Dakota Sorenson vs Jeremiah Nortier : Is Baptismal Regeneration True?

Alright, alright.

Thank you for joining us on this episode of the Gospel Truth. I'm your host, Marlon Wilson, and we have another great debate for you this evening.

I usually don't do shows on Sundays, man, but decided to do one this week on Sunday.

And so this is a great one. I pray that your time at church today, if you did make it to church today, was a blessed one.

And now, this evening, you get to enjoy another great debate that's on the Gospel Truth. I have

Jeremiah Nortera and Dakota Sorensen with me, and they are going to be debating baptismal regeneration.

Is it biblical? And they're going to have a fantastic discussion, and so I know you're looking forward to it, as I am as well.

But before I bring the guys in, I want to make sure you understand to subscribe to the Gospel Truth. Hit that notification bell to the

Gospel Truth, so you stay informed, and so you can get notified whenever we upload new videos, commentaries, debates, or interviews.

Make sure you are able to stay engaged in the way you do that by subscribing to the Gospel Truth. Also, all this content, different phases of this content, is on other platforms,

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. So make sure you flow over there to those other social media platforms and subscribe or follow on those platforms as well.

Also, this content is on podcasts, iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Spotify. Make sure you are flying over there to subscribe over there as well.

If you'd rather just listen to audio, you do have that option on the podcast. All right. With that said,

I have a whole bunch of shows here coming up here in the future that I want you guys to be aware of.

All right. Coming up next after this one, I have Turretin fan and Dr. Kirk Jarris. They're going to be debating provisionism.

Is it semi -Pelagianism? All right. So this is going to be a fantastic debate. First time topic on the

Gospel Truth. So I'm looking forward to this one. And I pray that you are as well. After that, we'll have

Michael Faber and Michael Borowski. Does God predestine all things? That is the question, the premise of this debate.

And so this is coming up here in the near future. So make sure you are glued in and locked in for this debate coming up.

After that, I have C .J. Cox and Rick Caldwell. Should we obey the law of Moses? So if you're a guy who likes to dive into the law of Moses and how

God dealt with the laws in the Old Testament, things like that, this is debate for you. So make sure you are ready to go for this debate.

Then after that, I have a couple of newcomers. I have Enrique and I think Johnny Mack, I believe.

These guys I'm not totally familiar with, but they gave me a rundown of their theological positions and they're going to be debating Jesus. Is Jesus eternally divine?

All right. So this is going to be a great debate. So I hope you're looking forward to it. Going to be an exciting one.

As always, I've been hitting this drum really hard. We're doing a media fund, a fundraiser for media equipment.

We're trying to build funds to purchase media equipment to take on the road. So we'd have to rely on the venues, rely on the venues, audio and visual equipment.

We want our own equipment. So therefore we're asking for your assistance in these efforts. If you are so, if God is pulling your heart to support the ministry, make sure you look in the description of this live video and you'll see the fundraiser link.

Click on that link and support the ministry. If it is, if God's put on your heart to do so.

All right. All right. That's it. Once again, we have Jeremiah Noirtier and Dakota Sorenson.

Both of these guys have been on for a while, have been on before. If you remember the last time

Jeremiah Noirtier debated on the gospel truth was the live in -person debate that he had.

That was the first live in -person debate that the gospel truth is hosted and moderated.

And Jeremiah Noirtier was on that, was one of the debaters there. And so that was an outstanding time.

I got to meet Jeremiah obviously in person and it was a great time, fantastic time with Pastor Nathan and Jeremiah.

And so it was great meeting them. And he was the first one to have a live debate for the gospel truth.

And Dakota Sorenson, the last time he debated was I think a couple of years ago.

And his last debate, I believe was concerning eschatology. And that was a great debate.

And so both of you guys are aware of the gospel truth and have been on before and they perform very well when they're on.

So I'm glad to have these guys back. What's up fellas? How y 'all doing? Marlon.

Thanks for having me back. Ah, no doubt, no doubt, man. What's up Dakota? Hello. Hi. Ah man, you got to get that energy up Dakota, man.

That's all I'm getting. I'm saving the energy for later.

There you go. That's what I'm talking about. You don't want to expend that energy too soon because I do know that this topic can be extremely passionate.

So definitely I want you to have the energy to debate passionately in your position. So before we jump into this debate,

I do want to give you guys time to introduce yourself to the audience, tell them what you do, blogs, YouTube channel, whatever it is.

Let them know what you do so they can come check you out. All right. Start with Jeremiah. Go ahead and give a quick introduction to yourself, man. Well, thank you again,

Marlon, for having me back on. It was an honor last year getting to fly you in from California to do a live in -person debate.

It was awesome. People, please go check that out. It was a debate with a church of Christ individual on baptism.

So my name is Jeremiah Nortier. I serve as a pastor and elder at 12 .5 Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

That's northeast Arkansas. So you can look us up on the website. It's the word125church .com.

If you're anywhere in the area, please come check out our fellowship. We'd love to meet you in person. I also run an apologetics ministry called the

Apologetic Dog. So the reason why we chose that, me and my team and counsel with my church family, is the

Apologetic Dog is a guard dog. This is the Christian guarding the gospel of grace.

So when you look up my YouTube channel, the Apologetic Dog, you'll see 1 Timothy 620 embedded in the logo.

Paul is saying, hey, Timothy, guard the gospel. Guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid pagan philosophy, and we contend for knowledge.

We stand on God's truth at every point and turn. So please go check out my

YouTube channel. I have a website, the Apologetic Dog. If you ever want to support the channel financially, you can go to the website and find many options there.

But I just want to also thank my church family that has prepared for me time to be able to study and do debates for contending for the faith.

And so I just want to give a shout out to my wife, the babe of all babes, Allie Nortier. She's watching the Apologetic Pup, who is

JJ Nortier, and he's almost 10 months old. So love you, buddy. And I just want to give a shout out to Adam Carmichael, to my left here, and Pastor Nathan that Marlon got to meet last year when he came to Johnsboro.

So thanks so much. All right. Thank you as well for coming on the Gospel Truth. All right, Dakota, you're up, man.

Go ahead and give a quick introduction yourself. Well, I just want to say thank you, Marlon, for hosting and moderating this debate concerning one of the most important doctrines of Christianity.

And thank you, Jeremiah, for coming on to debate me. I appreciate it. So my name is

Dakota Sorenson. I'm 22 years old and recently married. For the past three years,

I have been independently researching early Christianity in the first few centuries after Christ.

I'm interested in the historical continuity between the time of the apostles and the post -apostolic period, and how by utilizing the writings of the early

Christians, we can better understand the apostolic faith, as well as weed out the false and heretical doctrines that have sprung up in the contemporary church.

So the best way to contact me is by my YouTube channel or by my email, which you can find on my

YouTube channel. And yeah, I'm looking forward to a great debate tonight. So go ahead,

Marlon. All right, all right. Thank you for the segue and bringing me back here, Dakota. I appreciate you, buddy.

Good stuff, good stuff. All right. So we're going to jump into this debate. Let's not waste any more time. The topic of this debate is, is baptism regeneration biblical?

Jeremiah, you're arguing the negative. Dakota, you are arguing the affirmative. I'm going to start that with 15 -minute opening statements.

I'm the negative. I'm just kidding. Oh man, you're about to have me scared for a minute, man.

We're going to start that opening with 15 -minute openings. We're going to follow that with five -minute rebuttals. Then we'll have a 40 -minute cross -ex.

Both of you will have 20 minutes each to lead with questions. After that, we'll have five -minute closings, and then we'll have about 20 -minute

Q &A from the audience. Sounds good? Yes, sir. Yep. All right, Dakota, you are arguing the affirmative, so you are up first.

Go ahead and get your slideshow ready. Open this up real fast. All right.

Can you see this? Yes, we can, sir. Let me get your time set up real quick, and then we'll let you know when to go.

All right, Dakota, you're good to go, and I'll start your time as soon as you begin to speak. Oh, one more thing.

Don't forget about the little chime here. That'll be your indication that you have one minute left in your presentation, so keep that in mind, all right?

But you're ready to go. As soon as you start speaking, I'll start your time. The resolution for the debate is

Water Baptism Regenerates. I will take the affirmative. Baptism is the instrument or the means by which

God confers His grace of regeneration and justification upon the faithful.

The benefits of our Lord's death and the work He did to reconcile man to God is given through the water of baptism.

Baptism is thus necessary as a condition for salvation and for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This teaching is commonly called baptismal regeneration. For my position, I only need to prove that Jesus and the apostles ascribe a regenerative or saving power to baptism.

The fact that baptism regenerates is why Jesus says that people are made

His disciples through baptism, Matthew 28. If baptism does not regenerate, why should it be mentioned here in the commission at all?

Baptism alone is singled out and is distinguished from the category of all that I have commanded you.

The way the commission is worded suggests that baptism has a saving significance. This interpretation is confirmed by Mark's version of the commission.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This verse undoubtedly teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some have pointed out, however, that the negative part of the statement omits any reference to baptism.

To this, former Cincinnati Bible College and seminary professor Jack Cottrell responds, there is no need to mention both faith and baptism in the negative clause since the efficacy of baptism presupposes the presence of faith.

Peter says to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, Acts 2 .38.

The word for ice here retains its most common meaning of direction or motion towards something, which includes the concepts of purpose and goal.

The purpose or goal of baptism is the forgiveness of sins. According to Robert Stein, although some have sought to interpret the expression for the forgiveness of your sins as in the hope of forgiveness or because of your forgiveness, it is best to interpret the expression as indicating the purpose of repentance baptism.

The Greek construction is exactly the same as Jesus' statement in Matthew 26 .28

that he shed his blood for ice, the forgiveness of sins, namely for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness.

Thus, Peter is saying in Acts 2 .38 that part of what a sinner must do to bring about forgiveness of his sins is to be baptized.

Acts 3 .19 offers a parallel to Acts 2 .38. The identity of the first and third items suggests a certain equivalence between the second and fourth items.

Repentance is the decision to turn and baptism is the turning around, which is followed by the removal of sins and the reception of the

Holy Spirit. Peter writes in his first epistle, eight persons were saved through water and baptism which this prefigured now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1

Peter 3. Cottrell explains, the flood is the preceding type or figure and baptism is the reality to which it points.

Thus, baptism is not the symbol but the reality itself and that reality is the fact that baptism saves.

Peter is comparing the fact that the occupants of the ark were saved from physical death through water to the fact that the baptized are saved from spiritual death through water.

As the water saved Noah's family, baptism now saves you. Water is prominent in the context of 1

Peter 3 .21. The fact that this baptism involves water is what links it with the flood in the first place.

One commentator admits, interpretation of this verse has been plagued by protestant fear of finding in it a basis for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

The only other time the phrase through the resurrection of Jesus Christ is used in the

New Testament is in 1 Peter 1 .3. He has caused us to be born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The parallel between 1 Peter 1 .3 and 1 Peter 3 .21 indicates that regeneration is connected to baptism.

That's also why Jesus says in John 3 .5 that one must be born of the water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of God, a clear reference to the necessity of baptism.

