Well hello everybody to The Apologetic Dog. This is an apologetics ministry where you can probably see 1st

Timothy 620 in The Apologetic Dog logo. That's telling us that we're to guard the gospel deposit that's been entrusted to us.

And so that's my harsh desire here at The Apologetic Dog and as we understand that this applies to all

Christians. We're all equally supposed to be contending for the truth. We war against pagan philosophy and we expose contradictions that falsely call themselves knowledge.

I just want to invite you please subscribe and like the content. That actually helps these videos circulate more on YouTube as you share them, as you like them.

And so we love this ministry and so we thank you for your support. I also serve as an elder and pastor at 12

Five Church. I want to encourage you if you want to check out our teaching series or our preaching series please visit our church website that's 12fivechurch .com.

And so that being said I have an announcement that I'd like to inform you all of. I had the pleasure with my friend

Trey Fisher. We were able to go on cultish and we were able to talk about the

Church of Christ examining them. We actually believe that they're a cult that can be traced all the way back to Alexander Campbell in the restoration movement.

And so this episode will air somewhere towards mid -january. So I just want to let you know and to be on the lookout for that episode.

And so with that being said this is a very special episode because recently I was in a debate against a

Lutheran. And so I have a very good friend of mine here with me today Adam Carmichael.

How are you doing sir? I'm doing very well. Thank you for allowing me to be on here just to have a discussion about your debate.

Well last time we were talking about your debate so I thought man I gotta have Adam back on so we can do all this all over again.

And when I walked in today did I look a little bit different? Yeah you kind of took down part of your reform beard there so I mean the prerequisite to being reformed.

It's true. I'm a little bit less reformed today. And Pastor Nathan, he's hiding back there behind all the tech stuff, said

I was really more like the apologetic puppy. Thanks for that Pastor Nathan. So thank you for being on.

You actually were able to watch the live. So what were some of your initial thoughts about how the exchange went with Mark and myself on Donnie's channel?

Well I just want to say thank you to Donnie because Standing for Truth is a really good apologetics website to be able to go on there and watch different debates of different platforms and things like that.

So I was really loving going on there and watching that. And to see you and Mark, I also want to thank

Mark because he done really honorable the way he spoke and the way he kind of communed with you.

Sure we don't necessarily agree with everything that he said. There are some distinctions there but Mark done really well in the debate so we're not here to critique him necessarily but there are some things that he didn't say that lined up with Scripture the way we would understand according to the grammatical historical.

I'm glad you brought the grammatical historical because he mentioned that and I thought yes that's what we both should be contending for.

And so in this debate review there's a number of points there's about five different topics that I'd like to touch on because hopefully we can bring some clarity to some of the things that he said and because I think he was super respectful.

I enjoyed the whole debate and I also want to talk about some of the highlights within the debate that I just want to let people know this is the main distinction with Lutherans and Reformed Baptists and I want to talk about some of the things that are perhaps inconsistent with Lutheran doctrine.

So with that being said, Pastor Nathan, if you would please cue up this first clip that we have.

I really want to emphasize that Jeremiah focused mainly on Acts 2 .38

but in my opening statement I gave, you know, almost 10 passages dealing with baptism.

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

not that I think he gave a really good explanation for why we should depart from the plain sense of the words, but he's going to have to deal with all of these other texts that I provided, and in fact what he's going to have to do is to really find ways to get around saying what the texts actually plainly say in order to prove his idea that baptism is merely a demonstration for those who have faith in Christ.

Thank you for that, Mark. He said a number of things there, Adam, I want to cover.

And like I said, I think Mark's a super awesome guy, so I mean I enjoyed this exchange that we've had and continue to get to do.

But he kept talking about Jeremiah's going to have to talk around the plain meaning of the text, and I think this is actually a form of begging the question.

I think we're both saying that it's plain. The meaning is plain. Words have meaning in their context, and we're holding to this grammatical historical.

And so when he says that, I think he's just begging the question. He's already assuming his position, and I'm over here saying we both have a burden of proof, right?

