What about BAPTISMAL REGENERATION?

It's not like you pour water, and that's the thing that saves us, it's the Word. Would you agree with me, though?

Abraham was justified before the ceremony of salvation. Amen. And that's why I would say we are justified the same way as Abraham, not by ceremony.

It displays faith. The just shall live by faith. But we are justified the moment that we put our faith in Christ alone.

Hey guys, welcome back to another episode of Method Ministries. I'm your host, Lucas Curcio, and I'm here for the second time, joined with Jeremiah Nortier from the

Apologetic Cat podcast. Set me up, ouch.

Did you see the Trump debate with Kamala Harris last week? Yeah, sadly.

Yeah, and Trump was like, they're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs. I was like,

I know that's going to be memed later on. Yeah, it is. There's like a ton of memes.

You're not on Twitter, so you can't really experience all that. Not yet. But today, we're not going to talk about our debate coming up.

We're not going to talk about what we talked about last time, hyper -preterism, which was a great episode. So if you didn't watch that, it's on both of our channels.

We're going to talk about baptism, because Jeremiah is a true -blooded reformed...

Now, sit down for this. He's a reformed Baptist, so it'll be easy on him now. He believes all

Christianity was wrong up until 1600 years. Oh, it hurts. I'm just kidding.

But we're going to talk about infant baptism and some other stuff, because Jeremiah is well -versed on this.

He's done a lot of debates with the Church of Christ, who believes, well, not just in a baptismal regeneration, but they believe in a strict version of that, like that's conditional.

Yes, so they're split. They're split on using that terminology. A lot of Church of Christ would deny that they hold to baptismal regeneration and say that's some form of Roman Catholic teaching, where there's something mystical happening in the water to regenerate a person.

What the Church of Christ are more known for is saying that the moment that you contact the watery graves of baptism is also the moment where you contact the blood of Jesus, and your obedience to the command of baptism washes away your past sins.

So when they start saying that your sins get remitted in the water, I say, oh, this is a baptismal justification, and to me, that has implications of compromising the gospel of grace.

Gotcha, so they tie in, you said, with the contact of the blood of Christ, like that's the language that they used?

Yeah, the phrase kind of in their history, stemming all the way back to Alexander Campbell and the

Restorationist movement, is you contact the blood of Jesus in the watery graves of baptism.

Interesting, okay. Yeah, yeah, because we were talking about how there's different, according to you, there's different views of baptismal regeneration.

And so why do you, though, break it down for me, why do you think, before we get to talk about some other stuff, why is it that their view is different from a

Lutheran view or an Anglican view who do hold a baptismal regeneration? I mean, I understand that language,

I guess, the coming in contact with the blood of Christ, but why is that different from, say, a

Lutheran view who would just use different terminology to describe it? Yeah, great question. Number one, Church of Christ deny that we are born with a sin nature.

They deny the doctrine of original sin. So they are true Pelagians. We are born like Adam, and we just get corrupted by our environment.

And so for them, there doesn't need to be an actual regeneration and change of nature.

So it's because they believe we're inherently good or born perfect. And like I said,

I don't want to be so broad brushing. There are actually, I would say, four different sects within the Church of Christ kind of world.

But that's the vast majority view is they would reject the terminology of regeneration happening in the water.

Everything for them is based on your obedience, your obedience to a list of commands.

And so that's probably the biggest distinguishing factor is that there's not a need to have a changed nature.

Another thing I would say is the Lutherans, they would strongly hold to justification by faith alone.

And this is where when Keith Foskey interviewed me on this and says, OK, well, we kind of see with the

Church of Christ that they're outside the faith and they stem, and I use the stronger word cult, but it all goes all the way back to Alexander Campbell, the same time period with the

Mormons and the Seventh -day Adventists, a departure from Christianity. But Lutherans, they would affirm justification by faith alone.

This is what Church of Christ fundamentally deny along with the other heretical groups. –

OK, gotcha. Because this is my view of baptismal regeneration. I primarily,

I believe infants in baptism are regenerated. And I know people think, it doesn't sound like you do, but people automatically assume, well, that's a work salvation.

And what I want to say is most people nowadays in the

Church, when babies die, though they believe they have a sin nature, like I do too, because I believe in original sin, total depravity, most people, including myself,

I believe that all infants go to heaven when they die. Even if you don't hold that view, Christians will always posit,

OK, well, I'm sure some babies do go to heaven when they die. And we attribute that to an act of God's grace and mercy.

And really, what I want to point out with this analogy is to hopefully show people why this isn't a work salvation, is because what

I'm saying is if God can save a baby who is born with original sin, bring him to heaven, and we can recognize that, praise

God and thank God for that, and it's an act of his mercy, then I don't think it's far off and too radical to say

God can then save an infant in baptism. And I hope that people can see the correlation between it, because why is it wrong for me to say it over here, that a baby who doesn't have a conscious faith towards Christ and who doesn't have a full knowledge is still going to heaven when they die, as long as they die before the age of accountability?

If that's OK, why can't I say in the waters of baptism, by God's grace, as an act of what he's doing in the waters, not the water itself, but the word attached to the water, the promise,

I can get into that a little bit more, that baby is regenerated and born again and then brought into the new covenant.

And so my daughter is raised, you might hear in the background she's crying right now, but my daughter is baptized.

And so I don't treat her as we're raising her to be a Christian, I'm raising her as she is a

Christian, knowing she is a Christian, I bring her into church, we worship, we pray together, I'm going to teach her to pray and call

God her father. I say we pray together, I'm praying, teaching her in that sense.

But as she gets older and starts to develop language, I'm going to teach her to call God Father, sing songs like Jesus loves me, this

I know, this is what he did for you, believe in him, trust in him. And so, again, the point is,

I'm not treating her as an outsider or a child to say it, I'm treating her as an actual Christian, believing in, knowing that she is.

And that started, that was initiated in baptism, not as a work, and the reason why is because baptism is what

God does for us, and it's not the actual water. Jordan Cooper does a real good job, he's a

Lutheran, but it's not the water, it's the grace of God attached to the water.

And a good example that Jordan Cooper gave was when Jesus, in the New Testament, he healed the blind man.

He used mud, he spat into the mud and then he put the mud on his eyes. We don't say it was the mud that gave him vision, we say the mud was a means by which

Christ gave him the vision. So baptism would be doing the same. But I'll stop there and let you respond.

We do see this from just two different vantage points, but something that I appreciate from your vantage point, many

Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, is I would agree with you that in paedo -baptism, this is a good example of an infant, one that is not working in obedience to what

God has prescribed, it's being all done to them. And so I actually do think that I can't look at paedo -baptism and say, well, this infant is adding their works to the ceremonial rite of being immersed into water.

And so at that point, and we can kind of touch on this here in a little bit, but I just think the covenant sign is being misapplied.

Because I'm a paedo -baptist, I think it should be applied to those that profess belief. Now, when we get to adult baptisms, this is where it kind of comes down to adding our works and so forth to a testimony.

And as me and you may touch on, I have a number of quotes throughout church history. There's a debate on how to harmonize baptism with justification by faith alone.

And so there's good conversation to be had. And so I've had my fair share of conversations with Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians.

So I'm not new to this conversation, but I have nothing but love and grace towards those that convictionally believe that they should be baptizing their infants.

Now, I can press into that, and I definitely want to touch on that a little bit. But I think in that paradigm of infant baptism only, they are not bringing their works to the table because everything is being done to them.