Many claim that Jesus' reference to water is a reference to our biological birth and the breaking of the amniotic sac and the fluid that's released.

However, according to the Baptist scholar D .A. Carson, there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as from water and the few that use drops to stand for semen are rare and late.

Others have argued that Christian baptism must be excluded from John 3 .5 because it had not been instituted yet.

However, Jesus frequently taught about future events and future blessings without explaining them as such.

In fact, the second part of the statement, born of the spirit, is itself a reference to the future, since regeneration by the indwelling

Holy Spirit was a blessing offered only after Pentecost. Every Christian writer who cited

John 3 .5 before the Council of Nicaea agreed that it referred to baptismal regeneration.

According to Everett Ferguson in his study of baptism in the first five centuries of church history,

John 3 .5 is the most commonly used baptismal text in the second century.

The language of born of the water was generally understood in the early church of baptism.

Ananias tells Saul to be baptized and wash away your sins, Acts 22 .16.

The washing away of sins takes place in baptism. Denver Seminary professor

Bruce DeMarest even admits that a superficial reading of Acts 22 .16

might suggest that baptism affects regeneration. He claims, however, that the washing away of sins is not associated with the baptism itself, but it clearly is.

The free Jewish historian Josephus uses the same word for wash away, apolluo, to describe the baptisms of the

Jews for ceremonial purification. First Corinthians 6 .11,

which describes how the Corinthians were washed, sanctified, and justified, uses the same word for wash that Acts 22 .16

connects with baptism. The three verbs are in the aorist tense, referring to a singular occurrence.

This is precisely because a Christian is washed, sanctified, and justified simultaneously in baptism.

That's why Acts teaches that people are baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts 10 .43

and First Corinthians 6 .11 likewise teach that forgiveness of sins is received in or through the name of the

Lord. Thus, baptism is the act done in the name of the Lord through which sins are forgiven.

In Ephesians 4, baptism appears among the seven foundation unities of Christianity.

The inclusion of baptism in such a list testifies to its saving power. In the same epistle,

Paul refers to the church having been made holy and purified by the washing of water,

Ephesians 5 .26. The word for washing is leutron, which means washing or bath.

It is a noun form of the verb leuo, which is used in Acts 22 .16 for baptism.

The idea that washing is used here figuratively is precluded by the reference to water.

It is the washing of water. The only washing of water in Christian experience is baptism.

The same word for washing is also used in Titus 3 .5 for the washing of regeneration.

The only two times that word for washing is used are in Ephesians 5 .26 and Titus 3 .5.

Ephesians 5 .26 uses the same word for washing and connects it with water because the washing of regeneration in Titus 3 .5

comes through the water of baptism. The Methodist scholar Lawrence Stuckey says that Titus 3 .5

uses language which is undeniably baptismal. Ephesians 2 .8

-9 and its reference to being saved through faith is a baptismal illusion. That's proven by the parallel passage in Colossians 2.

Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 are parallel texts that supplement one another and have to be read together for the total picture.

Let's look at the context of Ephesians 2 .5 -8 and Colossians 2 .12 -13.

This will demonstrate without any doubt that Ephesians 2 .8 -9 refers to the same thing as Colossians 2 .12,

namely regeneration in baptism. The Reformed scholar James White acknowledges that Ephesians must be considered in the light of Colossians.

Ephesians 2 .5 refers to when we were dead in our trespasses. Colossians 2 .13

says you who were dead in your trespasses. Ephesians 2 .11 says that God made us alive together with Christ.

Colossians 2 .13 says that God made you alive together with Him. Ephesians 2 .6

refers to how in regeneration God raised us up with Him. Colossians 2 .12

says in baptism in which you were also raised with Him. Ephesians 2 .8

uses the words through faith when it says by grace you have been saved through faith.

Colossians 2 .12 uses the same words through faith when it teaches that baptism is the means by which one is raised with Christ through faith.

The same words through faith are also used in Galatians 3 .26 -27 where it connects putting on Christ and becoming a son of God with receiving baptism.

For in Christ Jesus you are of God through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The parallels between Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 demonstrate that Paul is referring to the same thing in both passages namely the reception of regeneration and justification through faith and he teaches that this happens in baptism.

Baptismal regeneration goes back to the earliest period of church history. It's no secret that the entire early church believed in the necessity of baptism for salvation.

In Ferguson, the New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism.

The following quotations are from writers who lived less than 100 years after the death of the apostles.

The first century work Shepherd of Hermas describes how Christians went down into the water and received the forgiveness of their former sins.

The epistle of Barnabas says the prophets predicted of Israel that they will not receive the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins.

The second century apologist Justin Martyr says that only those who have been cleansed by baptism for the forgiveness of their sins and for their regeneration may partake of the

Eucharist. The Epistle of Antioch says that we receive forgiveness of sins through the water and the bath of regeneration.

Irenaeus, the spiritual grandson of the Apostle John says that just as Naaman was cleansed of leprosy through water,

Christians are lepers in sin who are cleansed with baptismal water that makes them spiritually regenerated.

He also says that the power to baptize given to the apostles in Matthew 28 19 was the power of regeneration into God.

And at the end of the second century, Tertullian makes clear that without baptism salvation is attainable one.

My opponent is forced to conclude that within only a few decades of the apostles, every important Christian leader in the church managed to come to the exact same error on the meaning of baptism.

Ferguson responds, it is inconceivable that the whole Christian world reversed its understanding of the meaning of its central rite of conversion within 50 years of the lifetime of the apostles.

Baptismal regeneration is a thoroughly scriptural teaching held by the majority of Christians both in the early church and even today.

Cottrell writes, the understanding of baptism as the time when God bestows salvation was the nearly unanimous view in Christendom for nearly 1500 years.

It was a consensus shared by the early church fathers, Catholic theology in the middle ages, and Martin Luther.

To deny that baptism regenerates and conveys the forgiveness of sins is not only to reject the clear repeated and overwhelming teaching of scripture but to pit yourself against the entire church believed from the beginning of Christian history.

Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that water baptism regenerates. Thank you.

All right, thank you as well for that opening statement. All right, Jeremiah, you're in a seat now, buddy, and you got it for 15 minutes for your opening statement.

I'll start your time as soon as you begin to speak. All right, thank you, Marlon. Thank you,

Dakota. I really appreciated that opening statement, and so something you said towards the end that really resonated with me is we have to conclude that we are regenerated and necessarily justified.

You didn't say that term, but you're talking about the forgiveness of sins and the washing away of some type of maybe sin nature.

We'll get into this, but the act undergoing, and you kept saying water baptism is the thing that essentially makes us right before God and regenerates us, and so I question that because the epistemology that I think everyone must hold to is a revelational epistemology, meaning that God gives us truth according to his word, and so it's no surprise

I hold to what's called sola scriptura. God's word is the thing that we hold most preeminent in our hearts and our mind.

Jesus said, Father, sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth, and so how do

I adjudicate? How do I know if baptismal regeneration is true or biblical like our propositional question is?

We got to go to the word of God. Now, I do appreciate all the scriptures that you brought forth, Dakota, and so this to me is going to be a battle of exegesis.

This is going to be a battle of context, and this is going to be a battle of definitions of words, and so we are called to be noble Bereans.

There's no way around it. It's all of scripture that equips us for godliness, for reproof, for doctrine, correction, all these things, and so yes,

I'm allowed to question some of these early Christians that held to faith is what makes us right before God, and yes,

I do see some inconsistencies when somebody at the early church like John Chrysostom or Victrus Marianus talks about the necessity of baptism, but it's faith alone that makes us right before God.

I'm saying, okay, which one is it? And so I think one way we can approach this debate in my time of my opening statement is talking about the ordo salutis, okay, and what do

I mean? This is the order of salvation. Now, obviously, God is transcendent. He's eternal, and so we can at another time talk about the doctrine of predestination and election, many wonderful things, but the salvation in terms of our experience, and so what

I want to lay out to you very briefly is the order of salvation that is logical in its priority, and I think many of these things will be temporally in our experience as well, is number one is regeneration.

This is a monergistic act of God through the Holy Spirit regenerating, taking out that heart of stone, and giving us a heart of flesh, and so number one is regeneration, and so I think also in this instantaneous miracle when someone comes to saving faith as a result of the work of the

Holy Spirit in their heart and their life is the doctrine of justification, right? This is a forensic term meaning that we are legally declared right before God, just as if I never sinned.

Now, the doctrine of adoption kind of goes hand in hand with that, and then flowing out of a believer is a justification, which also results from their regeneration, is the doctrine of sanctification.

Now, this is huge because I believe regeneration is monergistic, a work of God alone, and we'll get into that, and it's sanctification that is synergistic, meaning that we play a part in working out our salvation before the watching world, and so this debate this evening,

I believe Dakota is conflating the doctrine of regeneration with sanctification, okay?

We can't do that. These are two different terms, and that matters, and yes, we need to talk about the context of John 3, 1

Peter 3, 21, Acts 2, 38, Mark 16, 16, Acts 22, 16. We can go to all the proof texts and discuss context, but we have to understand is this order of salvation, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and believers look forward to glorification that we will experience in the future, and so sanctification is our faith being worked out, and so this is all the works that we are called to do in obedience to what

Jesus has called us to. Remember the Great Commission that Dakota read earlier? We are to obey all the things that God has commanded us to.

That's within discipleship. That's within sanctification, and guess what belongs in a believer's sanctification and not regeneration?

It's baptism. Now, why do I say that? Because what we're going to see later is how do we define what the word works mean.

That is ergon or ergods of mind. Now, when we go to BDAG, I understand church history is important, but it's not infallible.

God's Word alone is the bar, the precipium of truth, and so what does the

Greek word ergon and ergods of mind actually mean? And so when we look at this

Greek word, it means an activity of any kind that is displayed in deed or in action, and so I'm going to press

Dakota for being consistent or providing his own definition. Tell me if you think maybe baptism is a different kind of work.

The objection I often hear is, well, baptism is a work of God, and I'm like, great, it sure is.

God's working all things together after the counsel of His will, but my big question for Dakota is a couple things.

What is works? Give me a definition of that, please, in your rebuttal time, or I'm going to ask you, and I also want to know, is baptism a work of God only?

Because if it's synergistic, then we're working together with God. Guess what synergism? Awesome term for our sanctification, not for our regeneration.

That is a work of God alone, and so just to kind of touch on that again, regeneration is a work of the

Spirit alone, monergistic. That results in a believer's justification. We now experience that transformed heart and life that looks to Jesus in saving faith, and flowing out of a believer's justification is our sanctification.

This is synergistic. This is all of our works. We participate in baptism, and so it's a work that we participate in.

I'm going to also ask Dakota is to define baptism, because if it's a ceremonial rite, then we participate in it.

This is an act of faith, and it is a work that we do. The problem is it just doesn't justify us, and it doesn't go hand in hand with our regeneration.

With my eight minutes left, I want to discuss some of these passages that Dakota brought up.

I want to start with 1 Peter 3, 21. I love this verse because context is everything.

I do appreciate Dakota trying to quote verse 20 with 21. I think that's important, but he totally missed the anti -type that's going on.