So do you want to speak to the grammatical historical method, how that's really important for this conversation? Yeah, I like how he was just trying to say the the plain meaning of the words, and so he's just saying that, okay, let's just look at what the word means out of its context, because I hate saying

Church of Christ while we're in this discussion, but they hold the same thing where we see one word and apply the same definition throughout all of its text.

So the plain meaning is good, but what about the context? It always goes back to context, and so the grammatical historical method of interpretation basically just says words have meaning in the context in which they were meant to be expressed, right?

And so there's kind of two approaches to this that are so important. You look to the lexical usage of a word, which shows the semantic domain of many definitions for a word, right?

And then you look to the immediate context, right? And then you see how that fits with the canonical context of all of Scripture.

We're sola Scriptura in tota Scriptura, right? We look to Scripture alone, and we look to all of Scripture. And so something else he said in this passage was, you know,

Jeremiah spent so much time in his opening statement with Acts 2 38 to kind of go against water baptism being for the forgiveness of sins.

And what's interesting when he says that is I was actually starting with Acts 2 38 going all the way to verse 41 to show the nature of the

New Covenant and of how this passage is actually normative for us today. And my big point was that infants can't confess

Jesus as Lord. They can't receive the Word with faith. And so that was my whole point.

Yeah, I talked about Acts 2 38 briefly to show how it fits in the context. And so I think that was something

Mark was not prepared for, is to kind of defend why infants should be baptized on the

Lutheran's view, because that was my main point here in Acts 2 38. What did you think when you first heard that exchange going on?

I thought it was a pretty good exchange, but like I said, he suffers from, he's bringing in presupposition of Lutheranism, so I mean, he's taught this, okay, well babies can be baptized into the

New Covenant and things like that, and I know you're gonna hit more on that later as we move along, but man,

I'm just thankful that I don't have this false presupposition, because I was 39 years old before God called me to himself, so I didn't have the hiccups that you see with other people bringing in their presupposition.

And let me say this, we all bring presuppositions to the table. We just have to examine those presuppositions and see which are biblical and which aren't.

And some are transcendental, like we can't help but bringing the grammatical historical method to exegeting

Scripture because it's inescapable. Words always have meaning in the context in which they are meant for, right?

And so I believe, you know, kind of a word that captures this is prolegomena. There are first things that you must bring, and I'm glad in the debate

Mark was talking about the grammatical historical method, but he's assuming his tradition in there and saying, you have the burden of proof to prove yours.

I'm over here saying, yeah, I plan to prove mine, and you also have to vindicate and defend yours.

You can't just say, well, it means what it means, or it says what it says, and it means what it means, because we know we deal with those people all the time.

They have a burden of proof as well. So I thought it would be good, Pastor Nathan, if we actually read these verses, because my whole point in my opening statement was, if we're going to appeal to anything in the book of Acts, we need to be able to say and show how it is normative for the church today, and the way you do that is you eventually have to get outside the book of Acts, and for me proving the nature of the

New Covenant, I went to the book of Hebrews, which we'll get into later. So let me read this passage and show how

I was really making a case how infants don't fit within this paradigm. I wasn't making a big case for the phrase, for the forgiveness of sins.

But let me read this. Acts 2 38, Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. This is where I continued on reading in my opening statement. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the

Lord calls to himself. With many other words, Peter bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying,

Save yourselves from this crooked generation. And this was so key in my argument, Adam. Verse 41, so those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about 3 ,000 souls.

I was making the case that the promise for you and your children is a

Hebraic expression. That's a phrase that the Jews take very internally to mean, yeah, everything that's being promised to me has to fit with the inheritance and the land promises.

And then what Peter is saying, yeah, you deserve the cursions of God, but there's still hope in Jesus. Repent. Be baptized.

Demonstrate that faith. And this is for you and your children, Jews. And then he goes in the next thing and he says, for those who are far off.

Well, that's a phrase for Gentiles. And he's basically making a gospel proclamation for all men, whether you're

Jew or whether you're Greek. And then the last phrase, he says, for whoever or everyone that the

Lord calls to himself. And that's what he was getting at. That's good. Yeah, do you have any other thoughts on that?