Yeah, and a good verse, probably the best verse that I can use towards this, because again,

I know the response and the knee -jerk reaction, and I sympathize with it because I was there many years.

But Titus 3 .5, Paul says that God saved us not by works that we did, but by his mercy.

So just so I'm not paraphrasing it, Titus 3 .5, see if I can find this real quick.

Paul says, not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us.

So Paul's saying not by works, according to his mercy, we agree with that. Then he says, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the

Holy Spirit. And so that washing there, I believe it's baptism. And so if this is the case, which a lot of Protestants have historically believed that this was referring to the baptism of regeneration, so the actual literal water baptism.

And so if that is the case, then Paul would then be saying baptism is not a work because it's

God's work, and he would be contrasting that. And so that's the reason why as well that Christians are not self -baptized.

It's passive. It's something that happens to us. So to your point with infants, the infant is literally doing no work.

It's something that's just happening to them, and it's a work of God and what he does for us in baptism, which is Roman six language.

He buries us in the likeness of Christ and raises us in the newness of life. And so I just want to mention that because I know people get squirmy with this.

And again, I understand, and I'm not saying that Baptists are stupid or they're not faithful Christians, because I don't believe that either.

So I don't want to communicate that on the opposite side. So I would just ask that if somebody's listening, just relax, give me the same grace that I'm giving you.

That's so good. And yeah, I want to kind of say, from the Reformed Baptist perspective, we do approach these, and I think you're being absolutely sincere, and we've even talked before this, and especially the love that you have for your baby girl.

It's like if you're convictionally like, hey, there's some type of grace that God has reserved for this sacrament.

Well, of course, you would flee to want your child to participate. So I can't fault you there at all.

In fact, I'm like, hey, that's awesome. Now, I have a very different conviction. Do you want me to share a little bit of how

I would approach Titus chapter three? No, actually, yeah, we're just going to move on past you. That's all for today, folks.

Yeah, we're not going to get into that. You did mention church history. So in a little bit, what's awesome, another point of common ground that you and I share is sola scriptura, and actually many of the early church fathers held to sola scriptura too.

What? You mean Jay Dyer is wrong? Yeah. Well, yeah,

I got all the quotes for him too. And before we end the episode, I have some book recommendations I'd love to recommend to our audiences.

I know we'll share this episode. But yeah, I disagree with Jay Dyer on mostly everything.

We got to do an episode on him. Just like. Yeah, yeah, it's coming. You know, it's interesting.

You know, the one thing that we agree in part is apologetic methodology of all things, kind of arguing transcendentally and presuppositionally.

But when you press into that, it's still two different worlds. You know what I mean? So yeah, it's funny.

I knew one of us would bring up Jay Dyer. So my point is, when I hear, even

John Piper said when he was studying Titus 3, this verse,

Titus 3, 5, his exploration of the early church is the majority saw Titus 3, 5 as the waters of baptism.

And yet he even said, I just do not understand it the same way. And to me, that's fair, a fair point, because even the early church would not want us to take their words as infallible, right?

Their commentary. I mean, you would high five and say they would have to demonstrate their case no different than the apologetic dog has to present his case or Lucas, Lucas Curcio.

You have to be able to demonstrate from the context now that I don't want people to hear me say, well, church history doesn't matter.

I think that's the furthest thing from the truth. Christ has been building his church for 2000 years. And to me, this is one of the heaviest points against, you know, hyper -preterism that you mean the church has got our blessed hope wrong for 2000 years amongst all the disagreements that exist.

They got that wrong. Well, that's just unthinkable to me. Now we can demonstrate that out like we did in our last case. And so when

I'm going to disagree with baptismal regeneration, Titus 3, 5 is a proof text. Here's what

I would point out in kind of the immediate context. Would love to kind of hear your thoughts on this. Titus is, you know, a pastoral epistle written to Christians in their sanctification.

And since sanctification is being set apart from the world and being more like Christ, we're going to be walking our faith out in obedience, in good works to display for the world.

So verse one, that's kind of how Paul begins reminding Christians, reminding them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient.

He word here, right? To be ready for every good work. So once again, you know,

Titus chapter two, he's talking about discipleship, older men and women discipling younger men and women.

And so as we kind of go to verse four, we understand that he's charging people to good works, charging

Christians to be obedient to all that Christ has commanded us. Verse four, but when the godliness and loving kindness of God, our savior appeared, he saved us.

Now this is important. Not by works done by us in righteousness.

It's probably helpful to understand the, you know, the word righteousness here, because I think this is in a context of sanctification.

Righteousness here, is it judicially talking about the moment where we are declared right before God by faith, which he kind of does allude to in verse seven, which was by his grace and it's by faith or through faith.

But here, righteousness is the pattern of right behavior. And I would, most people agree with me.

And even in my debates, I will trap people in saying, you know, is our participation in the ceremonial rite of baptism, a pattern of righteousness?

And the answer is absolutely. It's something that we, that Christ commanded us to do. And I would say, well, already right then, we know,

I would press the point that that means baptism, especially would not be a part of what has saved us.

Now, I think we demonstrate that out in our good works, in our righteousness. It's just not the thing that initially justified us before God.

And another point that I want to bring up is even Jesus's baptism was to fulfill all righteousness.

And so since baptism is a ceremonial rite, those that profess faith, they are working out their faith in love, in good works.

And so I would say if we had these things kind of in the background of our mind, as we kind of work through the context, he goes on to say, but according to his own mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the

Holy Spirit. So here in a little bit, we might can get into some covenant theology, but I think everything that Paul has in mind is what has been promised by the prophet

Ezekiel in chapter 36 about the promise of the new covenant, where God says,

I will take out your heart of flesh and I will give you a new heart, a living heart, and I will cleanse you with my spirit.

And so this is something that I'd point out of saying, this is not something done by human hands. This is done by the spirit of God.

In the verse six, he kind of wraps it all up in the verse seven, whom he has poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our

Savior, so that being justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

And then verse eight is kind of like another creedal statement of we are to live our life in good works.

So in reference to verse five, then, you're saying the washing of regeneration, like because prior to me coming to this view,

I just took the general, I guess, contemporary view where that's just referring to spiritually, the washing of what the

Holy Spirit does for us in regeneration. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I would say this is a work of God in the heart, regenerating a dead sinner's heart, bringing them to newness of life, and that's something that God does alone and we don't contribute to.

Yeah, I would say another way we could say this is baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is something that's unique,

I would say, to the new covenant. What's unique to the new covenant, the

Holy Spirit coming, you're saying? Regeneration, and so in my view, because my understanding of total depravity and saints of the

Old Testament, they put their faith in the new covenant to come, and so this would be the new covenant promise working retroactively into Old Testament saints.

So, when you look at Deuteronomy, God tells the Israelites, the nation of Israel, you must circumcise your hearts, something that no man can do, right?

We can't perform heart surgery on ourself, and then Deuteronomy 30, God says, you know what? I will circumcise your hearts, and so I believe this is language of regeneration that is grounded in the new covenant, and so the

Holy Spirit works retroactively to saints of old and works actively for saints today in the new covenant.

How would you know, like what if Paul actually was meaning baptism, like an actual water baptism?

And again, it wouldn't mean, like again, when we say baptism saves, we're not saying the actual water saves.

It's, again, it's like the mud that Christ put on the eyes. It wasn't the mud that did the miracle. It was the power of Christ through the mud, but how would you know, like say like Paul actually was referring to baptism, how would you know otherwise then?