We can appeal to all the early church and see what they say. That's fine. I'm going to question their exegesis as well.

1 Peter 3, 20 says, because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark, remember that please, the ark was being prepared in which a few, that is eight persons including

Noah, remember that as well, were brought safely through water. We need to remember the ark.

We need to remember the water and the eight persons. I ask the question, what was salvific in that context?

It wasn't the water. The water was a judgment. Just go back to Genesis 6. Look at the

Old Testament there, and you can see that the water was a judgment on all of mankind.

Now, certain translations like the King James says that they were saved by water. Well, saved in what sense? Because women are saved by childbearing, right?

Their role is preserved in light of the fall through being obedient to the commandments of God in light of their justification and living in their sanctification.

The point is the ESV rightly understands that these eight persons were saved in spite of the water.

They were saved through the water because the thing that was salvific was the ark.

When we look in verse 21, what is the ark of our salvation? Is it our water baptism? I would offer no.

Peter is actually very clear with this verse. He says, baptism, question mark, immersed into what context?

He tells us not a removal of dirt from the body. We back up.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you. What baptism is going to be the ark of our salvation?

He says not the removal of dirt from the body. Well, that's a ceremonial bath. Peter is saying that's not the baptism that now saves you.

It is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the ark of our salvation. Earlier in this context, what is a good conscience?

It's sanctifying the Lord in your heart. That's what we give a defense for. That is faith alone and the perfect Savior alone.

This is a wonderful text saying the baptism that now saves is being in Christ by faith.

That's important. Hopefully, he wants to ask me more about that context. Like I said, we can go into many verses.

I do want to touch on Acts 22 -16. As we begin to unpack this context, we understand that Ananias is conversing with the apostle

Paul. When we look at this verse, we have to read the whole context. That's Acts 22 -16.

Ananias says, and now why do you wait to rise and be baptized and wash away your sins?

Jeremiah, how can you deny this? This is baptismal regeneration. I would say, well, we got to read the whole verse, calling on his name.

When we do exegesis and we apply the grammatical historical method of interpretation, this is a narratival book.

These are descriptions of the early church. Yes, of course, they're getting baptized into water as a ceremony, but how did the apostle

Paul understand this verse? He clearly tells us in Romans 10 what it means to confess Jesus as Lord or calling upon the name of the

Lord and you'll be saved. That is how you have your sins washed away, not just your past sins, but Jesus is a perfect Savior.

God sees the entirety of your life and all of your sin gets imputed back to Calvary, completely washed, removed as far as the east is from the west.

How? By calling on the name of Jesus. That's what the argument of the apostle

Paul is in Romans 10. You do that by faith, by believing in his name.

This isn't talking about the ceremony, an act of faith, an act meaning a work that you participate in.

That's not what forgives sin, but Ananias was being faithful to preach the gospel here to the apostle

Paul. He didn't know everything that happened on the road to Damascus. He's being faithful to God saying, look, I have a sovereign calling in the apostle

Paul's life. This is going to be okay. He preached the gospel here. He's being faithful to the Great Commission. And Dakota asked earlier, why would baptism be mentioned in the

Great Commission? It's because this is what sets us apart as disciples, followers of Jesus, is declaring to the world in works that we do that we identify with him visibly for everyone to see.

And so a big distinction in this debate is understanding the similarities and the dissimilarities of faith and works.

So we're going to be consistent. Faith is pistis in the Greek. This is inward and of the heart.

This is firm trust. You can look at it as semantic domain. Faith is always inward of the heart, trusting in the perfect savior.

That's essentially what Hebrews 11 one tells us, that faith is assurance of things hoped for.

Assurance is firm trust, conviction of things not seen. And so conviction is that inward desire that will manifest itself outwardly with a changed life.

And so the point is, faith is inward and works are everything outward that we do.

And so a lot of these verses can be understood within context. And so something else, like I said, we could go to,

I'm saving John three and Titus three, because we're going to spend more time on that. But I want to draw our attention to the parallel between Ephesians two and Colossians two, like Dakota brought up earlier, because I actually agree with him.

There is a strong parallel going on when we read for by grace, you are saved through faith.

This is not your own doing. It's a gift of God, not a result of works because you could boast about it.

And so the apostle Paul is clear there. And that whole context is in the context of regeneration. You've been brought to newness of life, and that's the powerful work of God.

And so in Colossians two, I do think this is about regeneration, but I don't think

Paul is actually invoking the ceremonial act of baptism with human hands.

And so in my remaining time here, I just want to look at the context of Colossians two. In him, in Christ, you also were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.

And so there's a correspondence there in verse 12 when he says, you've been buried with him in Christ in baptism.

This is an important word. This is baptizmos. This is a little bit different than baptizo. Baptizmos is hearkening back to that Jewish context of ceremonial washings.

What you have to understand, this is not like the book of Acts. This is a didactic book. So yes, there would have been believers that have already been baptized by ceremony.

And when they hear this word baptizmos, they would be understanding, okay, Paul is teaching us a theological reality, a spiritual truth of how we have been united together with Christ, and this is not a ceremony with hands.

He literally goes on to say that this is the powerful working of God. That's how we have all of our sins forgiven.

He says, you were dead in your sins and trespasses. In this uncircumcision of your flesh, God has made alive together with him, having forgiven us all of our trespasses.

Yes, there is a parallel between Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, but it is about regeneration, the powerful working of God.

It's not invoking the baptism made with hands. They would have already identified with that, and they're learning from the apostle

Paul theology, spiritual truth. And so this is going to be fun. I look forward to the rebuttal.

And like I said, this is really a battle of the ordo salutis, understanding the method of salvation.

So what Dakota is doing, he is collapsing regeneration with sanctification, because baptism is a work that we do.

We participate in, and that belongs in our sanctification. And so what I'm arguing for is baptismal sanctification, not baptismal regeneration.

Thanks so much. All right. Thank you, Jeremiah and Cody, for those openings. Now we're transitioning to our rebuttal rounds, and the rebuttals will be five minutes each.

And so Dakota, you're back in the seat, and you'll have five minutes for your rebuttal.

And let me get your time set up here. Make sure I get that right. All right.

You're ready to go. I'll start your time as soon as you begin to speak. My opponent's main argument is summarized as follows.

Scripture says that we are not saved by our works. Baptism is a work of man and therefore cannot mediate cleansing from sins.

I will now demonstrate why this argument does not hold water, pun intended. My opponent sets up a false and unbiblical dichotomy between baptismal regeneration and salvation by grace.

It is true that entrance into Christ is apart from any works of our own. The only way we can be initially saved is by the mercy and grace of God.

Yet every passage that deals with the meaning of baptism represents it as the means by which

God bestows his saving grace upon the sinner. Scripture never treats baptism as a work of man.

That's because baptism is not something we're doing, but something God is doing.

Baptism is what God does to us. The Baptist scholar George Beasley Murray writes, baptism is what it is through the operation of Christ by his spirit.

He gives the grace. He incorporates into the body. He makes a believer to become a new creation.

Its spiritual significance first and last is from the Lord. In Titus 3 .5,

Paul specifically contrasts human works with baptism. He saved us not because of works done by us, but by the washing of regeneration.

The washing of regeneration definitely refers to water baptism. The word for washing, lutron, which means washing or bath, is a noun form of the verb luo, which is used in Acts 22 .16

for baptism. The same washing is also used in Ephesians 5 .26

for the washing of water. According to Ferguson, the washing is not figurative.

The theological ideas of the passage are elsewhere associated with baptism, which is indicated here by washing.

And the Reformed scholar and pastor John Piper admits that 80 percent of commentaries say that washing of regeneration is baptism.

In Titus 3 .5, Paul uses the strong adversative conjunction

Allah, which means but, to indicate a strong contrast between the two categories listed.

He first gives the category of works done by us. He describes this as not how

God saves us. He then uses Allah, but, to strongly contrast that category with a different category that is how

God saves us, namely the washing of regeneration. Thus, Paul does not put the washing of regeneration on the left side as something that doesn't matter in salvation.

No, he puts the washing of regeneration on the other side as something that does matter in salvation.

The baptismal washing is distinguished from the category of human works in a pointedly disjunctive contrast, not on the basis of works, but by the washing of regeneration.

Thus, this passage teaches that the baptismal washing is not a human work, but is a matter of grace.

Furthermore, Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 are parallel texts that supplement one another and have to be read together for the total picture.

In these two passages, the subject is the same, namely how a spiritually dead sinner becomes a living

Christian. Ephesians 2 .8 uses the words through faith when it says by grace you have been saved through faith.

Colossians 2 .12 uses the same words through faith when it teaches that baptism is the means by which one is raised with Christ through faith.

Colossians 2 .12 also makes clear that baptism is done by the working of God.

Paul thus bars baptism from the category of human works and refers to it as a divine work, a work of God, a fact which emphasizes its essence as grace.

This parallels Ephesians 2 .8 -9 which says that salvation is not of human works.

Combining the thoughts of Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, it could not be made more plain that baptism is thus

God's work and not our own. As Martin Luther writes, yes it is true that our works are of no use for salvation.

Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's. The scriptural meaning of works clearly excludes baptism.

Thank you. Thank you,

Marlon. Well, I was starting to drown from all these proof texts that Dakota was throwing at me, but we're going to come up a little bit and get some air so we're not flooded from every angle.

So I was accused of a false dichotomy, and that's interesting because I believe that Dakota begged the question many times, especially in Colossians 2 .12.

Yeah, uses the word baptizmos. So can you please prove your case that that necessarily entails a baptism with human hands when the context is about the circumcision made without hands?

The whole point is the circumcision made without hands is the powerful working of God in regeneration.

So the Apostle Paul is explaining these Hebrew terms with the word baptizmos, meaning that there's a spiritual cleansing that is the working of God.

And so we haven't got into John chapter three yet, but this is hearkening back to the promise of the new covenant in Ezekiel 36, that God says,

I will do these things. You want to know how you're going to be born from above? God says, I will take out that heart of stone.

I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will cause you to walk in my statutes, and I will give you my spirit.

And so it's so easy for Dakota to say, well, baptism's not a work that we do when you don't define what the word ergon means.

He never defined any of his terms. It seems like just because the early church fathers say so, well,

I guess that's fact in his mind. And I believe that's a broken epistemology. We are to contend for the faith by going to the word of God.

The scripture is testing what other people's teachings are to see if they're true. And we fast to that which is good.

And so I do want to talk about Titus three, verse five, because it's very convenient when you don't define the word works and just say, well, it's not a work that we do.

It's what God does. Well, my whole question earlier was, is it only a work of God?

Because sanctification, which he didn't define that either, is synergistic. Yes, we are working and God is working.

I love Philippians one six. It says, he who began that work in you, which would be regeneration, he's going to complete that salvation to the day of redemption in Jesus Christ.

And so in Philippians two, 12 and 13, we are called to work out our salvation and fear and trembling, but verse 13, baby, that God is the one working in you and through you for his good pleasure.

So my question, once again, Dakota, is baptism only a work of God or is it also a work of man?

