later in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 2, he talks about how the

Israelites were baptized into Moses. OK, now he split the sea in half.

They were not immersed in water, right? Literally, the water split. They were immersed into the authority of Moses.

And so later in 1 Corinthians 15, you have a baptism of the dead. Well, context has to inform how the word baptizo, baptizmos, and baptizo is supposed to be understood.

And so I'm saying the doctrinal letters are giving us spiritual principles of what the water baptism is signifying.

So I hope that helps bring some clarity. Jeremiah, I appreciated great responses from the both of you during this

Q &A and a lot of excellent questions from the audience. So it looks like the next one, though, is a question for the both of you.

And so this one comes in from Sparky. And Sparky says, question for both. The closest place to Jerusalem to be baptized in Acts 2 was around 10 miles away.

What means did they use baptism for 3 ,000 people? Unless someone wants to volunteer in terms of answering first.

Jeremiah, you want to start, Mark? Sure. I can say off the top of my head,

I have no earthly idea. That's not something I have particularly looked into.

The Word of God says they were baptized. I hold that they were baptized. Where that took place, maybe it was pouring or sprinkling.

Maybe it wasn't full immersion. I don't know. I'll defer to Jeremiah on this one.

When I study in Lutheran doctrine, sometimes this has been brought up as a case against water immersion, saying, oh, there would have been no body of water in Acts 2 here.

Therefore, that's a positive case for pouring. And I just think that's a weak argument because what

Acts does talk about with water baptisms is clearly, like with the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip, they went down into the water.

This would obviously be immersion. But to Mark's credit,

I don't think the mode is necessarily as important as what it means and signifies.

But Clint Little earlier, he would be along the people that say it better be water immersion or you're not going to heaven.

And if your pinky didn't make it in, then you disobeyed the gospel. And friend, let me tell you, that is rank legalism.

That is not a gospel of grace. Okay. I appreciate the responses. Thank you both for that.

I would also add, reading the question again, that 10 miles away for them was not really a very large distance.

So if they, I don't know. I'd be sweating. I would be too. But yeah, they were much more fortified than we were,

I guess you could say. Well, good job to the both of you answering that question. Next one comes in from Swords to Plowshares.

And he said in the chat that this was a question for the both of you. So he's asking, was the thief on the cross saved even though he wasn't baptized?

It kind of sounds like it's slightly more directed at you though, Mark. If you wanted to start us off on this one, it's up to you.

Yeah, sure. Absolutely. He was. Jesus said he was. And here again, you have to keep in mind a couple of the points that I made.

One, that God uses various means to bring about and effect salvation in people.

He uses primarily the word. He uses baptism and the

Lord's Supper. So what did the thief on the cross have then if he didn't have baptism?

Well, he had the word. He had the word straight out of the Lord's mouth hanging there on the cross that he would be with him in paradise.

And we believe that he took that by faith. He believed it.

And he's in heavenly places with Christ as we speak. So definitely he was saved, even though he did not have the opportunity for baptism.

Baptism is not absolutely necessary to salvation. We would say it's necessary to salvation in one sense, but it's not absolutely necessary in that God saves via other means as well, such as the word.

Okay. Thank you, Mark. Jeremiah, over to you. Ninety -eight percent of that I say amen to you.

So that's pretty good. I want to explain a little bit of the relevance of this question in connection with baptism.

I was in a public debate back in February, and the question was asked to the

Church of Christ individual I was debating, what about the thief on the cross? And his answer staggered everyone as far as I'm concerned.

He said, perhaps he was baptized. We just don't know. And, you know, there was just this kind of laughter throughout, like, you've got to be kidding me.

Did they really think they took him off the cross and baptized him? Some people say, well, he might have been baptized in the blood of Jesus.

And some speculate that maybe he was baptized by John the Baptist. Absurd. You know what

I mean? But like Mark said, he heard the word of Christ, right? He knew who

Jesus was. And here's the point. The thief on the cross is a good example of salvation because he looked to Jesus, the son of glory, with repentant faith.

That's why Jesus said, you'll be with me today in paradise. Now, to further the discussion, yes,

Jesus made that promise before the cross, but Jesus died before the thief on the cross. And so necessarily and definitionally, according to the book of Hebrews, the thief on the cross would have been in the new covenant.