Yeah, there are actually a handful of verses like you mentioned in Romans 6, and we could even bring up Galatians 3, 27, where we do see a kind of baptism, and some verses

I'm not dogmatic if Paul is talking about baptism of the Spirit or the ceremonial right into water, because in Baptist circles, you know, we often talk about what is the principle being taught, and then what is the application from that, and a lot of times there's a discussion that we just kind of get them flipped around, so this is so close.

Sometimes I'm not dogmatic on which comes first. I have my thoughts, so like Titus 3, 5, I'm highly, highly convinced this is a work done solely by the

Holy Spirit. However, I've often said I think I could concede that all the baptismal text, if they are talking about the ceremonial right into water, then it really doesn't damage the

Reformed Baptist view of baptism. So, if Paul was talking about the ceremony of baptism, then he would just be simply talking about that this regenerates us in type, and 1

Peter 3, 21, where it talks about baptism now saves you. Well, I would always say, well, baptism is a likeness, a representation, so it saves us in type.

It just doesn't justify us in that moment before God Almighty, because that's always by faith.

And so, like I said, I think I could concede all baptismal texts just mean the ceremony, but it's always a likeness, it's always a representation, and it's a type, essentially.

Got it. Okay. Yeah. And not to make this too much about baptismal regeneration, because I do want to ask as well, because you're not your typical

Baptist who just reduces it down to a mere remembrance or ceremonial kind of thing.

So, what do you think baptism does? Because, and I know historically, too, even the

Anabaptists, they didn't have this new, you know, often, it's kind of like when Roman Catholics criticize

Protestantism, and they usually go to the megachurch pastors who are just clearly not even representing

Christianity biblically at all, and holding them up as a prime example. And so,

I think people in the Paedo -Baptist camp can use, you know, your Baptist who doesn't believe that anything special about the sacraments or ordinances, you know, whatever kind of language you want to use at all.

And I know that you're not like that. So, can you explain your view of baptism? Yeah. And we could go to a few different texts.

We'll go to Acts 238, because I like to kind of build my case from there. But very simply, baptism is a ceremonial rite immersed into water that signifies the forgiveness of sins or signifies a relationship with God.

That's actually what baptizo literally means. And so, I think that as we continue to kind of break that down, is

I believe the sacrament of baptism, even though I'm a Baptist, ordinance is fine, but sacrament just means means of grace.

And as I just further explain what we mean by that, I believe baptism is a gift from God to His body, to the church, the gift of baptism and the gift of the

Lord's supper. And so, it is from God. That's why I can rejoice and say this is a gift of God that the body is meant to celebrate when someone has their faith going public or they're demonstrating their faith in obedience to the glory of God.

There is a perspective in which God has given this gift to the church. And then, on the

Baptist side of things, we see believers are those that are to receive the covenant sign of baptism.

I think baptism is a sign of the New Testament. I just think it's a better sign in every way than circumcision.

So, we'll talk about maybe Colossians 2 there a little bit. And so, even though I believe that believers, repentant believers that put their faith alone and Christ alone, they are the ones that are to participate in this ceremony.

But it's not that they're working to earn favor with God. This is a part of their sanctification to celebrate with the body of what

God has already done in their heart and in their life. And so, it's like I said, the believer is not gaining,

I would say, regeneration in the waters of baptism or their justification. But how is baptism efficacious to the already justified believer?

Well, his heart is gaining assurance that God's promises are true and good.

And this baptism sanctifies the believer. Very similar how going to church, interacting with the life of other believers, this is sanctifying to the child of God.

When we go to the Lord's table, this is sanctifying to our hearts. And so, I look at baptism as both.

And it's something that God does by giving gifts to the body. And since the

Holy Spirit indwells, you'll like this answer, maybe. Since the Holy Spirit indwells a believer,

I would argue that baptism cannot merely be what we're accused of being an empty sign and an empty seal because the

Holy Spirit indwells the baptizer, indwells the one being baptized, and the

Holy Spirit indwells the saints. So, this is communal. This is the fellowship. And so, it's the very antithesis to being merely an empty symbol.

But God is very much at work in a believer's sanctification. Pete Yeah, because some people in the

Baptist side want to deny that there are sacraments. And they do that because they're thinking in terms of Roman Catholicism where you have to constantly go on the sacramental treadmill to keep your salvation up, otherwise you're going to lose it.

And so, they want to deny that there are means of grace saying, oh, you can't merit God's favor. Well, of course you can't merit

God's favor. But it could be a means of grace, just like prayer and scripture reading is a means of grace.

Fasting is a means of grace. Going to church is a means of grace. Singing songs is a means of grace.

So, we can affirm that even if we were Baptists. Because even if I went back to being a

Credo Baptist as I was, I still wouldn't have this empty view of Baptism where it's just a bare sign and nothing special.

And by the way, one thing I do find funny though in a lot of Baptist circles, and this is one thing that I would just point out in consistency, and you're probably not guilty of it.

But one thing I don't get though with the Baptists is that they want to, or not the Baptists, some Baptists I should say to be fair.

Some Baptists. They're not going to hurt my feelings. Yeah, but I do want to be fair. Some Baptists, they want to deny any kind of means of grace for the sacraments and everything else.

But then when it comes to the altar, that's one thing in their theology that's special, and then they do altar calls. And I'm thinking to myself, why is the altar so special in your theology?

What's the significance of coming to the altar in your theology if everything else is just bare signs, yet the only thing in your theology that gets a pass is the altar and you got to come to it?

Where does that come from? I mean, that's just more of a side note. Is it something funny? No, that's good. Do you care if I comment a little bit?

Yeah, yeah. I want to be charitable towards my evangelical brothers out there. And so I think this is where it comes from,

Lucas. So in Romans chapter 10, let's see, kind of verse 9, So some of my evangelical friends say, see, sinner's prayer.

You got to confess with the mouth. And I say time out. That is not the etymology and meaning of confessing, that if you say the right incantation, then you're saved in a moment.

Confessing here represents a heart of worship, right? When you have a transformed heart, trusting in Christ alone,

Paul even said here in kind of this parallelism, Now, how do we either see someone else experience that or how would we articulate us experiencing that?

Well, that's someone confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, right, with the mouth.

And so the transformed heart of faith that justifies a person necessarily is going to produce someone crying out like the tax collector did in Luke chapter 18.

God be merciful to me, a sinner. Now, those words did not justify them. They represented a heart of faith, something that has already taken place to express that.

So to some of my evangelical friends that really press the sinner's prayer or an altar call,

I would actually push back on their theology the same way I would with Church of Christ.

Because the Church of Christ say you have to get into the watery graves of baptism to have your past sins remitted and washed away.

Well, that's baptismal justification. For those that push such a hardcore sinner's prayer, no, you're not adding your sinner's prayer plus faith in Christ.

So that's what I press is Paul is telling us that it's faith. It's faith that justifies us before God.

Faith plus nothing else, not plus a sinner's prayer, not plus baptism,

I would argue, or any other works that you want to put in the placeholder there. And so that's a little bit of where that comes from.

And here is the kicker. This is why I can call, this is what I talked with Keith Foskey a little bit of, of how can baptism then be a sacrament if I do not think that it's the grace of regeneration or the grace of justification?

I think it's the grace of sanctification. Because this is something believers, in my view, are the ones participating in in the new covenant.

And that's an important thing to mention because you mentioned faith, and I still believe faith alone, justification by faith alone, is biblical.

And this is where contemporary people get tripped up, and what I would like to point out too, and what I learned myself, is that Protestants, classical

Protestants, a lot of them held, most of them I would even say, I think I'm being accurate when I say that, they held the baptismal regeneration, and yet they still held the justification by faith alone.