We're going to get into that a little bit. So Titus three, five, when you don't beg the question of what the word works or Ergon means, think about this.

God, our savior appeared. He saved us, the apostle Paul said, not because of Ergon done by us in righteousness.

Well, what does Ergon mean? It means action of any kind that is being displayed in deed or activity.

Well, that sounds a whole lot like the baptism that 12 .5 had this morning, by the way. He had to walk up to the baptistry.

He was able to give a beautiful testimony, and we got in there together. There was a lot of Ergon going on, on my part and on his.

And sure, there's a moment where he's passive and beautifully pictures the gospel where God saved us, but it's a ceremony.

It's something that we participate in. And so yeah, you're right. Titus three, five does talk about baptism, but that's not the act that we do that actually saves us.

He goes on to say, but we are saved, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of our baptism.

Oh, I'm sorry. No, it actually says of the Holy Spirit. This is a monergistic work of God, cleansing, regenerating our hearts, giving us the new birth.

And so Titus three, five is wonderful. And yeah, I remember that sermon that John Piper gave about 80 % of commentaries say that this is talking about baptismal regeneration with the early church.

You know what John Piper goes on to say? He disagrees with him. He disagrees with him because as he studies

God's word, he realizes that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the perfect Savior Christ alone, all to the glory of God alone.

I'm with Piper. Yes, I believe a lot of the early church Christians were being inconsistent.

Now, they weren't anathematizing sola fide, but they were wrestling with how are we saved by faith alone, and yet baptism seems very important.

I'm the first to say baptism is a work of the Spirit in sanctification. Baptism doesn't carry in those waters the regenerating work of the

Holy Spirit. That's what a dead sinner comes to new life by that regeneration, and now when he looks to the

Savior in faith alone, to the glory of God alone, now the person who is saved and justified, a child of God, now lives in sanctification to glorify

God with their life, and I believe that begins with their sanctifying work of baptism.

Thanks so much. All right, thank you as well. All right, guys, we are now moving into the cross -examination portion of this debate, and it will once again be a 40 -minute total, 20 minutes each to leave with questions, and so the only time

I will interrupt because I feel that the conversation is the debate is going off topic or if I hear ad hominins going back and forth.

Other than that, you won't hear much from me, and remember there may be a slight delay, so allow your opponent to ask the question before you respond, and if you can do so, please not interrupt in the middle of your opponent responding, all right?

Let's try to keep those things in mind. That said, Dakota, you're up first for your 20 -minute cross -examination of Jeremiah.

Can you name one prominent Christian writer before the Protestant Reformation who denies that baptism regenerates?

Well, in preparation for this debate, this is one of epistemologies.

You know, how do we get truth? What is biblical? I thought we were debating. I'm simply just asking you, can you name one prominent

Christian writer before 500 years ago who denies that baptism regenerates?

Well, I think we don't get those exact wordings. Like, we don't look at our modern vernacular and anachronistically demand that the early church say it the way that we want to, but what

I will say is when I look at the early church, I see a lot of inconsistencies. We see so many things that talk about how our justification is by faith and not by the things that we do, and yet I do think—

Okay, but can you name one Christian writer before the

Protestant Reformation? That's before 500 years ago, so you have 1 ,500 years of church history. Can you name one writer in the church who denies the doctrine of baptismal regeneration or that baptism has a saving significance?

Can I ask a clarifying question real fast? Yes, that's fine. If I could, does that mean that baptismal regeneration is false or true?

No, it's not. It doesn't have anything to do with that. I'm just simply asking, does your position have a historical basis prior to Zwingli?

Oh. Oh, yeah, that's a different question, though. Or just prior to the Reformation? Now, your question was, does my position have a historical basis, and I would say 100 % yes.

Okay, who believed that in the Orthodox Church—we're not referring to the

Gnostics—who in the Orthodox Church rejected the idea that water baptism regenerates the soul?

No, that's not how I would ground my position being historic. Now, I agree with you that the vast majority of the early church thought that regeneration was connected with baptism.

I'm saying that they were massively inconsistent because they also affirmed justification by faith.

Okay, but you're admitting that there's no one prior to the Protestant Reformation who denies the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that I'm advocating for?

As long as you admit that that doesn't ground the truth -bearing value of your position.

Okay, my next question is, do you believe that every important Christian leader in the early church arrived at the exact same error on the meaning of baptism?

I think they were not in unison, and they all had conflicting views, even the views themselves.

Like I said, I thought the debate was about what's biblical or what's true. Now you're asking—you're giving me a church issue.

I asked you on Messenger, I said, can I use historical evidence for my view?

And you said you—yes. So I'm going to do that. So do you believe that—and we'll get to Scripture, I'm just saying, but there's a context to Scripture.

There's a historical context to Scripture. So do you believe that the apostles' own disciples, that they were all led into error, the same error, on the meaning of baptism, and no one actually grasped what the apostles taught on baptism?

No, I think that's the wrong way of framing the question. What I would say is due to the fact that when

Jesus taught to his own disciples, and they didn't understand that he must suffer and die three days later after his death, the apostle

Paul teaching many wonderful doctrines to the church of Galatia and Corinth, they were understanding.

That's why he wrote to them. We would expect many inconsistencies with the early church, and the church gets sanctified over time.

That's why you see the doctrine of the Trinity being crystallized many years later, and the same thing is true with baptism.

So now let me go back to this. I want to get an answer to the question. Do you believe that every important Christian leader, whether it be a bishop or just any writer from what we have today, that they were all somehow led into the same error in regards to the meaning of water baptism?

When I look at early church history, I do not see a strong consistency on baptism, because a lot of them do see it in connection with regeneration, which many said, but regeneration could happen before that, so there are odds with one another.

I'm curious if you think if the early church is unanimous on something, if that necessarily means it's true. I don't think you would actually agree to that standard, but my position is that the early church, and I don't care if you say for 1 ,500 years,

I see massive inconsistencies, but I see the gospel being present because we're justified by faith apart from works.

Okay, so did the apostles accurately hand down the meaning of baptism to their disciples?

They did, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are— Okay, so then my question is, why did their disciples believe in baptismal regeneration?

If the apostles, if you just affirmed, the apostles accurately handed down the meaning of baptism to their disciples, why did their disciples believe in baptismal regeneration?

Probably because they wouldn't define the word works, like I can't wait to ask you here in a little bit. Okay, so what would scripture need to say to teach that baptism regenerates and saves?

The words that you just said. Baptism saves?

No. Because 1 Peter 3 says baptism saves you, but...

So what would scripture need to say?

Because that would be great if we get into the scripture. We're getting off what I'm trying to get to here. So what would scripture need to say?

What words would need to use to briefly get the point across that baptism saves you?

Well, you're just begging the question about regeneration is when you come in contact with the ceremony of baptism.

No, I'm asking what words would it need to use to say that water baptism saves you?

What do you mean by saves? Because that's a broad semantic domain of deliverance. Saves in the sense that—

No? Well, let me ask my clarifying question. Are you talking about regeneration, justification, sanctification, or glorification?

You said saves. In what context? I would say saves in any of it.

Just the whole picture in a broad sense. So you don't care about the distinctions that scripture itself makes? I would say all of the above that you just listed.

What would scripture need to say to teach that water baptism brings about salvation?

Okay, I'm just going to interpret that to me. What would scripture need to say that your ceremony of baptism to justify you, declare you right before God as though you have never sinned?

Is it we would need clear scripture saying the ceremony of you getting wet and that is not a work that you are doing that is somehow solely of God.

That is the thing. Obedience to that command, an outward act, then declares you right before God.

If you can give me that paragraph from scripture, I'll concede the debate. Okay, well,

I think that's interesting considering that it doesn't even say that about faith. But let's move on. In Mark 16, 16,

Mark 16, 16, Jesus says, he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Okay, so my question is, do faith and baptism both have as their purpose salvation?

Now, you did you quote the whole verse of Mark 16, 16? Or did you cherry pick it? I'll read the whole verse for you, even though you're not supposed to ask questions, he who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Thanks for that context. Now, what's your question about that verse? Do faith and baptism both have as their purpose salvation?

In different senses, absolutely, because salvation doesn't always mean the same thing. Okay, so does baptism save in the same way that faith saves in Mark 16, 16?

Absolutely not. Faith justifies us. Baptism is a sanctifying work that we participate in.

So it's the difference between justifying and sanctifying. So do sanctifying works save us? Do sanctifying works save us?

Because it says, he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

So do faith and baptism both save in relation to each other?

Good question. What this is referring to is baptism is indicative of those who believe, and this is on the way for a believer's glorification.

So justification and sanctification come before glorification, and I know this is about glorification because the next clause talks about what condemns us ultimately before God when we stand before the righteous judge.

Does that make sense? I'm saying faith is what justifies, and sanctification is indicative of our justification and what believers do, and this all precedes a believer's glorification.

So does baptism save in Mark 16, 16? If you mean sanctifies, that is wonderful, but it does not justify us before God like faith.

So how is faith saving in Mark 16, 16? Sure. It justifies us before God, and that takes place in a believer's life before glorification after this life.

So where exegetically are you getting this idea out of Mark 16, 16 that faith and baptism don't save in the same way when it simply says, he who believes and is baptized will be saved?

The second clause about what actually condemns a person, I reject the fact that that presupposes baptismal regeneration.

The second clause tells us what condemns a person, and what's identical to that is what saves a person in that same sense, which would be believing.

John 3 would tell us that whoever believes will not be condemned, and so you got to read the second clause and be consistent with that.

So in my opening, I never said that Mark 16 presupposes baptismal regeneration.

What I said was that the negative clause presupposes the presence of faith if you were to have baptism, but let's keep going.

Matthew 26, 28, Jesus says that his blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Do you agree that Jesus is saying his blood is shed so that sins will be forgiven?

Absolutely, but in the context of him giving the sacraments, and so I think that's really important because he's saying as you take of the wine and you take of the bread, this is for the forgiveness of sins, and so he's pointing forward to Calvary the next day.

Okay, so when Jesus says, this is my blood which is poured out for many for the remission of sins, is he saying that his blood is poured out so that sins will be forgiven?

Absolutely, but you have to remember the... Okay, so then my next question is, before Calvary, in Acts 2, 38,

Peter says, in Acts 2, 38, Peter says, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

The Greek construction is exactly the same as Jesus' statement in Matthew 26, 28.

So my question is, is Peter saying a person is baptized so that their sins will be forgiven?

Well, you totally missed the point of what Peter's doing. He's doing the same thing that Jesus did in the sense

Jesus is talking about, take this bread, take the wine, for the forgiveness of sin that's about to happen at Calvary.

So Jesus is pointing forward with these sacraments, and Peter at Pentecost is using the same construction to say, look, so what is the forgiveness of sins in Matthew 26, 28?

It's a reference to Calvary. Peter is pointing backwards. The atonement, right? The atonement. He's pointing back.

Yeah. Who's pointing back? Peter. Okay, so he's, yes,

Peter, agreed. Peter is saying, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

He's pointing back to the atonement, which brings about cleansing of sins, correct?