I was real intrigued when Dr. Watt come, and he kind of went through Acts 238.

He brought clarity to it, but like I said, you really kind of highlighted more clearly that it wasn't that they were saved because of baptism.

It was just something to express and show that they were cut to the heart.

Yes, because it's a Jewish context, and that's why we can make sense, and the promise is for you and your children.

And Dr. Watt did bring that up beautifully, I thought. And so as we carry this train of thought, we remind people.

So for you and your children is not just an immediate assumption of, well, we're gonna apply baptism to our infants.

That's not what Peter is talking about, because the argument is, well, the children, let's go back up into Acts 238, and hey, the promise is baptism.

And it's like, well, the promise is the Holy Spirit. The promise is salvation, and why stop at baptism right before repent?

Oh yeah. And so even their own standard of trying to interpret it that way falls short. And Mark misunderstood my whole point with saying this passage, which we ground in the nature of the

New Covenant from the book of Hebrews, excludes those like infants who cannot confess Jesus as Lord.

And so that's why I wanted to bring up, when he said the the plain meaning of Acts especially, you have to prove your case, right?

Because not only does he have a burden of proof there, but that didn't even really go with the point that I was making of saying, clearly no children were in this

Jewish context. And then I was trying to say, this will help us understand the household baptisms later on.

That's good. Yeah, so I'm glad that we were able to touch on that. And so another important verse, remember in the clip that we just played,

Mark was just like, my whole case doesn't rest on Acts 238. And I'm over here like, good, because I could talk for days on Acts 238, but let's go other places, you know what

I mean? And so one of the places that I was so glad that he talked to me about was 1st

Peter 321. And he asked, and we're about to play the clip here in a moment, but he was just like, what are the contextual clues?

And I think a lot of people that do have their tradition at the forefront of their mind, as we're about to get into what this verse talks about, really catches people off guard.

Oh definitely. So Pastor Nathan, will you please roll that second clip we have? 1st

Peter 3, you said, was not talking about water baptism, is that right?

Correct. So what is the contextual clue that leads you to that conclusion?

I liked how he said, he says, what's the contextual clue? And I remember when he asked me, I'm like, there's so many.

Like, thank you for giving me this opportunity to answer this question. Because really, in order to understand baptism now saves you, you have to understand what comes right before and what comes right after it, right?

So if you would, do you mind to just read both of those verses, and then we'll really get into what

Peter's talking about there. All right, yeah. 1st Peter 320, because they formerly did not obey when

God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, those are good words to hold on to, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thank you, brother. I want to encourage people, also, I talked with a

Church of Christ individual on his program for about,

I don't know, it was less than an hour, but maybe 45 minutes, on this verse. And I could tell, as I was explaining this, there was zero pushback.

And my point is, I can tell once we really start delving into the context and developing it out, a lot of people are like,

I don't know what to do with this. This is the first time that I've heard someone say, well, baptism here,

I know water is in the verse before, and then the assumption is, this must be talking, in some sense, about our water baptism.

So what's some of the context that really informs us how we can understand verse 21? Well, verse 21, we're looking at there at the end of,

I believe it's antetippus, it's an antetope, or an example. So some would look at the water, but man, topologies are always going from the lesser to the greater.

So let me pause you, because you make a really good point, because I think that King James renders it differently.

There's an antetype, I can't remember exactly how it says, but in the ESV it says, baptism which corresponds to this.

So there is a antipos, there is a antetype going on. And so tell us, what is salvific in verse 20?

What is the type that we should be holding on to here? Alright, so I kind of did a little study and research to bring it up.

When we're looking at the ark, the topology that we see Peter is saying here is pointing to Jesus to being the ark.

Topologies, like I said, work from the lesser to the greater. Topologies point out the reason for its usage.

There are two events that I want to look at. Of course, one is Noah and the ark that he built because of this passage in 1st

Peter. The other is Moses, when his mother put him in a basket by the

Nile. Those are some, the texts are Genesis 6 14, when it says, make yourself an ark.