I mean, look at Martin Luther. And so some of us, that might seem inconsistent, and it's not because they're careful to highlight that baptism is only efficacious by faith.

And even the Westminster Confession of Faith, we talk about how baptismal is actually efficacious for God's elect.

But they're always going to say that's only with the condition of faith being met.

So it's by faith and faith alone, and we can even make the distinction between there are ordinary means of grace, or sorry, ordinary means and necessary means.

And so the necessary mean is faith and faith alone, where God can use baptism as means, but it's not a necessary one.

So if you don't have faith in Jesus Christ, then you can't be saved, and the sacraments aren't efficacious, whether that's for justification or sanctification.

So there's no mix up, and again, I think that's important to try to show people, hey, this isn't a work of salvation that we're teaching.

I know it's very easy to think that it is in the Baptist evangelical non -denominational circles.

I sympathize with that. I understand. But I'm telling you, think through these things critically and look at many people in church history, like John Wesley, what is it,

Martin Luther, I think even John Calvin held to this. John Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration.

He gets accused of that a lot. Oh, okay, got it. He had a Latin term for it, but it was definitely baptismal efficacy, but it's what you've kind of described as -

Yeah, for the elect. For the elect, and this is where I agree with Calvin, for those people that have been baptized and are unregenerate and apostatized or however we want to talk about it, their baptism will be a witness against them on the day of judgment.

Interesting. One thing I want to go back to is that you mentioned baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins.

How do you reconcile that with the Nicene Creed, which says there's one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?

Because it seems like you're adding the word signify onto it. Well, I would point to the

Greek word baptizo. That's when you look it up in BDAG, number one, that's the functional definition that it literally means, that it signifies the forgiveness of sins or signifies relationship with God.

Also, when we look biblically, I would look at Acts 2 along with John's baptism to come away with, okay, this is declaring something as a ceremony itself.

So historically, I can agree that there is one baptism for the remission of sin, but what does that mean?

Is it the work worked or is it the one working? That's a historical debate that we can see throughout church history, and I think it's because the church is trying to harmonize justification and sanctification, being justified by faith apart from works, and the just shall live by faith.

I think the Reformed Baptist view is the most consistent in harmonizing the scripture, but I want to be charitable, especially when we talk about patal baptism.

This is where I can affirm with you that infant is not doing any works of their own, adding it to their faith.

Everything is being done to them. And before we, hopefully we got some more time, but we can talk about why

I do not think it's appropriate in a very loving, charitable way that baptism is meant to be on a unbeliever.

Got it. Yeah, so let's go into that topic now just for the sake of time. Does that make sense though?

When we say to the one baptism for the remission of sins, we just have to ask the question, what does that mean?

So I can affirm that because it signifies a relationship with God based on the Greek word, baptism.

So, well, let me say this. I don't think that's what the original, what is it, authors,

I guess I'll say, I don't think that's what they meant when they said that, because you're saying, are you saying the

Greek word or Latin word, whatever it was, whatever language, that word meant signify? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. Baptizo. That's what that means. And - Is that a Greek or? Yeah, that's the

Greek, baptizo. Oh, gotcha. Yeah, but you're saying that meant signify, is that what you're saying?

Yes. Why would that not mean immerse? It does. Well, it does mean, so it's a ceremonial right immersed into water that signifies a relationship with God or signifies the forgiveness of sin.

So when we look at the creeds, I think we're looking at a time where they're really just referencing

Acts 2 .38, but there is a rich history of, well, what does that mean?

Is it the work worked? And I would say me and you would fundamentally denied that because that is the stance of Rome, where you have to have the

Episcopate, you have to have certain priests in a certain order, and they would say that there is more than just efficacious grace being applied, but all these things have to be worked out in a particular way in order for someone to be a child of God.

I think it's just a complete misunderstanding. But when we talk about church history, I can affirm that creed because I affirm that in the context of which all these things are being worked out.

So, yes, I think there's one baptism that's unique to the Christian church where we are to be baptized in the name of the

Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but I'm going to hold church history to the same standard that I would talk to a

Lucas Curcio, anybody at my church, and it's that scripture gets the final say at the end of the day.

Even as I look at creeds and confessions, as wonderful guardrails as these are,

I bend the knee ultimately to scripture, and that's where me and you would high -five at the end of the day. Yeah, I would just say, so in the context of Acts 2 .38,

the baptism there is actual baptism, and you can see that because people were actually baptized, and I would just make a distinction, too, is that it's not the water that's saving them, it's the inward grace, it's the word attached to the water that's saving them.

So, that would just be a key difference. Oh, yeah. Here's where we're closer, and when

I explain this to Lutherans, they're like, hmm, okay. So, I believe that baptism is a visible word, or I read

Lutheran literature all the time, and they call it the liquid word, and I'm saying

I'm fine with the ordinances, sacraments being a visible word. Now, I hope this doesn't come across disrespectful, but this is the

Word of God, and if I were to lay this on my noggin, nothing's going to happen, and I could say all day long that this is the powerful

Word of God that transforms the heart and soul, but by just applying it to somebody,

I would say that that's not the point. It's meant to be understood, and the Holy Spirit also inspired this word and also has to regenerate the heart.

So, what's awesome about baptism, and this is why the baptizer is so important, is because they contextualize this ceremony of being immersed into water.

That's when we look at Acts 22, 16 with Ananias. He is declaring the gospel, I would actually argue, and so,

I was saved by watching somebody else be baptized, and I'd say the gospel visibly is going forth.

I don't think it's regenerating that person when they go into the water, but it is declaring the gospel in a more tangible way visibly in front of other people.

So, this is the closest that I tell people that people can be regenerated from baptism. It's those observing that maybe

God hasn't regenerated their heart. They've attended church, all these things, but that water being applied to them, even though I can call it the visible word, that's not doing anything, and I would say it's because it has to exhort and prick the heart, which is what we kind of see in Acts chapter two.

I hope that doesn't come across disrespectful. I'm just trying to highlight the big differences. Our debate is off.

I'm not debating you in person. No, you can't do this. Some people said, be careful.

I said, no, no, no, Lucas is not going to back out. Oh, do they really say be careful? Well, they just said go easy on it.

I was like, Lucas is solid. What? Why would they think that about me? I'm more offended by that than I am with your comment.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I think we'd have a great baptism debate.

Yeah, it's going to be awesome. I do. Now, that is something that I've been studying heavily for years, and so I'd love to go to bat on that topic.

Oh yeah, me too, honestly, but just keep it on topic because I could definitely talk more about that as well.

Real quick, before we move on, because I do want to talk about why you don't believe in paedo -baptism, but the analogy, the word in your head,

I agree, but as you were talking, I was thinking of Romans 10, 17, where his faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

So I think you're right to point out it's not the water, and Protestants are clear to point this out too, who hold to baptismal regeneration, like the

Methodists, the Anglicans, Lutherans, it's the word attached to the water.

So it's the inward grace. And so like 1 Peter 3, where he says, baptism now saves you. I think that's literal baptism he's referring to, the reason why, because prior to that, he talks about the floods of Noah, and he says, corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.

So the floods were literal water, and over here, there's literal water. But then he goes on, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.

And so that would just be the truth once more is that it's the inward grace, not the outward, which is saving you, which is the appeal to God through a good conscience is what he says in 1

Peter 3. Yes. But let's talk about now why, because you want to talk about -

Before we move on, can I touch on how I would have, so me and you just kind of, we have deeper presuppositions, and I think that's okay to be transparent about.