Yes, but he's pointing back to the one who provides forgiveness of sins. Just like Jesus and John the

Baptist were pointing forward, Peter is pointing back to the work that Jesus already accomplished. If, agreed, and if Matthew 26, 28 is saying that blood is shed in order to affect forgiveness of sins, then when

Peter says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, is he saying baptism affects forgiveness of sins?

Not in the way that you're meaning it. I would draw out of that immediate context. He's saying for the forgiveness of your sins, this unique act that that happened back at Calvary, when you repent, and the book of Acts bears this out, that's how you have your sins blotted out, and you are demonstrating that faith, pointing back to what

Jesus commanded us to do. So it's not this causal, you're participating in this action in order to be made right with God.

No, that's at the moment of faith, repentant, loving faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

So in 1 Peter 3, 21, Peter writes in the context of the flood that baptism saves you.

So why does Peter link baptism with the flood? I disagree that he links baptism with the flood, he links baptism with the ark.

Peter says that eight souls were saved through water, and this corresponds to baptism which now saves you, or as some translations say, and these waters correspond to baptism which now saves you.

So why would Peter see a type or prefigure in the flood event in connection with Christian baptism?

You're missing the anti -type that's going on, it's the ark that saved. We know that because the water literally judged the whole earth, and the eight souls were saved in spite of the water, and so the correspondence is the ark to a type of baptism that saves.

You're just assuming that that's the ceremonial bath that would remove dirt from the body, and Peter's like, don't get it confused, it's an appeal for a good conscience in the resurrection of Jesus.

That's the baptism that saves, that covers you from the judgment that is to come. So you're saying that baptism is not water baptism in 1

Peter 3, 21, is that correct? Peter is so clear that this is not true, this is literally not the removal of dirt from the body.

Karen Jobes in the Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament, 1 Peter writes, Peter further associates the

Christian gospel with Noah by using a typology between Noah's flood and Christian water baptism.

I. Howard Marshall in 1 Peter, the IVP New Testament commentary series writes, the water of the flood corresponds to the water of baptism.

And Thomas Schreiner in his commentary on 1 Peter says that the waters of the flood deluged the ancient world and were the agent of death.

Similarly, baptism, which was by immersion during the time of the New Testament, occurs when one is plunged under the water.

So what we can see is that New Testament scholars and top commentaries are saying that 1

Peter 3 is about water baptism. So my question is, does your—my question is, no,

I'm asking you, is in your opinion, are these New Testament scholars wrong, the top commentaries on 1

Peter? Yeah, can I find scholars that agree with my interpretation and then look at scholars that agree with your interpretation?

Yes, but this is talking about, is baptismal regeneration true? So you've got to look at context. It's interesting that you want to appeal to water that's judgment, that's judgment, and saying that it's actually salvific in this context.

I found that very hard to cash out there. Okay, so if 1 Peter 321 concerns water baptism, would this teach baptismal regeneration?

I don't think so, because the parallel to what happened in Noah's time is so against the idea that a ceremonial bath is actually what declares you right before God.

So, Mike, okay, so you're saying that it's not water baptism, it's a different kind of baptism, correct?

It's the baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the baptism.

My question is, it's a baptism that doesn't involve water, is that correct? Right, it's literally faith in Christ.

Okay, so doesn't your interpretation contradict the specific teaching of Ephesians 4 -5 that there is one

Lord, one faith, one baptism? Negative. Why not?

Because when you look at the context, this is a Trinitarian work of God, of unity in the church, and so what is the one baptism that fulfills all righteousness that we look back to that is the chief cornerstone of the church?

It's Jesus' baptism, where the Holy Spirit is seated on Him like a dove. Okay, so was the flood water the means by which

Noah's family was saved? No, the ark was the means. Okay, 1

Peter 320 says eight souls were saved through dea water. So the commentaries will say the flood waters was the means by which the ark was afloat, correct?

Can I ask a clarifying question? No. Okay, now my question is, if the salvation through—I say no because I'm running out of time—if the salvation through water, if the salvation through water in 1

Peter 320 concerns judgment and not salvation, would Peter be saying in verse 21 that baptism judges us?

The reason I ask this is because in both texts they use the same Greek word for saves, sozo.

1 Peter 320 says eight souls were saved, sozo, through water. Baptism saves you, sozo.

So if the water in verse 20 concerns judgment and not salvation, would

Peter be saying in verse 21 that baptism judges you or damns you? No.

Why not? Because, I think you're abusing the context, there is a baptism that saves us.

It's one where the Holy Spirit has regenerated us and given us faith in Jesus.

He's saying that that's the ark that's going to save us from the wrath of God, and that's what we see typified in the narrative of Noah.

Okay, so when Noah was saved, what was the water doing?

Judging people. What was it doing to the righteous? It wasn't judging them because they were saved by the ark.

And was the water a means by which the ark was afloat? So the ark was not floating on the water.

The water had nothing to do with the salvation of Noah from the former world. The air played no part in saving them.

The ark was the means of their salvation. All right, all right, thank you,

Dakota. All right, Jeremiah, you're up for your 20 -minute cross -ex of Dakota.

Dakota, thanks for being gracious with me, man. Hey, I'm all for having a back -and -forth dialogue, and I'll try not to interrupt.

You were really gracious with me, and so thank you. I want to try to define some words and see if we can have some common ground.

Would you see the word regeneration as kind of just appealing to the rebirth, right, someone's experience of a complete change of life?

Yes. Okay, hey, we agree. Somebody put a check mark for that.

Now, okay, I imagine we'll disagree a little bit here, but maybe we'll get some common ground. When we look at the word baptize or baptizo, do you agree that the semantic domain for that is pretty broad, but kind of the common connector is to be immersed?

Yes, it's usually the action of immersion or dipping. Okay, now

I want you to remember that word action, the action of immersion or dipping. I actually really like you saying that.

So do you also agree that baptizo is a ceremonial rite?

Usually not. That's not in the word. The Greek word doesn't mean a ceremony. The dip my finger in water.

That's baptizo. That's not a ceremony, but it's used that way throughout the Bible. Do you look at BDAG, the highest lexical source that we look at to adjudicate words?

So do you agree that BDAG defines baptizo as being a ceremonial rite in the setting of when someone is being immersed into water and coming back out?

It's a ceremonial rite. That's the context that the word is used in, but that's not the definition of the word itself.

Right, that's one of its many definitions. Context would determine which definition we would use, right?

Yeah, that's how words work. Yes, well, yeah, but we got to lay this foundation,

Dakota, because we're really about to probably clash where we see a little sparks again. Would you agree that baptism is an act of faith?

Maybe not for babies. I have a feeling that this is a loaded question when you say act, because you're going to tie that into it's a work.

So if I say yes, if I say no, then you're going to get me back on when I say it was an action.

If I say yes, you're going to say it's a work. But yes, I'll say yes, but in a specific way.

Yeah. Okay, we're going to get into that specific way. Are you familiar with the term ergon, or gods of mine?

Yeah, works. What does that mean? Well, it depends on the context that it's being used in.

It's used in a ton of different ways. So it depends if you look at, I think Romans is a good example.

Romans 2 starts out with human actions and the judgment, but then Romans 3, it gets into works of the law and goes on observing the

Torah. There's different way the word works is used. So yeah.

So what's the shared common denominator with all those, right?

Because when you're saying works of the law, that presupposes an understanding of works. So what would that be?

I would say everything that's shared with them in those contexts is that in those contexts, it's about the human work.

Really? Not every time. Not every time it's used, by the way, just in the ones

I mentioned. I agree with you. When it's qualified by God working, that's of a different kind, right?

Do you agree with the big definition of ergon and of mine?

That is that which displays itself in activity of any kind, deed, and action.

In a human context or just in any context? What do you mean by human context?

In a sense of a work that a human performs? So I would say yes, sure, sure.

Now when you say an act that a human performs, can you expound more upon that?

Because our English word energy is derived from the word ergon.

And so human energies, it's getting up and moving about and performing tasks, doing things, whether broad in its scope or very specific.

And so what do you mean by a human action? A work that a human performs with their own energy, in contrast to a work that's maybe divine like Colossians 2 .12

with a work of God. Okay, so you see my dilemma here.

Now I appreciate us, I mean, I've had these conversations with many people and they say, Jeremiah, I do not understand how anyone can get around the fact that we participate in our baptism.

If we participate at all, if it's an action, an act of faith, then clearly we are doing something.

Now I would argue not to the exclusion of God working. So how are you saying that we don't perform any action within our baptism?

All the action is done to us. Yes. Okay, now this is where I understand the case for paedo -baptism.

I actually agree, they're not doing any works, any ergon in order to be regenerated. It's not an act of faith, it's all being done to them.

So my question with you is only about adult conversions. But if they are getting into the baptistry as an act of faith, then how are you saying it's only a work of God, or are you saying it's a work of God and a work of man?

Well, because getting into the baptistry is not baptism. Really? That's not what I'm talking about.

Yeah. Really? So it's, then how is it an act of faith if you're not participating in some way?

The baptism or the entering the font? So you see the ceremony as not the the baptizer giving the context of what baptism signifies, and it's, you know, how we are made right with God.

You're saying the baptism is only the moment when the person is merely passive. And I'm saying if that's the only part of baptism that matters in your opinion, then how is it an act of faith like you said earlier?

Well, I'm not saying that's the only part that matters. There's many parts that matter in the ceremony, such as confession of faith, like Romans 10 says, you confess with your mouth,

Jesus Lord, and you will be saved. And that's certainly an act, but it's an act of faith.

And again, you have to define works by Scripture. When Scripture gives you a definition of works, you have to go by that.

And so, for example, Titus 3 .5, not by works, not by works, ergon, done by us, but by the washing of regeneration.

You even admitted in your rebuttal that Titus 3 .5 is about baptism. So that would even be you admitting that Titus 3 .5

is a baptismal text, not about works. Do you remember of how

I said Titus 3 .5 is about baptism? Go ahead.

Yes or no? No, I'm asking you. I think I do. Test your memory a little bit.

I'm asking you, do you remember what I said about how baptism is related to Titus 3 .5? Refresh my memory then.

I must have misunderstood. Yeah, I don't I don't mind too. Yeah, that's that's okay. So Titus 3 5

I said is Talking about baptism as as a deed that we do and it doesn't ground are being saved before God God saved us

It's a powerful working of God So I was saying the first part of Titus 3 5 not the latter part that you are

Interpreting. I'm trying to be which first part. Are you calling baptism in Titus 3 5? The the works that we've done in righteousness, so okay, so you're saying that the washing of regeneration

The baptism, okay. No, that's that was the whole point I'm saying it's it's a work that we do and it's a hard sell when you say it's an act of faith

We have to get up and go into the baptistry But then it's not a work that we do because it only counts at the moment that we're standing still

So would you say that getting up and walking to the baptistry is a type of human work?