Taba, which is the Hebrew of gopher wood, make room in the ark, cover it inside and out with pits.

That's kaphor, and that word's a good one to look at. We'll get to that one in a second.

And then the next text is Exodus 2 3, and this is talking about Moses. So then she could hide him no longer.

She took him in a basket. Taba, which is a Hebrew word for it, made of bulrush and dabeld.

It is with bitumen and pits, which is kopher again.

She put the child in it and placed him among the reeds of the riverbank. So I want to look at the, there are two arks here,

Genesis 6 14 and Exodus 2 3. They were covered with pits, as we see in these texts.

Noah's ark and Moses' basket or ark. The ark was their refuge, as we see in Psalms 46 1, the

Lord is our refuge. And 91 2, a home, Psalm 90 verse 1, and a temple,

Exodus 25 verse 8. Places of God's providence, provision, protection, and presence.

As we see that word pits in Hebrew is kopher. It's a waterproof type of glue substance.

It's covering, assisted in protecting the people aboard both the ark by keeping the judgment waters outside.

So this is interesting to note because the word for pits is also translated atonement in Leviticus 17 11.

So let me pause you. I want to do a brief recap because I love what you're doing. So you've highlighted how the ark is a picture of Jesus.

We're really gonna tie this together how the baptism now saves you as being in the ark of Christ.

And so we really see this brought out in verse 20, and I love what you're doing. You're saying if you're familiar at all with your

Old Testament, then there's so many more context clues that points to the ark as a type of Christ.

So what I encourage people, like even in my debate with Mark, I just said in verse 20 keep three things in mind.

So while the ark, Noah, while the ark was being prepared, so you have an ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, so that's

Noah and his family, that's the other thing to keep in mind, and number three were brought safely through water.

Okay, so we have those three things in mind. You already alluded to this. Water is not salvific in this context, right?

It's actually an instrument of judgment that God used on the entire world minus eight souls.

Okay, I think where some of the confusion comes in is where the King James says there were eight souls that were saved by water.

And in other places I've said, yeah, that is fine, like that phraseology is fine, but a lot of times the

King James is not as precise as it could have been. That's why a lot of these other good word -for -word translations has nuanced it.

It's still the same Greek, still the same understanding, but when you have the story of Noah in mind, that's really going to help you interpret what's being said, because when the

King James says that the eight souls were saved by water, well we understand save has a semantic domain, right?

They were preserved through the water, whereas the ESV says they were brought safely through water, right?

In spite of the water, because it was a means of judgment, what saved Noah and his family?

Obviously God using the ark. That saved them. And so that should already be setting the typology going on in our mind, right?

And so as we go into verse 21, we have baptism. Now Adam, I've said some,

I've talked with some people that says baptism is so clear. It just means immersion.

So why are you trying to make this not a wet immersion, when clearly it's already talking about water in the context, right?

Have you ever had those types of encounters with people? What's a good immediate response that we could say?

Well, the first would be it's not the removal of dirt or filth from the body. So that's so key, because when

Mark says what contextual clue, you know, we develop the context, right? But it's almost like, read right after you read baptism that now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body.

So what's interesting is, you know, Mark will say, you know, the plain sense and meaning of the word. But you know what they say when they look at that?

Well, it's so much more than just water. And I'm like, wait, so we're gonna abandon the normal sense of the word.

I mean, he's literally saying not the thing that removes dirt from the body, which would be a ceremonial bath, a baptism, right?

And so it's funny when I can almost tongue -in -cheek when people say, so you don't see water baptism at all in 1

Peter 3 .21? Oh yeah. It's just not the thing that Peter is talking about. It's not the removal of dirt from the body.

So yeah, it's there, but not in the way that you think it is. Continuing to develop context, because when he asked for kind of like one contextual clue,

I'm like, no, there's about seven or eight. And I love what you did, because when you go to the Old Testament, you just see how pitch, as it relates to the ark, carries so much greater implications, right?

And along with the gopher wood. I want you to repeat what you were saying, because you said there's some extension of pitch and gopher wood kind of getting into the atonement.