I'll tell you what's always looming in the forefront of my mind is a consistency of justification by faith apart from works, and the just shall live by faith in a consistent doctrine of sanctification, which is by good works in obedience to the commands that God has given us.

So I'm just saying that's something always in the forefront of mind. I know it is with yours too. And so when we look at 1

Peter 3, something you did, I think is great. Verse 20, and really even backing up to like verse 18 with the suffering of Noah and so forth, what

Christ has basically died for the ungodly. All that is relevant context, but like you said, there's something, there's at least three points that I think is very important in verse 20.

You got the ark, the eight persons that were saved and then brought safely through the waters of judgment.

Now, I think this is important because there is a parallel structure with verse 20 and 21.

I think the big takeaway is water was not salvific per se in verse 20. It was judgment language.

It smited the whole world minus eight souls. Now that water brought the ark of the eight souls that were in the ark.

You know, they were safe. But I think it's the ark that we see as an anti -type with Jesus Christ being the ark of our salvation and his resurrection.

His resurrection was both salvific for the elect in my view, in your view, I guess, but it's also the resurrection will be by the one man that will judge the world in righteousness.

And so when we see that baptism now saves you, like I said, I'm not dogmatic when people appeal to baptism of the spirit or the ceremonial right into water.

I would say if this is talking about the ceremonial right into water, well, baptism saves as a type,

I would say. However, I think why Peter wrote this verse was to clarify what he said on the day of Pentecost because he says not as the removal of dirt from the body.

There's something more significant happening than a ceremonial bath. That's important.

We've been commanded to do it, but there's something more fundamental that is going on. And he says as an appeal to God.

Now, when we delve into that word appeal, this is an earnest desire. This is articulating a heart of faith for a good conscience.

Now, do you know anywhere earlier in the context where Peter mentions good conscience? It's coming to somewhere.

I'm not sure where earlier in the same chapter, one of our favorite apologists verse, but in your heart, honor

Christ, the Lord is holy. So this is a heart of faith, unmistakably, always being prepared to make a defense for anyone who asks for you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience.

So we go all the way back to first Peter chapter one. He always talks about it's by faith. It's through faith in Christ's finished work.

That's the appeal to God for a good conscience. It's trusting in Christ alone, by faith alone.

That is the arc of our salvation. And I would argue it's not our participation in a ceremonial bath.

That is the means of our justification. You know what's interesting? Because I've been reading,

I told you that I read that same book that you read, and I just finished it by Everett Ferguson on, was it the first five centuries of baptism in history or something like that?

Right over there. I just read it and I can't remember the title of the book I read, but it's interesting.

I don't really realize how much illusions there are to baptism, even in the

Old Testament, like the crossing of the Red Sea, the floods of Noah, the crossing of the Jordan. And what

I think I realized in the text description, I don't want to be prideful, is that when it talks about the floods, like Noah was saved through the floods waters, which you were right to point out, this was judgment.

So I'm thinking to myself, well, then why does Peter say correspondingly that baptism now saves you? And so what I think is meant to be displayed in baptism is that water is meant to signify death.

God used it as a judgment upon Noah's day in that generation.

And so God then would be saving us from death or through death, through the waters of baptism.

And what happens, and when Christians go down to the water, they're dying in the likeness of Christ. They're being buried with him.

And then God raises us up from the waters. And so when you think about this with Noah's day, and you go to the

Israelites, when they cross through the Red Sea, God brought them through the waters. He saved them through the waters, and then he used that same water to destroy, to judge, to kill the

Egyptians. And then you go to Romans six, where Paul talks about this language again, where we were buried in the likeness of Christ and then raised in the newness of life.

So we go down to the grave in baptism, and then God raises us up from the waters of judgment, saving us.

PAUL Yeah. And I'd follow up. Yes, and I meant to all that, I would say as a likeness or as a type or a metonymy where the sign can stand in place of the thing signified.

Because think about how baptism displays the gospel. And so baptism saves as a type, as a likeness, as a representation.

So what I tell people is, you know, I got a picture of my baby boy, baby JJ. We call him the apologetic dog.

We call him the apologetic pup. And so what I tell people is, do you see my son

JJ? And they would say, well, absolutely, you know, he looks like us. And I would say yes and amen.

But if someone thought that that was literally my son, well, they got problems because that is a picture that is a likeness that signifies the actual person and the

Holy Spirit is ever present in dwelling, the baptizer and the baptizee and the church context, like we'd point out to Acts chapter two.

And so that's where I'm saying this is, of course, sanctification is a means of grace where God is working and we are participating in it.

When we talk about first Peter three 21, I think the ark is huge. The water is meant as judgment and the ark is what's literally saved the eight souls.

And it can't be missed when we go look at the narrative back in the Old Testament and something else that's really interesting to our conversation.

Hebrews chapter 11 mentions Noah by faith. Noah was warned by God concerning the events yet that were unseen in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household.

And then this is continue on for the heroes of the faith. And so that's the thing that I think that a lot of people miss and then we can just have our disagreements.

But Jesus is the ark of our salvation and baptism signifies that. So when we look at Romans six or Galatians three, that we were baptized into Christ, Romans six goes on to say as a likeness.

And I would say yes and amen. And I would always say like that's what I would always push for is it's not conveying something deeper, especially to my church

Christ that think that's where you contact the blood and washes away your past sins. Well, and I think this is a good verse for Protestantism too, because again, classical

Protestantism is always right to point out that the means of grace to those who have faith. So it's efficacious only by faith where Rome holds to,

I forget the terminology they use in Latin, like ex operato or something. I can't pronounce it. I got it right here, because this is the debate throughout church history.

So like when we appeal to certain creeds that say one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, well, all we've done is stepped into the ongoing debate of what that means, because they're referencing

Acts two thirty eight. But you have ex operato, which is the work worked.

I would tell people that is a false gospel, the work work that they're literally conflating law and gospel there.

However, I think me and you would land somewhere. I know I would. I think you'd be close right there with me is ex opera operatus.

I'm probably butchering the Latin there, but this is the work of the doer.

This sounds like scripture that the just shall live by faith. And so that's something I would really press when we look at Acts chapter two, hopefully here in a moment, is we see a repentant faith of those being obedient to what has been commanded to them.

And that's where I would say I would I would say I see a consistency there of saying calling people to repentant faith.

And for those that confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, well, now they are called to be obedient with the command to be baptized.

That signifies these beautiful realities. Got it. All right. So in a nutshell, now, just so we don't miss this part, give us in a nutshell, the quick version, just because it's not how long

I am. Yeah, just so I'm not wasting my whole night doing podcasting.

Why do you what's your primary argument for not believing in paid baptism?

Yep. Number one, when we see Acts, everyone agrees, even when we get to the household baptisms, it's calling people to repentant faith.

And so I would just say on the face, that's what we see in Acts with the early church are those that can repent.

But there's a deeper covenantal argument that I makes, especially against my

Presbyterian friends, and it's the nature of the new covenant. And so I'll just read this briefly and we don't have to spend forever on it.

But this is huge. This is why I'm a reformed Baptist. So in Hebrews chapter eight, we see that Jesus is a mediator of a better covenant, a of the new covenant, which

I would argue is exclusively the covenant of grace, as opposed to the mosaic and historic covenants that were mediated by fallen priests that continually had to make sacrifices year after year.

And so I'll read Hebrews eight verses 10 and following, because this is it. This is it right here of why

I don't think infants, those that have unbelief are meant to receive the sign of the new covenant.