It's maybe not in the the ceremony yet in your mind. But is that a type of work that we do? I don't know if I'd call it like a work in this in the biblical sense

I call the work in the contemporary English sense of and moving my fingers a lot in our

English Western and our Western Minds anything you do is essentially a work with effort but in the biblical sense

The washing of regeneration which is baptism is barred from works done by us

And so you have to submit to the authority of Scripture. You can't just appeal to Right, yeah, let's go ahead well, so you're saying that the the fact that you get up and you're doing an act of faith is not displaying an

Activity of any kind or action, of course baptism displays something but it's not displaying us

The point is to display the gospel Which is all the working of God I think we differ on what the gospel is, but you're right.

We definitely differ on that. So something else I want to get your thoughts on is what are the differences between faith and works?

well, I would Faith is completely something from the heart and is something done

In inwardly I would say it's inward. It's not an external thing. Faith is not external.

It's awesome And works are something that are usually something that are external and external.

Yes Man, now that does not mean Now to clarify though, that does not mean that an external thing

Cannot bring about grace like a sacrament Hmm. Yeah, cuz great would you say that grace and works were mutually exclusive?

No, not in the sense of well again, it's can I know it's confusing. It's 11

I want to explain. I know it's confusing. It's a matter of consistency No in the sense of it depends what you mean by which works

There's like 10 different meanings in Scripture in the New Testament for works. So when you really just saying works

When you keep just saying works It would be helpful if you clarify what you're talking about precisely

Yeah human were I mean There's really two kinds of works because when you get into the works of law or works of something else

It's presupposing the fundamental definition of action of any kind that you display that's human works works of God are

Categorically different because he is sustaining the universe by the word of his power He's working out all things together after counsel of his will so I have a question now

Is our baptism honoring to God? Well, it's certainly not dishonoring.

It's certainly not But I know Say if it's honoring God, then you're gonna say if it's honoring to God, how can you please

God in the flesh? No, but that's coming. Okay. I wish

I thought it was a good guess. I thought it was a good guess It was a good guess. I'll give you props for that. So if it's if our baptism is honoring to God Then of course, it's acceptable to him.

So here's a big question. Is our baptism a characteristic of upright behavior?

That's therefore pleasing to God. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Okay, now you said our baptism is honoring pleasing to God we agree that baptism is both the baptizer baptizee that whole ceremony is

Pleasing to him and so I'm asking that if our act of faith we disagree of what act means there in this context

I'm asking if that whole ceremony our Participation in baptism, is that a characteristic of upright behavior on our part that is pleasing to God?

Yes, but that's not why God saves you in baptism He doesn't save you because because you're doing some pleasing he saves you in baptism because that's the means by which you are saved

It has nothing just like I could say is baptism a command. Well, it's an imperative given by Jesus You must be baptized, but that's not why baptism saves you it that's not why it justifies or regenerates is because you fulfilled the command

It's because of what baptism itself does so in that sense Yes, baptism is honoring and pleasing but that's not why baptism actually has a saving efficacy

It has nothing to do with you earning it Let me interject because you're not gonna like my response but all all

I heard was yes, because I'm gonna let you give a little bit of the explanation again because I was asking smuggled in there the definition for Righteousness the quality or characteristic of upright behavior uprightness

Righteousness and you're saying yes baptism is indicative of uprightness

And I'm saying at this point and I'm gonna form it into a question. So just hang on tightly I think that when when you said yes there that fundamentally undoes your interpretation of Titus 3 5 because it's not

Because of our works done in righteousness, but a totally separate category

That's a monergistic work of the Holy Spirit regenerate. So I'm gonna give you a chance to rebut that.

I'm gonna move on It's my next question Well, my point was with Titus 3 5 he says not because of works done by us in righteousness

Now even if baptism were a work done in righteousness, which is not but even if it were

That doesn't change my argument because he would be saying you didn't get saved by a work done in righteousness so it doesn't change the fact that he could still somehow use a

Good thing you do in an instrumental sense, but even so that's not what I'm arguing So I'm simply saying that there's a clear contrast not by works washing regeneration if baptisms washing regeneration is all

Christians believe before the Reformation Okay, I thought I had Trying to trying to trying to control my time and we hear you

It's not an action that you do that saves you but I understand you need some action to get into the baptism

So my question is in John 3 we didn't spend a whole lot of time of this In all those verses coming at me trying to drown me.

I'm just trying to stay above air here So John 3 my question is why did Jesus say to Nicodemus?

Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

What was he getting it? I would say because in the Old Testament we see prophecies about regeneration and they are associated with water and Historically these prophecies the famous example being

Ezekiel 36 These prophecies are forerunners of Christian baptism

Mm -hmm. And so when so we obviously born again Go ahead.

I'll let you finish the thought When he says you must be born again of water in the spirit he's going back to the

Jewish understanding that a washing in water is associated with a Regenerate regeneration in the heart.

I Actually liked your answer though because I would have in mind Ezekiel 36.

Also now I Look at Circumcision differently than you

I think this is expressing Israel's need of regeneration which God does But it's grounded in the new covenant the covenant of grace

But I do think you're right that Nicodemus is being challenged that he should already know about these realities

But my next follow -up question is what did Jesus mean when he said to Nicodemus the wind blows where it wishes?

Means that regeneration is something that happens inside of a person. Hmm. That's what he's

Ultimately getting at I should say because you can't see wind but you but you know, it's working

So you can't see wind but you can control wind Right, I can control wind

I can't control the weather if I would have I would have stopped the storm that almost made the power go out for this debate Dakota I'm glad you said that because the whole point is you can't control the wind you can only see the effects of it now

Is it not true that your position of baptismal regeneration says actually you can control the exact moment

Somebody is regenerated because you can actually dump these baptismal regenerating waters on to somebody and have very much strong control of the situation

No, because what I'm saying is the regeneration is not something that a human does the means by which the regeneration is

Attained is something that involves the human Going into the water to be immersed in the water

But that's only the instrument or the means by which God brings about the work of the

Holy Spirit So, of course, it's the work of the Spirit it being born of the Spirit, but that happens in and through the water.

Okay? Appreciate the answer. I wanted down on time appreciate that response I wasn't convinced of it, but that's no surprise.

So give me a quick response if you can't hear what happens to a person's sin at their baptism

It's washed away. What happens? Okay, it gets washed away. Is it just the past in essentially I Hold to the position that it's only your former sins are washed away in baptism.

That's fine. I'm just curious. So in Romans 10 where Paul talks about if you confess

Jesus as Lord essentially whoever calls upon name Lord will be saved Do you believe that begins at a person's baptism

I heard you reference acts 22 16 So when someone calls upon the name of the Lord, does that begin at their baptism?

Yeah, Romans 10 is a baptismal text that's why Everett Ferguson said says that Baptism, I got a minute.

I got a minute. I got a strong follow -up question So you said that this is when a person first calls upon the name of the

Lord But with the Apostle Paul who wrote Romans and also, you know, he speaks in Acts 22

Is it not true that he first calls upon the name the Lord when he says, who are you

Lord? and he says I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you're persecuting which he's the resurrected Lord and when he then confesses and Proclaims the

Shekinah glory of God and says what must I do Lord? Is this not when he first calls upon the name the

Lord way before his baptism? So the word the Greek word that which translates

Lord was usually used in a sense of sir It's a polite way of saying sir or something like that.

He actually didn't know who Jesus was So when he says Lord, he's not saying you are the

Messiah So he didn't say I'm Jesus of Nazareth whom you're persecuting. He didn't know who he was looking at Yeah, and it says it says in the text read it.

It says it says Paul did not know He says who are you? You don't call Jesus Lord if you don't know who he tells him

He tells him and then says what must I do Lord? All right, all right that concludes the cross -sex appreciate you guys

Interacting very solid cross -sex and I liked it. I liked it a lot and the audience like They got a little spicy

Yeah, it's all good, man. You got the passion it you guys believe what you believe man. It's all good All right, so we're gonna transition to our closing remarks, which is five minutes audience.

Make sure you get your questions in So we have a very solid a real solid Q &A after the closing remarks and that said

Dakota you're up for your closing remarks, man, and I Will start your time your five -minute closing and I'll start your time as soon as you begin to speak one scholar has said we must be very skeptical of any system that Forces us to go against the natural and obvious meanings of any large number of texts

Especially on the same subject such as baptism We must question the validity of any system that requires us to interpret such texts in a consistently

Unnatural or strained manner or in a way that causes them to say something not actually found in the text themselves now everything that this scholar warns us not to do is

Precisely what my opponent has done tonight in order to defend the theological novelty of a dehydrated salvation there's a reason why the doctrine of baptismal regeneration has always been and Continues to be the most widely accepted view of the meaning of Christian baptism in Christendom That is because it's what the

New Testament teaches The Baptist scholar George Beasley Murray writes in his study of baptism in the

New Testament quote in the light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament Representations of baptism the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic right must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the

New Testament Admittedly such a judgment runs counter to the popular tradition of the denomination to which the writer belongs unquote in Mark 16 16

Jesus says he who believes and is baptized will be saved The only natural interpretation of Jesus words is that a believer must be baptized in order to receive salvation

Now in my opponent's position the verse should read he who believes and is saved will be baptized

But the verse clearly has baptism preceding salvation in 1st

Peter 321 Peter writes in the context of the flood Baptism saves you.

This is the most straightforward and unequivocal statement in the New Testament concerning the relation between baptism and salvation

My opponent claims that this verse is not a reference to water baptism But it clearly is water is prominent in the context of 1st

Peter 321 The fact that this baptism involves water is what links it with the flood in Acts 2 38

Peter says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins The only honest reading of Peter's words is that baptism is for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness in whatever way repentance is connected with forgiveness, so also is baptism if Repentance is for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness.

So also is baptism in Acts 2216 Saul is told be baptized and wash away your sins

The washing away of sins is unequivocally connected to the imperative of baptism

The New Testament could not be more clear that baptism is the instrumental cause of justifying grace

However, my opponent explains away every one of these clear and unambiguous passages including the ones mentioned in my opening

Yet anyone who honestly reads them without Isagetically back reading a prior theological system into the text will conclude that baptism saves

This is the New Testament's own view The content of the texts themselves cannot be construed in any other way

Scripture clearly connects the sinner's reception of salvation with his meeting of certain basic conditions one of those conditions being baptism in water what the book of Acts expresses as forgiveness of sins and John and first Peter Express as regeneration in Paul's epistles is the end of the old and beginning of the new life

Contrary to the modern evangelical understanding that faith affects this new life and baptism is a subsequent human work

Scripture clearly says it is God who does everything in baptism and a person nothing

The new life that God gives to faith begins at baptism The Christians existence as a

Christian does not occur without baptism as The Nicene Creed states we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that closing

All right, Jeremiah, you're up for your five -minute closing and I'll start your time soon. She'd be in a speak Well, I've enjoyed this

Dakota. Thank you so much for having this interaction and I appreciated the back -and -forth even though I'm Dehydrating the text but it's because I'm drowning

I don't know how I could be dehydrated when there's so I'm being flooded with so many different proof texts, but I'm kidding

I do want to go back to well, you said a number of things there. I just want to remind the people Yes, I think we should study church history diligently

And yes, if there's a shift in church history Then we should examine their arguments according to Scripture because Scripture is the sole infallible rule of our faith in Practice and so we should be noble Bereans when we study the early church fathers

We should do that, but they're not the final say -so I mean I couldn't you know, if I asked him enough questions about the early church fathers

It's no longer a debate about Dakota, but I get how you want to appeal to our historic faith

But then the day God gets to give us truth. The whole debate this evening is is baptismal regeneration biblical or is it true and so our epistemologies must be grounded in a

Revelation from God and so exegesis wins at the end the day Context is always

King and we must define terms. You notice how when I was asking Dakota to define the word

Ergon He said it it's activity of any kind that that we are doing right?