So in a brief way, how do we connect the gopher wood and pitch, or just one of those, to atonement?

Yeah, pitch, that word there, pitch, is kephor, and that's the same word pitch that he used in Leviticus 17 .11

for atonement. So we see that covering, that's what protected Moses when he was in the basket.

It's the same thing with Noah and the ark. That's what protected them and kept them in Christ, or I would say, because God was on the inside with them.

So it's a beautiful picture. It's a beautiful picture, because the Old Testament is starting to set the stage how the ark is a picture of a greater ark to come.

And so one of the last context clues here in 1 Peter 3 .21 of saying the baptism is not referring to your water baptism.

It's really talking about an appeal of your faith being in Christ.

That's what's going to give you a clear conscience, a clean conscience. And so what I tell people is,

Peter kind of already dealt with this earlier in the context, so if you would look with me at verse 15 and 16.

And so there, one of our favorite verses, 1 Peter 3 .15, Peter says, And so he kind of gives a working definition of what it means to have a good conscience.

He's saying, honor Christ. Sanctify the Lord in your heart. He's talking about trusting

Him. Have faith in Christ. That's the appeal to God that will give you a clear conscience.

And that's how Peter goes on to say here, And I just noticed when you explain these things to people, usually it's like,

I'm not prepared to handle this in -depth look at the context.

And I would argue the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning. Because you look at what baptism means.

There's a semantic domain. How do you know? Well, it always means immersion, but into what context?

Right? And so I actually want to take a moment to kind of let people know, baptism does not always mean into a wet immersion.

Okay? You have to let context inform you how baptism is being used. So we've talked about this on a number of occasions.

You have baptizo. That's probably one of the most common usages of baptism. You have baptize a.

Right? It's not identical, but they are related. And then another really interesting one that comes out in Colossians 2 that we talked about on our last debate review, but it's baptize mas.

In the plural, that's really pointing back to a Jewish understanding of ceremonial washings.

And so there's different definitions, but you know something that binds them all together? It means to be immersed.

But into what context? Because you could be immersed into a dry context. And so for example, you can be immersed into one's authority.

You can be immersed in a context of suffering. Well, those aren't wet contexts. Right? But there is the context that we're all talking about here.

You can be immersed in your water baptism. And we would say fully immersed. You know what I mean? And so I was talking to Mark after the debate.

I say talking to him. We were just sending messages. And I asked him, I do you think the worst point that I made? And he says,

I did not like your argument that you were taking water out of baptism in the epistles.

So obviously he was thinking of 1st Peter 3 21, which we kind of looked at. Right? And then he doesn't like it how we do it in Romans 6 3 and 4 and Galatians 3 27.

And so I want to let Mark know that I don't believe every baptism in the epistles takes the water out.

But for one, there's a semantic domain. There's different definitions for baptism. So you have to demonstrate from the context how we're supposed to understand this word.

And so there's actually an example. And we don't have to pull this up, but in 1st Corinthians 1 16, clearly

Paul is talking about a water baptism. He talks about in the household of Stephanas, there was a baptism that's going on.

Well, that makes us think back to Acts in the household water baptism. And Paul's just saying, I'm glad I didn't baptize any one of you.

I came to preach the gospel. You know what I mean? So he's actually making a distinction between preaching the gospel, the good news of how people get saved, with water baptism.

But the point is, that's a time in the epistle where water baptism. How do I know that? Surrounding context.

And then I would press Mark if we got into this. I'd say continue reading in the same letter. I think it's 1st

Corinthians 10 2. Paul's talking about the Israelites were baptized into Moses.

Well, they weren't baptized into water because God literally parted the sea for them to walk through, not to be immersed in it.

And so that demonstrates that you are being baptized into the authority of something. And I'm saying that's what

Paul primarily means in like Romans 6 and Galatians 3, along with the surrounding context.

You are immersed into who Christ is. That's what Peter's talking about here in 1st Peter 3 21. And the last reference

I just want to mention in 1st Corinthians is 15 29, that talks about a baptism for the dead.