Verse 10 says, for this is the covenant, the new covenant that God prophetically in Old Testament, this is a quotation from Jeremiah 31.

God says, I will make what the house of Israel after those days declares the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts.

And I, this is huge for me. I will be their God and they shall be my people and they shall not teach.

Each one is neighbor and each one, his brother saying, I, or I know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest.

Verse 12, for I will be merciful towards their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more.

Well, in the new covenant, I would argue it's not a mixed membership of believers and unbelievers, regenerate and unregenerate.

The members of the new covenant are all of those who know the Lord in faith and call upon him as their

Lord and savior. So these are, these are individuals that have experienced repentant faith in the perfect mediator that saves to the uttermost.

And so I don't see members in the new covenant as being unbelievers. Um, so verse, what is it?

Hebrews eight, uh, verse 11 says, none of them shall teach his neighbor and none of his brother saying no, no, the

Lord for all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them. Do you think the least of them to the greatest of them would encompass their children?

The, the professing, believing children? Absolutely. Yeah. So what did that mean? The new covenant then is in the same way of the old covenant.

There was a covenant community like spear and that would include their households. Yeah, so yeah, there's, there is, there is something that's really important to be talked about is the continuity between the old and new covenant and the discontinuity.

Yeah. The discontinuity between the old and new covenant is that the covenant sign was to be applied to Isaac, who was an unbelieving child.

Right. But there is something radically distinct in the new covenant that we can actually look to Abraham and not

Isaac as an example. As you know, Abraham was circumcised, but it was a credo circumcision, meaning a circumcision based on his faith.

I would say that's why he can be the father of faith. And he is an example of someone that was saved by the new covenant that was to come.

He was justified by faith in the coming Christ. And so in the new covenant, there is radical discontinuity, meaning that this is a covenant that does not have a mixed believers and unbelievers.

These are only those that know God from the least of these to the greatest, meaning from the least of those that can profess faith.

Because the next verse says, for I will be merciful towards their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

These are people that have their sins paid for in full. So I understand what you're saying, and I sympathize.

And I don't think it's a dumb argument. I don't think Baptists are dumb Christians or unfaithful

Christians. I know many Baptists are faithful Christians. Thank you for that. So I'm not saying if you go to Baptist church—

You gotta follow it up with, but. Well, and, I'll say and because I don't want to cancel out what

I said. That can be two things can be true at the same time. And with that being said, so this is what

I started to put chinks in my armor as an ex -Baptist and converted to paedo -Baptism.

I found that the arguments such as these, they weren't satisfying to me. And let's see if I can draw some of them out.

Is that the first one, I don't think so. So the argument follows is that, well, you gotta have faith and then

Baptism. I think to myself, even in the Old Testament, you had the same pattern. You had faith and circumcision, yet that never negated circumcision for their children.

And then you have a, as you express a continuity discontinuity, where it's true.

Um, you know, you can't find something in the New Testament where it says your children are included now in your household, but you also can't find a not saying that.

And I think that's pretty big. And that's a big change that I probably would have liked to see as an

Israelite, because it would have been like news to me. Wait, my children aren't in it anymore. What are you talking about? And then the third one,

I saw my practice was inconsistent. And so one of the things that really got me, this is probably the thing that got me,

I started to think about family worship. Um, because I was thinking in terms of, of children's church and why

I'm against children's church, because the reason why I think families should worship God together. And then

I, and that got me thinking, well, wait a minute. Why do I hold a family worship? Where, where's this principle coming from? And I realized, well, it has to come from the

Bible because where else would it come from? Obviously it did. And so I saw in the Bible that families worship

God together. And even how, even Baptist, we all function as if we're, we're all

Christians. Again. Um, even if I didn't baptize my daughter, I still wouldn't view her as a child of Satan.

I would teach her to call God father, pray to God as father again, sing songs. Jesus loves me. This I know for the

Bible tells me, so this is her promise. I bring her in the church. She's in the covenant community. And so I saw my practice was inconsistent like that.

Um, and so, you know, those are some of the problems in a nutshell. And then I think even contextually from the least of them to the greatest,

I think that's more inclusive includes your household, but I'll let you respond. Yeah. You should have talked to me back then when we were struggling through these.

I didn't even know you back then, actually. The first thing I tell my

Roman Catholic friends, um, in jest is, and, and Presbyterians quite frankly, um, is, so you think the, the early

Christians and Jewish converts would have been mad that their children were no longer having to carry the sign of condemnation and death and circumcision and they scratch your head and say, well, what do you mean?

I said, well, that's, that's what circumcision signified was the old covenant. That was a ministry of death and condemnation.

And that never saved because that presupposes the bigger categories of the covenant. So I would like to put myself in the first century and being happy that my child no longer has to be circumcised in such a way and carries the covenant of death and condemnation.

So that's actually a good thing. The other thing you brought up is I'm with you on this principle. Um, I think a lot of Baptists are inconsistent with their practice.

Now I do think Reformed Baptist strikes the balance here because I actually, yeah, well, why would

I be it? Right. So yeah, I'm stacking the deck there, but here, here's how I see balancing what you said.

Um, because my Christian walk is both corporate and individual, they're both.

And so I don't want to do the, the evangelical route where it's my Bible, me under a tree. We don't care about church history.

It's just me. It's like, well, that's not right because it's meant to be, uh, collectively with the body.

Now I don't want to do it over here to the exclusion of, well, there must be a personal faith also.

So I'm trying to strike a balance. And I believe, you know, federal headship theology, um, that I'm the patriarch of my home.

And so my baptism is enough to call my household, a Christian household based on my testimony of faith.

I represent my wife, you know, um, as a household, um, as a, as a kind of federal head, obviously under Christ and my, my baby boy,

JJ. And so JJ will be set apart in a unique way growing up because he exists within a

Christian household. That means he will be catechized differently than how I teach other people, right?

That's qualified as I evangelize people, I'm teaching them, right? The truths of the gospel. Well, JJ gets a unique, um, environment with his dad, loving

Christ, and he will experience family worship, but always with the qualifier that I am praying that God would regenerate his heart.

I'm teaching him how to pray, not as a believer. I'm praying that he would be one day.

Um, when we go to church and he sees baptism, I will get to teach him about baptism, but as someone that professes

Christ. And so that's where I look at the household baptisms and acts. Um, about all we could, um, deduce from that is the head of the household is being baptized.

And then I would make a strong case of the continuity and discontinuity of what we see baptism is meant to be, and also those that are professing

Jesus as Lord. Uh, but to me, there's no inconsistency to say household would have children, uh, but they're being represented by their father.

Uh, just to follow up on that, but, uh, that, um, but I first want to say, so I'm not strictly holding to pato -baptism as, as the

Presbyterian does, and why I couldn't say that. Um, you know, they're, they're very strong on the familial principle, which

I do agree with and hold to, but that's not my primary reason for holding to infant baptism. Cause it's also my view of my view of baptism and what it does for infants.

And so like, even with Hebrews, I wouldn't have a problem where, you know, the bat, the, the Presbyterian has to hold, hold to the strong mix, uh, congregation where you have some who are in the new covenant and some who are just corporately in the new covenant.

And that might be a little dicey for them to explain that. Oh, it is. Yeah. Well, I mean, not that bad, honestly.

Um, I do think they have good arguments for it. This, this is hard. Cause for them, they have to see the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace.

And that is indefensible when you really get into covenant theology. Yeah. But then they wouldn't.