And so when he says that clearly baptism a person does nothing well, then you contradict yourself earlier when you say that baptism is an act of Faith and it is an act of faith

It is a work that we're doing to glorify God and we're demonstrating it to the world now One of the last things that we just barely touched towards the end of my cross -examination part

He said that the Apostle Paul was asking the question Who are you Lord? And so his point was he couldn't be calling upon the name of the

Lord as Jesus because he didn't know who it was I want us to read this because I got him to admit earlier that Calling upon the name of the

Lord begins at baptism The problem with this is that wasn't the case for the Apostle Paul And so we go to Acts 22 starting in verse 8 the

Apostle Paul He sees the Shekinah glory of God beaming in front of him And he does ask the question like Dakota was pointing out.

Who are you Lord? Of course, he doesn't know who that is other than Yahweh himself in Jesus said to me

Paul says or Saul Tarsus I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting

Okay, Dakota notice. He has a fully informed conscience now of who he's looking at It's the resurrected

Jesus and then he says in verse 10. What shall I do Lord? He's not talking about a mere sir.

He's invoking the name curious the divine Lord He called upon the name of the Lord. I heard in his closing statement

He was he did what everyone does that pusses baptismal regeneration They partially quote acts 22 16 and an

ISA speaking and says rise and be baptized and wash away your sins That's it.

And I'm like, wait, wait, he says calling upon his name And so we have to understand calling upon the name of the

Lord Begins at a transformed heart looking to the perfect Savior Jesus the

Apostle Paul already did that earlier And so yes, I believe baptism Includes what comes from your mouth and your prayer that's calling upon the name of the

Lord Especially if your prayers are being addressed to him and I believe baptism is also calling them up upon the name of the

Lord in What you're doing, but the Apostle Paul that began earlier on the road to Damascus And so that's an internal defeater for Dakota's position

The Apostle Paul totally know who Jesus was and said what must I do?

Lord mark 16 16 Even though that it doesn't appear in our earliest manuscripts

Dakota failed to understand my argument there that when a person believes they're justified their sanctification their baptism them reading the

Bible going to church All that is in our sanctification and is indicative of those who believe and they will be safe They will be glorified when we see our

Lord face to face It's the one who does not believe when we stand before the just judge of all the earth

We will be condemned and so go back and listen to our argument about first Peter 3 21

Baptism is judgment. It's the ark that saved that's the antitype There is a baptism that saves but it's faith in Jesus revering him in our heart

Honoring the Lord Jesus in our heart and giving a defense for these things and so I just want to thank you so much again

Marlon for having both of us on and Dakota for I'm having a Good dialogue back and forth about an important doctrine

I'm looking forward to the Questions from the audience. Thanks so much All right.

Thank you both for an exciting debate very well done to both of you and we are going to jump into the

The Q &A here. Once again, it's to be a 20 -minute Q &A both you guys to get one minute each to interact with the question

So let's try to stick to the one -minute rule as best as you can so we can get as many questions in as possible

All right, that's it. We're gonna go with the first question here And it should be popping up here soon.

It's coming from warmer grew I'll fall as well on your side Warren. All right, so it's question for both is the individual actually being

Regenerated or given your anthropology. Are they simply being? generated

Jeremiah Um, I I don't know

So so given my anthropology and they give myself a minute yes, I disagree with Warren forgive me man

But I believe we're dead in our sins and trespasses. So we do live this life.

We're like zombies So we are in opposition to our Creator. We're at enmity with him. And so I believe truly we must be

Regenerated that the Holy Spirit truly must bring us to new life so we can do what's honoring and pleasing to him

And so there's so I mean, I'm reformed. It's no surprise So when I say we're dead in our sins and trespasses

I believe man is unable to respond positively to God in a way that's pleasing to him

And so I do believe it's my position that says yes, we need a recreation We need to be a new creation in Christ To please him and we can only do that by the

Holy Spirit working in and through our heart and our wills All right

Dakota, well, I'm not sure what it has to do with the meaning of baptism but to answer the question,

I would say that Regeneration is Actually similar what Jeremiah says in some of it, which is yes

It is a it's a new birth But it is taking on a new nature that you didn't have before you're being born or begotten of God so you have a nature that you take on that you didn't have before a recreation of the soul and it's in a state that is completely purified and Cleansed but that's not the topic of the debate

All right, all right and here's a question for for Jeremiah here

Can a person be justified without being saved and vice versa So good question think

Oh philosopher he's a fan of the apologetic dog, so I Appreciate that. So what

I would say is You have to define the word save now like Dakota said in the debate you have to look at context save simply means

Delivered and so in what context are we being delivered? Are we being delivered from the penalty of sin?

I would say that's always in the context of our Justification are we being delivered from the presence of sin?

While it still reigns in power. Well, that's our sanctification sin still exists in our flesh and in the world against the enemy

And so sanctification is warring against the power of sin and then we can be saved one day glorified delivered from the presence of sin and so I Think oh,

I would just say it depends what you're meaning by saved It could be justified or when it says you must work out your salvation and fear and trembling

Well, that's in the context of sanctification All right Dakota Well This question wouldn't have been asked prior to 500 years ago because prior to 500 years ago there was no such thing as a distinction between regeneration sanctification and justification the church historically has believed that they're

Three different words describing the exact same thing the being made righteous and first Corinthians 611

Which is a baptismal text says says that you were washed you were sanctified you were justified and Those are in the heiress tense referring to a singular occurrence because they're describing a simultaneous

Sanctification justification and washing that happens when you're baptized. So there's no

Gap in time. They're really all just the same thing to happen in the same moment All right, and we have a super chat here.

Thank you for the super chat orange I'm gonna just go orange. Okie seven or junkies or joke.

Am I saying that right orange? Okie, so appreciate the support appreciate it question for Jeremiah It's being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like in Acts 19 5 a work or gone

Of the law that Paul mentions in Romans chapter 3 verse 27 through 28

In my minute, I do want to kind of just touch on something that Dakota said far as first Corinthians 6 11

I believe washed there is The regeneration of the Holy Spirit the verse goes on to qualify that so it is an instantaneous thing

We're you're being set apart positionally before God. So that's something I don't want him to get away with but with Okie Are we allowed to like respond to question or to respond to each other?

I don't think we're allowed to do that. I Thought I had a minute. Yeah, when we go to the next question, it's over for that question

Yeah, let's try to let's try to make sure we're sticking with the question here Back and forth this could be supposed to be done.

Right? So let's try to make sure we're we're dealing with the question here Okay So I got 30 seconds left being baptized in the name of Jesus This is being in Obedience to what

Christ Authority and command the Great Commission is so of course This is Ergon, but this is not a part of the

Mosaic Code and so Okie Orange, I'm pretty sure he is Church of Christ.

So They don't understand in my opinion. They're not understanding that the works the law sure are in effect

But Ergon still applies by the the meaning when we look at if Romans 4 4 & 5 and Ephesians 2 8 9 & 10

Yes baptisms in the name of Jesus being obedient to what he calls us is in terms of our

Sanctification so it is a work Definitionally. All right,

Dakota Well when you read the passage Romans 3 he says a

Man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law or is he the God of the Jews only?

So it's clear that whatever the works of the law is it's something restricted to the Jews only Well, that's clearly the

Mosaic law the Torah So works of the law means observing the law and in the same book in Romans chapter 6

Paul says that when you were baptized into Christ Jesus You were baptized into his death and you were buried with him through baptism into death

So baptism is the time when you are Encountering Jesus you were actually receiving the benefits of his death

So when you take the whole book and look at it all, of course baptism is not a work of the law All right, all right

And here's a question. We'll let Dakota handle this one first here. Does it have a person named to it?

It says what historical sources are not consistent How do you choose which one those sources is the correct one?

Which one of those sources is the correct one? How many hours we got

I'm just getting so in the topic of baptism this is not relevant to me because the early church is 100 % unanimous that baptism regenerates and saves you so this is relevant to other topics, but not baptismal regeneration from the earliest of earliest

They are very clear. There's a unanimous testimony in the early church, and I'm sure Jeremiah would agree with this

Baptism when you're washed your spirit is cleansed You become a new creation in the water of baptism by the working of God.

So so But I would say yeah you in other topics you would have to think very critically, but I guess it's not relevant here

All right, Jeremiah Yeah, it's actually very relevant here because you notice his ultimate authority is not the

Word of God he needs to appeal to historical sources and it's interesting because The the early church were unanimous on other things like the the sin of usury

Any form of debt is sin and so there ain't no way that Dakota lives that way here in Western society

Unless you're gonna be inconsistent and break your standard that if it something is universally held in the early church

Then it must be fact But at the end the day we're called to be noble greens and search these things out in Scripture So when there are historical documents saying that Romans is clearly only talking about works of law

I'm able to come back and say but but look at Romans 4 because Abraham was not justified by the works of circumcision or any works at all and our

Justification is the same way of Abraham because it was by faith apart from his works

So we have another question here and This question is for you Jeremiah What's your view on baptism?

I eat. What is the purpose of baptism? Do you believe is just a symbolic act or a public profession of faith for the believer or more?

That's actually a really good question because I noticed Dakota earlier said that My view or the evangelical view is purely a symbolic, right?

I don't believe that maybe there are some people that I wasn't saying you review. Let's not let's not interrupt

Dakota Jeremiah You got your minute man. Go for it. That's that's okay. I I'm flexible with this kind of stuff.

So it's all good though But I believe baptism is definitionally a work and so to me that's uncontestable

But it's a form of our Sanctification therefore it's not a mere

Symbol because the Holy Spirit is what fuels our sanctification I believe it's a sacrament as long as we're correctly understanding what means of grace are it's a sanctifying means of grace so Baptism I think is a declaration of the picture of the gospel

I work that God has already began in our life, and I believe baptism is a public affirmation of us being disciples of Jesus All right,

Dakota, well, I guess he could be asking what's my view on baptism

I would say baptism regenerates and I was not saying that Jeremiah's view was that baptism is only a symbol.

I was reading from George Beasley Murray's work baptism in the New Testament and he was saying that the common view in the

Baptist denomination is that baptism is only a symbol So that's all

I have to say for that one All right We have another question here this question for you

Dakota Were Old Testament believers like Abraham saved by works or by faith

Romans chapter 4 to 6 verse 6 and 16 in the

Old Testament people were saved by faith and works just like New Testament believers are saved by faith and works

James chapter 2 says a man is justified by works and not by faith only

So it's not either or it's both So well, I could get a whole thing here

But you enter into the faith of Christ not by your works when you're baptized and you live out that faith by your works so that you will be

Vindicated on Judgment Day. So it's faith and works for new and old covenant But again, that's not relevant to the topic of baptism at all.