Well, good luck trying to make that about water baptism, because that has to fit within the context of 1st

Corinthians 15, which is talking about faith in the resurrection. You know what I mean? So do you want to speak to that?

What would you say to someone that says, well, that's a no -no. We shouldn't be taking water out of the baptism verses in the epistles.

That could be dangerous, because like I said, context has always got to be the negotiator of whether water is applied.

Adam, it's so simple, and the meaning is so plain. You have to go around the plain meaning of the word to do that.

Well, I enjoy having the plain meaning of the word, but the plain meaning of the word without the context is...

So you're gonna make me study this with you, and you're gonna tell me verses before and after what's being used? That's how you get context.

If you're not getting context, then you don't really care about where your soul goes. I mean, because that's what it boils down to, is people have got this dumb saying where all that's in this life is death and pay taxes, but that's wrong.

It's death and eternal life. So we're trying to make sure people are properly equipped to know where their soul is going, and if you ain't with studying

God's Word, then you've already told us where you don't care. Amen. I But what we're highlighting is the grammatical historical method of interpretation is preeminent.

So we all should be saying that's what we want to do, but you have to get into the lexical understandings of definitions of any particular word, like baptism, and we know that it's not going to entail wet immersion every time.

We're saying context is the thing that determines that, and so something that I can tell people are disappointed in, like with Galatians 3, 27, or Romans 6, 3 and 4,

Paul is writing to believers who have already been baptized. That's key, and that in 1

Corinthians 1, 16, that I was referencing earlier, that shows exactly, you know, the household of Stephanas.

Believers already been baptized, and Paul's making a point in light of that. In Romans, he's making that case to Roman Christians, and so the context with Romans 6 is talking about you died with Christ.

Well, that's a spiritual reality, right? That didn't happen physically, right? And that's important because by faith, we have been united, immersed into Christ.

Paul, I don't know, spent five chapters making that case right before, and so that's what rings true.

And before we move on to the next clip, tell me about Galatians 3, 27, because Paul uses a similar understanding about, well, as many of you that have put on Christ, you have been now baptized into Christ.

Because when we go to that context, right, he's already talked about how did you receive the

Spirit? Was it by hearing of the Word, or was it by obeying the law? Right? So tell us how that works in the context of Galatians 3, 27.

I'll just read here. It says, for as many of you has were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

The way that works is when we look at the water baptism, that's a picture, and I love saying it in a way to kind of poke at the

Church of Christ. He uses watercolors, so the Holy Spirit is kind of engrafted in watercolors.

He's painting a beautiful picture of the already finished work that he's done. But Adam, that's not in the text.

You've got to speak where the Bible is. We hear that, but then it's just, we cycle back into grammatical, historical method of interpretation.

Forget SINI, right? We've heard that acronym before. No. Words have meaning in the context, the ancient context in which it was written.

And so, like you said, it's painting a beautiful picture. I'll say it with you. That's what Paul's getting at.

Two believers who were already baptized, and before we get into verse 2,

I know that you love talking about that. It's awesome. But even the verse right before, for in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through baptism.

Oh, sorry. I misread that. It says through faith. That's right. So that's the context. He's talking about you're baptized in Christ, meaning you're immersed into him, his authority, his resurrection becomes your resurrection by faith.

Amen. So why is this 3 -2 so important as well? It's saying how we received, and it doesn't have, like you said, baptism is not there.

This is not by works of the law, but by hearing. And I believe that's the same context

Paul's talking about in Romans 10 and 17. That's how we've got our faith. So I mean, it's clear that the

Holy Spirit's the one that does that work. This is a good segue to the next clip, because something within Lutheran's doctrine of baptism is they teach a baptismal regeneration.

So we've already been touching on the nature of the covenant, which we'll continue to get into in Hebrews later, but it's for those that confess

Christ. And so earlier my argument was this excludes infants. You can even look to the phrase, and you can call it the plain meaning of the phrase all you want, but you have a burden to prove when you read the promises for you and your children.

Well, keep reading, you know, right? And so I spent a long time talking about that, because that's a relevant issue that a lot of people are familiar with, right?

I'm so glad Mark talked about how baptism is a visible word of God.