But so, so in my view, like I wouldn't have that objection. Well, Lucas is your daughter in the new covenant. I would say yes, because, because of baptism.

So she's in the new covenant. So it's not like there was this mixed congregation. And I think even in practice too, with, with people, um, sorry,

Christians. You, you would be in agreement with the Presbyterians as, as your unbelieving daughter would be a member of the new covenant.

And I sympathize with my brothers across the aisle here, but how I look at how the writer of Hebrews is applying the promise of the old covenant from Jeremiah 31.

He's saying it's all those that know the Lord salvifically, Jesus as their, um, um, intercessor who cannot fail to save and all of their sins are forgiven.

That's where I can't say, well, I see room for a mixed covenant. Aha, Jeremiah. But, um, so here's the thing

I just immediately thought of when John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, I don't think knowing has to be a subconscious, a conscious knowing.

I think John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. So how would you like, um, you know, think about that case then?

Yeah, um, I would appeal to, we see similar terminology with the prophet Jeremiah in the

Old Testament and the apostle Paul in Galatians, meaning the Holy Spirit providentially is setting, uh,

John the Baptist apart, right, to be the forerunner of Christ, even from the womb. Um, and so God, I would argue providentially is already at work in the life of the elect.

And so, um, just to, you know, go back to what I was saying though, um. That was a pretty good answer though, right?

No, not really. But, you know, really what we have to do is do another episode on just baptismal regeneration more,

I guess. Um, yeah, I do want to talk about this though, because the reason also why

I'm different from a Presbyterian is that to me now I'm viewing infant baptism as a matter of delaying the baptism or not.

Like, should I delay my daughter's baptism or not? I want to also say this too. You are different than the

Presbyterians because they deny baptismal regeneration. Here's my beef real quick with them is they just say there's a promise for their child in baptism.

And I'm like, hold on. What does that promise entail? Because functionally it's not too far off from where you're at.

But so I did want to say that there is a distinction in some of those things. Yeah. And so, and the difference is, you know, for me now

I'm viewing this as, okay, this is a matter of should we delay the baptism or not? And as I told you on our previous conversation, uh, not, not a podcast, you know, just for the audience is that if I went back to, to Credo baptism,

I would not be delaying my daughter's baptism to like what she's 10 or 12.

Cause one of the things that irks me is that the Baptist, you know, some Baptist will say, well, you guys are just holding to tradition.

We're not going to be like those people, but yet they'll place a almost like a burden, but I'll call it a tradition upon where you really got to prove it to me that you're a believer.

And then, then I'll allow you to be baptized. You really got to understand. You really got to know you got to maybe be 10, 12, 16.

And I'm thinking, let's be real here. If I didn't baptize my daughter, she's going to profess faith in Jesus Christ.

And she's going to be able to do that by the time she's three years old. So if I went back to Credo Baptist, I would be baptizing her a lot sooner and I wouldn't be delaying it much longer.

And I know that you seem to be in the same camp and either, you know, even other Baptist will agree with me. Yeah. We shouldn't really put so much of a burden, but again,

I'll call it a tradition because that's just what it is. They're saying our tradition says you really got to prove it, earn it to me, show me that you really understand and believe.

When the New Testament, it was, no, if you make a profession of faith, you're baptized. And so again, that's one of the problems that I have, but this is how

I view it where I don't think there's any good reason for me to delay it from three to zero years.

Why would I do that? Especially if baptism brings her into the new covenant and regenerates her, why would

I want to withhold that? And so I can't find anything in the Bible that would give me a good reason right now to delay it.

Okay. Let's back it up there a little bit. You talked about the delay, right?

I call it the immediacy principle we see throughout Acts, right? What hinders me from being baptized?

Why dost thou tarry, Saul of Tarsus? And so you got to think from my view,

I do not think baptism carries the grace of regeneration or justification. So why would someone who is seen and tasted that the

Lord is gracious to want to immediately be obedient to that command?

I would say this is the cry of a believer. They want to be obedient to their Lord and live their life to the glory of God.

Their heartbeat wants to be obedient to the King. And then so if they are being discipled properly the way that we're commissioned to, we are to teach them all that Christ has commanded us.

And so what I see in the book of Acts are the eunuch, the household of Cornelius, Peter right in the midst, they are wanting to be obedient to our

Lord. So I think there's something wrong. This is where you might appreciate my stance. There's actually a tradition called 20 -year -old

Baptist, and they delay baptisms until people are 20. It's an awful case because I would say when we look at the language of the new covenant, the least to the greatest, and I do think it's all believers, but even the least of them that can make a profession of faith.

The fruit that we are looking for to baptize people on is if they can articulate the gospel of grace and profess that they are trusting in Christ alone by faith alone.

Now, I'm also not going to be the person that just sets up a small child with a bunch of yes or no questions when they can ease, but if they can articulate it and not like a totally precise, systematic theology test, but if there's just a genuineness, they love

Christ, they're convicted of their sin, well, hey, praise God. Now, I'm also not going to say we have to go do it absolutely right now in the river right down there because we got to get that original sin nature washed away or your past sins.

I'm saying that there can still be a principle of immediacy by saying, hey, this coming Lord's Day, let's participate in the gracious gift of God that he's given to his body.

Because I look at baptism as a celebration, right? Where we can celebrate that someone's faith is going public and now we are holding each other accountable in the faith.

Yeah, exactly. And so if a Baptist could get away more so from that super long delay of baptism,

I think that would be a more, that is a more biblical position, especially because, again, you point out there is this immediacy in the

Bible where you believed and you were baptized. And that's even another marker against like this, for me, as I'm thinking through this now too, how the

Eastern Orthodox has you go through this long catechumen process, then you got to really understand and know the reviews, and then you can get baptized.

Well, in the book of Acts, if you're really apostolic, you're going to get people baptized that day, the moment they made a profession of faith.

And even, what was it in chapter eight of Acts, was it Philip, the evangelist? It was just him and that newly convert right there on the spot.

And he didn't wait to, wait, wait, wait, you got to go through the catechumen process. You really got to understand, you got to hold off until our

Easter time. That's when we do our baptisms. No, there was water. Let's go get baptized. Now, some people might say that wasn't in the original manuscripts, because I think that's contested now that I'm thinking about it.

It's my King James. Yeah, it's my King James. Is there anything else you want to touch on before we,

Paul and I do a part two on your show? Yes, we definitely will. When we look at Acts two, so you got to think for me, covenant theology is huge.

And we all are covenant theologians to a degree, whether we articulate our systematic theology in those terms or not.

We all agree there's an Old Testament and a New Testament. Therefore, there's an old covenant and there's a new covenant.

And there, I would say there is continuity and discontinuity with that. I would argue old covenant, covenant of condemnation.

It's a covenant of conditions of your works. And it actually was meant to show the nation of Israel that they cannot obey

God in a way that he is worthy. So that covenant, that ministry of death kills and condemned.

So I would say the new covenant are those that have tasted and seen that the Lord is good and call upon our

Lord in faith. So when we go to Acts two, that's the whole sermon, right? He even says,

I believe verse 21, it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the

Lord shall be saved. And then so Peter gives a beautiful sermon showing that the people of Israel, they are the ones that pierce or they were pierced at the heart because they killed the son of glory.

And it's interesting as right before there was a baptism of the Holy Spirit, and this is where I show people baptism of the

Holy Spirit is not in connection with the ceremonial rite, because we even see the first instance of a baptism of the

Holy Spirit. It's fixed by God on the 50th day from the resurrection of Christ. So it was ordained by God.