And so you have a classic example of somebody dying in the New Testament without baptism, and yet they were guaranteed to be in paradise.

PASTOR MIKE GILMORE Thank you. Jeremiah, thanks to the both of you for your responses to that good question.

PASTOR JEREMIAH MCDONALD Do I get some additional comments? PASTOR MIKE GILMORE Well, you know, it was a question for the both, but it was kind of more so, but I mean, in the end, it was kind of a question more so directed at you.

If you want a really quick final word, Mark, go ahead. PASTOR JEREMIAH MCDONALD Yeah, real quick. You know, Jeremiah mentioned that he looked to Jesus.

Yeah, literally, he looked to Jesus, who was there right beside him. But how do you look to Jesus now?

Well, we Lutherans would say we look to Him in the means that He has instituted, in the

Word, His very Word, breathed out by the Holy Spirit, who is

His Holy Spirit. We look to Him in baptism and in His body and blood that He feeds us and nourishes us in the

Lord's Supper. So that's how we look to Christ today. We don't look to our right or to our left to see

Him with our eyes. We look to where He promised to be in the Word and the sacraments. PASTOR MIKE GILMORE All right.

Appreciate that final word there, Mark. Moving on to a question from Randall Dobbins.

Randall, appreciate the question. And his question is for you,

Mark. So if a person repents and gives their life to God and then dies before he or she can be baptized, is that person not going to heaven?

PASTOR MARK JOHNSON So the answer is just essentially the same as the thief on the cross example, that if a person repents and gives his life to God, obviously he did so on the basis of the preached

Word or the gospel and not apart from it. Absolutely. A person can be saved by the

Word and not have the opportunity for baptism prior to death. It happens all the time.

And those people are still with Christ. PASTOR MIKE GILMORE Thank you, Mark. Jeremiah, over to you.

PASTOR JEREMIAH MCDONALD Yeah, and I work with hospice care, and so I see so many bedside situations where they can't be baptized.

But you know what? They can hear the Word preached. They can hear the gospel, and they can repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

The reason why this is actually a good question, not for Lutherans, because Lutherans hold to justification by faith alone.

So Mark gave a wonderful answer. This question is a stinger for a church of Christ that's going to actually be consistent because they have to bite the bullet and say, you are not getting into heaven if you die in a car wreck even though you're wanting to be baptized because you disobeyed the gospel.

You were not obedient to the command of Christ to be immersed in water.

And friend, that's not the gospel. That is straight law. That is a recapitulation of a modern -day

Pharisee. And so it's the church of Christ that they can't answer this one. And I think if they are inconsistent and say, well, it was the desire to be baptized like a lot of the early church, well, then congratulations.

Just be consistent with that point because that's the gospel of grace. That is someone looking to Jesus that has been transformed from the inside out, and they desire to be obedient to all that Christ has, in fact, commanded us to observe.

Thank you for the response there, Jeremiah. Mark, you get the last word. Go ahead. I don't have any additional comments on the question at hand.

I do. Jeremiah mentioned law and gospel, and it reminded me that I never got to bring that subject up in our discussion.

So maybe another time. We'll save it for a much anticipated round two in the future,

Jeremiah versus Mark. This was really an epic debate. So with that, I just looked over at the timer.

So I think we got time for one final question. This one is for you, Jeremiah.

Comes in from Truth Defenders. Truth Defenders, thanks for your question. And he's asking, if water baptism is included as part of salvation, is this now a new or false gospel and therefore damnable heresy?

So I wish I could ask him for clarity. Is he asking me from a

Lutheran perspective that sees baptismal regeneration? Because I actually studied this very diligently because I was kind of left with, you know, because Mark sent me a podcast of Lutherans talking specifically about, you know,

Reformed Baptists. And there are people out there that almost condemn all of church, the big part of church history before the 1600s.

And so I'm going to answer this question two ways because I'm not sure what he means. But I don't anathematize

Lutherans because they hold to a baptismal regeneration. I think they're being massively inconsistent like Martin Luther was in a lot of the early church fathers.

But the reason why I'm not going to anathematize them and say that they believe in a works righteousness system is because they do not carry a fundamental denial of sola fide.

Since the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church, fundamentally denies this. So they are to be evangelized with the proper gospel of grace.