I didn't have any dispute with that, right? I care more about the implications of where they're going to continue to carry that.

So I spent a long time on infant baptism, and this leads us to baptismal regeneration, okay?

And so after the debate, somebody wasn't too happy with me, because he said, oh, Jeremiah is changing the the topic of the debate, moving from baptism to soteriology.

And I want to say, wait a second, because this guy was Lutheran. I'm like, y 'all believe in baptismal regeneration.

So the fact that I want to talk about regeneration has very much to do with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism.

So naturally, remember Mark in his opening clip was like, oh, Jeremiah didn't deal with a lot of verses, you know, in my opening statement.

Well, you know, I had a mission to accomplish, so we're gonna do a little bit more of that now. Let's talk about John chapter 3.

John 3, 5 is really important. In fact, Nathan, will you roll that next clip for us? Are you talking about water baptism?

No. Is it talking about baptism in any sense? Yes. What baptism is it talking about?

Okay, so here's the context. I think Nicodemus has on his mind earthly categories of being born in an earthly sense, and I think he would have in mind the water baptism of John.

And I think Jesus is given that slight rebuke, saying, hey, you're a ruler of Israel. You don't know what your own scriptures, the

Hebrew scriptures, actually teach about spiritual realities. So baptism is relevant, as we see it come out later in verse 22, where Jesus and his disciples were baptizing, where water was plentiful, but they got into disputes with Jews over purification rites.

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

I liked hearing that again. Oh, yeah. Because when we're talking about regeneration, you have to talk about at least two passages.

John chapter 3, verse 5, because it says water, and we got it, you know, why are you taking the water out, right?

And then you got to talk about There's other related verses to regeneration, but these kind of surface to the top.

Oh, yeah. And so I do want to touch on this again. I want to get your any initial thoughts.

So we have to talk about John 3, and you notice the two type of questions he asked me.

He goes, okay, in John 3, is Jesus, it was his implication, talking about water baptism?

I said, no. And then he said, is baptism being talked about in any sense? And I said, yes.

And I could almost see it. He was just like, how does that work, basically? Oh, yeah. So how do we approach this situation?

Like you said, we're talking to Nicodemus, who should know the law, but Jesus, coming from perspective of John's baptism, because John was the one that was preparing the way for the

Lord. So when we get to where Nicodemus is, I was a little troubled when

I first read it. He's like, ma 'am, how am I gonna be born again? Do I go into my mother's womb a second time?

And that's where Jesus kind of really hit him down, and he's like, no, I'm not even talking about these natural things.

I'm talking about spiritual things, things that you should already know, because you're a teacher of the law. So if he's a teacher of the law, then where do we go to to find what he's trying to get

Nicodemus to already know? Is it okay if I disagree? I think it's with Matt Slick. He held the view that Jesus was talking about, you got to be born earthly, and then you have to be born, again, heavenly, something like that.

I don't think that's the view that's being talked about, but I do think it's orthodox. The reason why

I don't think that, though, is because Jesus is using such striking imagery of Ezekiel 36, and for someone to say that that is not what

Jesus has in mind, then they have to answer me this. Jesus is actually holding

Nicodemus accountable to something he should already know. Verse 10, Jesus answered

Nicodemus, are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

So what knowledge is Jesus holding Nicodemus accountable to? Well, it'd be something that had already been revealed in the

Hebrew Scriptures, and we already have too much sauce, too much context of John chapter 1, 12, and 13.

The reason why some received Jesus is not the will of man, but is of God, and so when you look into the word born again, doesn't it mean to be literally born from above?

Well, this directly echoes Ezekiel 36 language, where God says, I will cause you to walk in my statutes.

I will cleanse you by my Spirit. I will take out that heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh, and so it's too clear.

You know what I mean? Like, people can just disagree, and I'm gonna say the meaning is too plain for me.

Like, we're gonna play that game a little bit of just saying, I'm not convinced because of the clear and plain meaning of the text, but the point is, you have to be able to develop what that actually looks like, and so here's the objection

I get, Adam, is you want the Spirit to stay there, but Jesus says you must be born of the water and the

Spirit, so how do you take water out of that statement? And I just say, look, he's already talking about being born again, born from above.