We don't have to all be Calvinist to believe that God ordained certain events, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, firstly, ordained by God, not manipulated by human circumstance.

So I'm just saying that is the working principle of being baptized in the spirit. But after the gospel was preached, they were pricked to the heart.

And I'm saying this is meaningful because a heart change has already begun to take place.

You find strong agreement here because faith comes by hearing, hearing of the gospel.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for whoever believes. So then you have the question, the question in Acts 2 37, brothers, what shall we do now?

I think people misunderstand this verse of saying, hey, we're really happy. We just heard the gospel.

So what do we need to do to be saved? I would say that's not what's being communicated here.

This is a Jewish people in a covenant context, and they just got told they killed the son of glory.

They would have Deuteronomy 28 and 30 of all the cursings of God for those who have disobeyed.

When they're saying Adelphos brothers, what shall we do? They're saying all hope is lost.

We deserve the full wrath and cursings of God. We even see this kind of conversation happen in Luke chapter three with John the

Baptist, the people saying, what shall we do? What shall we do? Because they understand that they have been unclean, right?

They've been trusting in their heritage to be physical sons of Abraham. And John the

Baptist has challenged that and said, no, you need to repent, which is really the means of how you have forgiveness of sins.

That's a repentant faith. And then you need to demonstrate that faith with an imperative of sanctification.

So this is exactly what Peter does here in verse 38. He says, repent.

So this is someone who's able to express faith alone and Christ alone. Repentance is a changing of the mind.

And this is a Hebrew concept that also engages the will, right? A volitional heart change.

This is justification by faith alone. So he's calling them to justification. And then coordinating conjunction, second imperative, he says, be baptized.

Okay. Now I would say this is a call for someone to demonstrate their repentance. Repentance and fruit of repentance are not the same thing.

We could even go back to Luke chapter three to see there's a distinction there. One moves from the heart to our works.

And so baptism has a rich history. And I'll make this brief. Baptism, the nearest antecedent here for Christian baptism is the baptism of John.

And it was a baptism of repentance into water, displaying the fact that Jews were ceremonially unclean because they thought they were good.

Since we are children of Abraham, then we are children of God. And Jesus even rebuked that mindset saying, no,

God could raise up these stones to be children of Abraham, but you are actually of your father, the devil. And so my point is

Christian baptism has great continuity with John's baptism, which was immersion because they would come up out of the water.

And he called them to repentance. And that's the thing that forgave sin and to demonstrate that.

And one more point here. John the Baptist has another principle that's embedded with the

Torah, meaning that to be fully bathed into water signified the forgiveness of sin.

And so the slam dunk case for this is that Yom Kippur or Yom Kippurim in Leviticus 16, you had the shedding of goat's blood, right?

Which never actually forgave sin. That's why you have the scapegoat. They would place their hands on the scapegoat to forgive their sin as a language.

But Hebrews 11 says these ceremonies never forgave sin and the high priest would be fully bathed in water signifying that they are ceremonially clean.

And so my whole point, whether you look at the Jewish audience in Luke 3 or in Acts 2, this is a Jewish covenant people that would fully understand that these ceremonies never actually forgave sin, but it signified that Jesus Christ, he is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

And so for these Jews that are clinging to the old covenant of death, for them to be baptized in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, meant that they are leaving the old covenant and the perversion of Judaism.

And now they are in the new covenant that saves to the uttermost, and they are clinging to Christ alone.

And so I would say the context continues to bear that out with verse 39. When we look at Acts 3 here, he qualifies that it's faith in his name, the author of life, repent therefore and turn back that your sins may be blotted out.

It's always a repentant faith that forgives sin. And then as we've already touched on Acts 10 with Cornelius, we see how salvation works with the preaching of the gospel.

The Holy Spirit moves on the word of God, changes the heart, convicts the heart. And for those that are saved, they can extol

God. They can worship God. And Peter says, oh yeah, by the way, we need to go be baptized. Even though you're saved, you're justified, you have your sins forgiven, we still are called to be obedient to the great commission and be baptized, displaying our faith to the watching world.

Yeah, I mean, so I would just point out that the question - You like some of that. Well, yeah,

I do. I mean, because I agree with some of you. Of course, I agree with some of the stuff that you say. But verse 37 goes, men and brethren, what shall we do?

That was a question. And you can see it because verse 38, Peter says, repent and let everyone be baptized.

So he's answering them rather than just saying, well, hold on guys, don't cut out me yet.

This is a Jewish people that would have the cursings of God in the back of their minds because of the

Torah. If you disobey, then you have nothing but curses and are cut off from God.

I mean, it's extreme language when you go look at Deuteronomy chapter 30. I mean, worthy of death and eternal death.

And so this is a Jewish people - I agree with you on that. Well, this is my point is, they are pronouncing woes on themselves and Peter's saying, no, no, no, you can be saved.

I think they're asking a question because then he says, because then he gives the answer, verse 38, and that does encompass baptism.

And it is literal because you see in verse 41, those who gladly received his word were baptized.

Right. So they received the word by faith and then they were baptized, which is indicative of those who are repentant believers.

And so, yeah, this question is one of not of happiness. This is one of covenant cursings.

What shall we do? Because we deserve the full wrath of God. And we see that in Luke chapter three with another

Jewish audience. And then John the Baptist is saying that the axe is going to be laid at the root.

And there's fiery judgment for those that rebel against the king. Yeah, definitely.

And I just, I like to point out to people, there is a much broader context that people do not talk about.

Ceremonies never saved in the old covenant and it didn't change. Abraham is the father of faith.

He wasn't saved by circumcision, leaving the land of Ur, offering of his son Isaac. It's always been by faith in the new covenant promise that was to come.

That is the continuity of how all saints have always been justified before God. And I do agree with you there too, because again, it's not the water that's saved.

It's not like the actual, exactly. It's not like you pour water and that's the thing that saves.

It's the word. Would you agree with me though? Abraham was justified before the ceremony of circumcision.

Amen. I would say we are justified the same way as Abraham, not by ceremony.

It displays faith. The just shall live by faith. But we are justified the moment that we put our faith in Christ alone.

And we might disagree a little bit on that, but that's my argument for. Yeah. And this is the point too, is that people think that again, baptismal regeneration in the

Protestant sense is Roman Catholicism. We don't disagree that it's not the ceremony that saves and it's only by faith.

When I talk about baptismal regeneration, I'm primarily talking about infants because they don't have the capacity to believe, but they also don't have capacity not to believe and to reject the word of God.

There's other things that we could talk about too, but that would require another, probably another hour. And I just press for time here.

But I sincerely appreciate you talking and being charitable and cool. Because some people, they don't have the maturity to have this discussion,

Jeremiah. So I sincerely appreciate you. I appreciate you. And just know I count you as a brother in the

Lord, and I respect your conviction with children. If we love our children and God's commanded us to do something, we have to be convictional on these things.

So our conversation's off air. Just know I have a lot of respect for you. And I'm looking forward to our debate coming up in February.

Yeah, dude, I can't wait to show up. And maybe we'll switch it halfway about baptism. I want that to be like a running joke.

Like Jeremiah and Lucas are going to start arguing about baptism. I, you know, you already know

I'm down. So Jeremiah, why don't you not baptize your child? He's three years old. He's making a confession.

I'd be like, Hey, if he made a confession, I didn't know it. We need to baptize him right now. Yeah. But guys, thanks for watching.

Hit the like button, follow the apologetic dog and follow Method Ministries. If you're not, thanks for tuning in.