But all of church history of like Athanasius and Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, these people predate the

Council of Trent. These are people that do not carry that fundamental denial of justification by faith alone.

But Church of Christ, they fundamentally deny salvation by faith alone. And they would say, oh, that's

James 2. That's a dead faith. You know, that's that's the argument or just like a really context. But we evangelize the

Church of Christ because they deny the gospel of grace by faith alone. We evangelize Mormons that hold to a type of baptismal regeneration with the denial of sola fide and then obviously

Roman Catholics. So that's maybe what he meant. I will say this.

I believe salvation is a process. One of the ordo salutis, like Mark said, you got justification, you got sanctification and glorification.

So that is a process. Baptism doesn't belong in regeneration or justification.

It belongs in the category of sanctification. So that's my response,

Donnie. Very good, Jeremiah. I appreciate that. Mark, we'll hand it over to you.

The floor is yours for your response. Yeah, so I appreciate, Jeremiah, recognizing our adherence to justification by faith alone apart from works.

He mentioned that we're inconsistent. Yes, yes, we heard that part. He mentioned some of the church fathers were inconsistent.

I would say he should amend that to say almost all the church fathers were inconsistent, with him at least.

But that's just to needle him a little bit there. There's this note that I took from the

Baker exegetical. Well, first of all, I would say, well, no. I would also kind of maybe reword the question to say that, you know, baptism is not simply included as part of salvation.

Like, you know, you get part from the Word, part from baptism. The fullness of the grace offered by God, the forgiveness of sins, is offered really and truly in baptism.

It's not a mere empty sign. It offers all the benefits of Christ. But in any case,

I took this note from the Baker exegetical commentary on Acts 22 -16, where he writes that the call to be baptized is in the middle voice, which is not a reference to baptizing oneself, but certainly to having himself baptized.

That is a causative middle. Paul's actions will lead to his baptism, but he does not baptize himself.

More precisely, the middle voices, baptisi and apollusi, are permissive in force.

Saul was to allow the baptism in Washington to take place. So I think what this indicates for us is that baptism does not save as some kind of meritorious work.

It does not earn or merit the forgiveness of sins. It's how the forgiveness of sins is delivered to us, conferred upon us, offered to us.

And, you know, the Word of God, I would say, there's a similar parallel with the Word of God.

Faith comes by hearing, but is hearing a meritorious work? No, it's simply the means that God has ordained, by which

He wills to regenerate us, to convert us, to justify us, to renew us, and to lead us into everlasting life.

Thank you, Mark, for that response. And Jeremiah, question was for you, so you get the last word.

Go ahead. I'm so glad I get the last word on this. So I do not shy away from the fact that the majority of early church fathers taught some form of baptismal regeneration.

They were not unanimous on what the nature of that looked like. But I think it'd be pretty easy to show that Mark doesn't hold to that standard when it goes against Lutheran tradition.

All the early church fathers and many of the early church believed in every form of lending money to somebody with interest was sinful.

And so I would be curious to see if Mark also holds to that standard today, that lending money with any form of interest would be immoral, because all of the early church fathers taught this.

And I would just simply say it'd be absurd to believe that merely on the basis of all the early church fathers taught that.

What we are supposed to do is be sola scriptura, meaning we value church history and how

Christ has been building his church for 2 ,000 years, but we take the arguments of the early church, and we don't just take their conclusion and say, well, they were the next generation, and surely they would have understood what the apostles meant.

No, we test their exegetical arguments with holy writ. And so I would say we would actually expect the early church to get many things wrong because in the days of Jesus, he was speaking very clearly about the fact that he had to die, be resurrected again, and the disciples didn't understand.

So we wouldn't say Jesus is a bad teacher just because his disciples didn't understand. The apostle Paul, preaching the gospel of grace, the church of Galatia, the church of Corinth, they were starting to ban these things.

We wouldn't say that the apostle Paul is a bad teacher. And then we also would not conclude that since we would expect much of the early church to get things wrong, this would not have a reflection on the apostolic witness.

And so every time you hear Mark talk about an empty sign, just know he means we don't believe regeneration is in the water.

We believe the Holy Spirit is present in sanctification. And so it's interesting. He talked about baptism not being a meritorious work.

I would caution Mark, along with other people listening to this, that's the exact argument a church or Christ is going to make, is they abandon the definition of ergon, what works actually are as a definition.