So I don't I don't know what to say All right, Jeremiah Yeah, no, this is good because Clearly what

Dakota said is we are made right before God by faith and works now He's doing a bait -and -switch by saying baptism is not a work that we do

But it clearly is defined by Scripture or God's of my it's an act of faith by his own admission and so Romans 4 is the death knell to his position because Abraham was justified by faith and Paul goes on to say not by his circumcision not by him leaving the land of err

It's by his faith faith and works are not the same thing And so Romans 4 is the magnum opus of saying we whether you're

Jew or Gentile We are justified before God by faith not by our works and so he's abusing

James chapter 2 because that's talking about a mere said faith a mere said faith is a dead faith and is

Useless, but someone that has a regenerated heart that has a living trust in Christ that will always produce sanctifying works before glorification

All right Let me see what else we got here we got a super Jeff Americ Merrick Young female man.

She married. Thank you for the support, buddy. Appreciate it This question doesn't have a name to it, but both you guys end up tackling anyway

How does pedo -baptism affect this debate? Proposition and a truce relating to it

Jeremiah you want to tackle this one first Yeah, I don't think this is a huge issue because what matters the most to me is adult conversions in terms of baptismal regeneration because something to my

Presbyterian brothers is When they look at pedo -baptism

The the works that are involved or and baptism is being done to the infant So they're not bringing their own works to the table and it's being done to them

And so I just think they're applying the New Covenant sign wrongly to infants. I think it should be people that are

Doing an act of faith and want to identify with Christ in The Great Commission fulfilling it and so that's why my questions for Dakota were geared for adult

Baptism are they doing an act of faith in order to receive and control the regenerating work of the

Spirit? So I don't think infant baptisms are germane necessarily to this topic All right

Dakota. I Like what Jeremiah said earlier in the bait, which was that an infant is not in control of their baptism at all.

So It's a very good point that I will use from now on but The age of baptism really doesn't have any relevance to the meaning of baptism, but I would say that's why we've stuck to the topic of adult conversion baptisms, but I would say that yeah, the age doesn't affect what baptism is and does and I'll leave it there

All right, and here's another super chat from Merrick appreciate you again buddy for support more of a he's quoting

Just just a quote here. But nonetheless, I would like for you guys to interact with it But if it is by grace, it is no longer on a basis of works.

Otherwise grace will no longer be grace What are your thoughts on that Dakota? Well, it's definitely not about baptism so I'm not sure how it's relevant to this debate, but I would say that I agree with that statement 100 % from Paul that Baptism is not a work.

It's Grace like he says you're saved by grace through faith Colossians 2 12 the parallel text says it's about baptism

Baptism is the instrumental cause of saving grace. That's the historic understanding of the church so And again, that's coming from a book of Romans which in the same book

Paul says that when you receive the benefits of Christ's death It's when you're buried with him through baptism

Romans chapter 6 go read it. It's a really beautiful passage It says that when you when you are baptized into Christ, you were baptized into his death

Meaning you receive the benefits of his death So take the whole book in its totality and then you have the complete picture

I'll leave it there All right, we have about three minutes left guys. So Jeremiah what you got?

Yeah Yeah So he's just begging the question in Colossians 2 12 because the whole thing is the circumcision made without hands and so if this is also a type of Baptiste moss, which is a

Hebrew term would also be in this context without human hands. It's the powerful working of God So, of course, this is the regenerating work of the

Spirit It's not talking about human ceremonies that we literally do with our hands and try not to drop people into the baptistry

So America's quoting a good verse because if it's by grace, it's not it works.

Well, you heard Dakota We don't get a good definition of Ergon because when we're consistent if it's anything any action of any kind that we display

Well, that's baptism. That's something that we do And so if it's it's in the book of Romans because it's connected to Abraham Abraham was justified by his faith and not by a circumcision offer it up his son

Isaac at Mount Moriah It's by faith and that like Dakota said that's of the heart that's internal not the things that we externally do

All right, all right, and we have a question here probably get a couple more questions in here

Oh Question from Adam. Thank you for the question Adam fresh question for the other guy.

I'm assuming that he's talking about Dakota And Ephesians chapter 1 verse 4 is the father choosing individual son read

Individual son redeeming 7 through 12 the holy the holy sealing those

Christ paid for do you affirm this? This is a highly loaded question, but I would just say

I affirm In a broad sense. Yes I don't know what he's getting at here and I don't know what this have to do with baptism again most of these haven't been about baptism, but I'll just say sure

All right, Jeremiah Yeah Yeah, the question may be sitting to my left

Of this but I would say there's there ain't no way Dakota can even affirm this in a broad sense because when it says the sealing of the

Holy Spirit He has to necessarily mean that in the mode ceremony of baptism

But the context of Ephesians 1 is before the foundation of the world Which Dakota's position is

Baptism is synergistic meaning that we have to participate in this and so there is a working on our behalf synergistically in order to receive regeneration of the

Spirit which I think Totally contradicts John chapter 3 because the whole point of someone being born again born from above Is similar to the wind where we can't control it.

We can't Understand all the inner workings of where it's at But we can see its effects and so ultimately this does relate to our debate because Dakota believes that we can be sealed by the

Holy Spirit regenerated at baptism and we can control those waters All right.

So this would be the final question of the evening here and this is coming from Logan Dickey Thank you for the question.

This is for Jeremiah and baptism must be a work according to your standard How is the preaching of the gospel and faith itself not also a material

Meritorious work according to the same logic, you know,

I appreciate these kind of questions because preaching the gospel is a work But it's someone who's already justified.

So yeah, it's part of our sanctification to go out and fulfill the Great Commission Now there's something else in this questions kind of hard to see it on my end

But I don't believe faith is a work because like Dakota said faith is an inward heart category now works are

External. So yes, I do believe preaching the gospel is a work that a justified believer does in his sanctification

I believe reading the scripture is a sanctifying work that we participate in like our baptism

And so that's why I began my opening statement with an order of salutis the the order of salvation if we understand the differences between regeneration

Justification sanctification and glorification Then we can easily see all the things that we do that are works commands that we must obey those belong in our sanctification

We don't shoehorn that back into regeneration, which is a monergistic work of the Spirit All right,

Dakota Now this is where Jeremiah's whole argument falls apart because he just admitted faith is not a work

But then he goes on and he talks about how preaching the gospel is a work and doing all those other things at work

But Paul says faith is a work if you read fast 1st Thessalonians 1 3 says remembering without ceasing your

Aragon work of faith So if he will call faith a work, but then

Jeremiah says that's not a work Then what about baptism which is never called a work in Scripture?

What would Scripture need to say to teach that baptism is not a work? There's nothing that it could say it's an it's indefensible

What would it need to say faith is called a work by Jesus and Paul in the Bible Baptism is never called a work.

It's explicitly Contrasted with works in Titus 3 5 he saved us not by works.

We did but by the washing of regeneration Which is baptism. So what?

Well, I'm running out of time. So I'll leave it there All right. All right All right, guys fantastic debate

Cross six Q &A the whole nine fantastic job guys. You guys are great. Appreciate you guys this passionate decorum

I got a little hot in the in the cross X room But the room simmered down once we got to closing a

Q &A so good stuff guys. I appreciate you guys, man You guys I'm gonna let you guys go man. You guys have any closing word before I let you guys go.

I Just want to thank you for this opportunity Dakota you are a gentleman. Thank you for this discussion

Hopefully we can be friends and can continue to sharpen one another I want to be an ongoing student of church history to your delight probably so I look at this as just another way to Sharpen one another contend for the gospel as we understand it and Marlon always a pleasure to be on the gospel truth

Dakota Well, I would say that I'm very thankful I was here that Marlon you host and moderate this debate

I thank you Jeremiah for spending this time with me tonight, and I will say this Read the

Bible exegetically and never Import something into the text that's just not there.

The other thing I would say is Read Everett Ferguson's book baptism in the early church

That is a work of art Baptism in the early church by Everett Ferguson that's one of the greatest books ever written on early

Christianity, and I think that his book completely just Demolishes my opponent's position tonight out of brotherly

Christian love Alright guys Just good job guys.

I appreciate you guys man. Hopefully we could do this again sometime Maybe not you two together, but I would love to get y 'all back on different debate different topic perhaps

You guys take care and I'll be seeing you soon. God bless. All right. God bless.

See you later All right, folks another great debate the books as I always say and What do you guys think out there think it was good?

Hopefully guys think it was good. I thought it was good. I thought it was very informative It brought to light a lot of different things and I pray that you guys take away from this debate

I pray that you guys understand something Is that a lot of times, you know, we have these disagreements right we have these disagreements that we are passionately

Defend right we even go so far as to say that position is heretical or Or or whatever right?

Is there some positions out there that could be so demonstrably wrong. You have no choice But to call it heretical but even in that we're able to disagree in a way

That's that's appealing we're able to disagree in a way that encourages dialogue

And that's that's what this platforms all about, right? obviously what we do here is centered around a gospel and Using debate in a matter of getting the gospel out preaching the gospel telling people about the love of Christ Encouraging them to repent of their sins

That is the foundational aspect of this platform, but of course in that We can have conversations with those who we disagree with and be able to do it in a manner

That's glorifying to God that he will receive praise from the way that we interact

Right and so that Christ That the person who's debating

Christ will be seen in that individual, right? And so that's why it's important that we have these type of debates

That's important of how you carry yourself in debates and your tone is extremely important, right?

And so Thank you guys out there for all you could to support Thank you for everyone out there.

My moderators my mind. See you slam. I see you Merrick I am I even saw Jeremy up in here

Jeremy I'm not sure if you're still here, but I even seen you up in here and I appreciate all of those who are members of the gospel truth

I appreciate everyone who has been an avid supporter of the gospel truth

So and I pray that uh, you'll be able to join us next time On a gospel truth because next time we will be having

A turret and fan and dr. Kurt Jarrus On and they will be talking about is provisionism

Maybe some of you are not aware of that what provisionism is A provision of this relatively new theological position considering the whole scope of church history.

It's a relatively new position um, and uh, we're they're going to be debating, uh, is it semi -pelagianism right semi -pelagianism, right so Um, there are there are some things that's going to be discussed there and I am looking forward to that debate

I really am that is a first -time topic on the gospel truth, and I am looking forward to it

I pray that you are as well, right and so I am going to get out of here.

Also. I'm, sorry for not being able to get to all the questions Obviously we agreed on a time for the q a so anyone that didn't get their question asked.

Sorry about that Um, I appreciate you guys for joining up showing up, right?

um If you have yet to do so Make sure you are subscribing To the gospel truth and hit that notification bell if this is your first time coming on The gospel truth make sure you don't leave this channel without hitting subscribe button if this debate was a blessing to you

And you say you know what? I like the gospel truth Let me see what else they have coming up in the future The only way you can do that is by subscribing and hit that notification bell

Also, if you have yet to do so participate in the the poll that we have up there

Participate it and also make sure you hit the like button as you depart. All right, make sure you hit it All right, that's it.