And any example of works would be meritorious because of the very definition.

You cannot add anything that you participate in to the already finished work of Christ.

So I would check Mark and anyone else that I do think is being inconsistent. Praise God.

He believes in sola fide. But any works, anything that you do, that you get up with your hands and your feet and accomplish, that would be meritorious if you are denying sola fide.

Thank you, Jeremiah, for those final words. And gentlemen, that wraps up the audience

Q &A. That was a great audience Q &A. I appreciate the engagement on each one of these important questions.

And that wraps up the debate. So this was an excellent debate. I really enjoyed this. Such an important topic.

And it really is a privilege and a pleasure to have the both of you on who obviously really know their stuff on this topic.

So before we do wrap it up, though, again, I want to thank you both for giving us your time for this debate. Let's get some final words and final thoughts.

Mark, let's start with you. Thanks again for being here. And some final words, final thoughts. Thank you again,

Donnie, for setting this up. Definitely an enjoyable debate. I'm glad that we see eye to eye on so many things.

Jeremiah recognizes the difference that and he has stated it so plainly many times throughout this conversation between Lutherans and, for example, other groups that do that, that reject sola fide.

And yet we still hold to the traditional understandings of things like the

Word of God as the Word of the Spirit, powerful and effective baptism and the

Lord's Supper as a means of grace. Jeremiah thinks we do so inconsistently.

I disagree. I think consistency is established by the mark of consistency is established by Scripture, not by our fallible understandings.

But so I appreciate that he has represented us well. I do think we can continue to be friends after this,

Jeremiah. So that was the goal. And thank you to everyone in the audience listening in.

I appreciate all of you and hope everyone has a good rest of your evening. Absolutely, Mark.

Thank you so much for those final words and final thoughts to the audience. If you want to see more from Mark, do check the description box where I've got your past debates linked, as well as a website that you're associated with.

So again, thanks so much, Mark. Jeremiah from the Apologetic Dog YouTube channel. It's been a real pleasure and a privilege to host and moderate this debate with you.

So thanks so much for your time and some final words, final thoughts. Well, Donnie, I just want to thank you for inviting me on.

You know, I saw you first commenting on one of the debates I hosted on a Preterist debate with Dr. Frost and a full

Preterist. And so we started interacting a little bit there. And so thank you for inviting me on.

I hope to do this more. I really appreciate the platform and content that you're putting out. So thank you again for that.

And thank you, Mark, for being so charitable and kind. I think that allows people to understand the differences of where we're at, but also understand the things that we hold near and dear and that are very similar.

And so I just want to give a shout out to my church family. I want to give a shout out to Adam Carmichael, the

Agee family, the Hargrave family, and just everyone that's been praying for me in this debate.

I pray that this would be edifying to the audience. Definitely, I'd encourage you to go check out the

Apologetic Dog. One of my major areas of evangelism is the Church of Christ, where these topics on baptism become so much more real because, yes,

I do think people can hold to doctrines on baptism inconsistently and can be saved. But you have a group that really believes they are the one true church and they champion.

We are members of the Church of Christ, Romans 16, 16, and we obey the gospel.

We obey all the commands that Christ has given us. And my heart is burdened because they reject the very gospel of grace because they are trusting in their merits, their abilities to do baptism.

And so it just totally corrupts the very foundation of the gospel. So my heart is in apologetics and contending for truth, contending for the gospel of grace.

And so I want to do that with a heart of grace and with a heart of love. So even though I talk about some hard things and maybe it seems like I'm harsh,

I'm wanting to be firm but loving. And so I hope to come back on Standing for Truth, Donnie, and maybe we'll have round two with Mark.

We'll see what the future holds for us. Absolutely. I am all for it. Maybe we can get you a debate with one of these

Church of Christ proponents. So that would be epic as well. And just like with Mark, if you want to see more from Jeremiah and his channel,

The Apologetic Dog, please check out the description box. And I've got a link that'll take you right to his channel where you can subscribe and enjoy all of his awesome content.

So with that, Mark and Jeremiah, again, thanks so much for doing this epic debate. As I like to say, that's another one in the books.

And to the audience, please share this around. These debates are just so incredibly important. So again, to the audience, thanks for tuning in.

Thanks for so many excellent questions for another awesome audience Q &A. And with that, Donnie is out.