Then he makes the statement that you must be born of water and the Spirit, and then verse 8 he says, so it is with everyone who is born of the

Spirit. So the water is being qualified by the Spirit. He says the same thing three different times, and so Ezekiel 36 is talking about a spiritual cleansing.

That's what he's talking about here with the water and the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is going to cleanse you, right, bring you to newness of life, to be born again from being dead, right, and to have new life.

That's what Ephesians chapter 2. I was talking with Brother Keith one day that just about how but God, but God being rich in mercy, lavishing us with with his love, and we are saved by his grace.

And so you got the famous but God statement, right? That's what Jesus is talking about here. So this is a spiritual cleansing, and so water is meant to teach us a heavenly truth.

But it's so funny, because I found people being like Nicodemus, no, no, no, he's talking about water, right? We're talking about these earthly categories, and I'm like, that's the problem

Nicodemus had. He was trying to be born from his mother's womb again, right? He would have been thinking about John's water baptism, and Jesus is like, no, no, no.

Think back to the scripture that came from God. Think about what it means to be born from above. So what do you think?

I think it's great, because most people don't understand five times there from John 3, 5 to 3, 8, the

Spirit is mentioned even when there is Pneuma in Greek. So my question is, why would we want to cling to water when the

Spirit is talked about five times in that verse? You're just taking the water out of it.

It's the plain meaning of the text. And I want our viewers, I don't know, Pastor Nathan, where to look over here.

Oh, I'm over here, is you can say that the plain meaning of the text is

X, but you have to demonstrate that. And so that's where I hope our audience is listening to us, is we're starting with lexical uses, definitions of terms, and then we're letting the context determine that.

Because I noticed, and I'm trying to be nice to say this, I noticed Mark asked me this question about three times in a row, and I just tried to come at it with a little bit more zing each time, because I could tell his tradition was being challenged, and he's never probably heard of a good response to this before.

And so one of his questions was, well, how can you believe this is a waterless baptism when the surrounding context involves water, like with John the

Baptist? I'm like, because that's what Nicodemus would have had in mind, and Jesus is calling him to think in almost transcendent categories.

Because we don't deny later in verse 22, Jesus and his disciples, they went on baptizing, where water was plentiful.

And it goes on to talk about how this was in disputes with Jews over purification rites, and I think that further builds our case.

Because when you start getting into purification washings in the Old Testament, they would be totally bathed in water.

Leviticus 17, many examples in Leviticus. I saw people in the chat saying, Jeremiah's not quoting from anywhere.

Well, go back to Yom Kippur. Aaron was totally bathed. This would have been a type of mitzvah.

Am I saying that right? Yeah. Mitzvah. And this would have been a setting where someone was totally immersed for a ceremonial cleansing, and those are always in the context to teach us a spiritual truth.

That's what we teach, right? Baptism is wonderful, and it pictures a spiritual reality of what

God has already begun in your life, and we'll see it to completion. So when you dial back, baptism doesn't just pop up out of nowhere in the

New Testament. It's like, no, no, the nearest antecedent with that is not these Old Testament types and shadows, but it's with John the

Baptist. And there was even a backdrop why John's immersion in water was meaningful, because it even has remnants with the

Jewish purification rites. So anything else to add to that? No, that's good.

We don't want to kind of overload them with too much theology. I know. We get going. Well, like I said, there's two passages that kind of rise to the forefront, and John 3, 5, we're talking about regeneration, and we got to,

Adam, we got to talk about Titus 3, 5. I love how it's John 3, 5 and Titus 3, 5. Yeah, that's good.

Before we look at this passage a little bit, and hopefully the audience kind of catches the pattern, we're going to look at context.

We're not going to read this as a mere proof text, but I want to talk about a little bit of why

I think Lutherans have trouble with this a little bit is because, and this stems straight back from Martin Luther himself, he could only understand the

Spirit working in the Word in such a way—now make sure I say this right—in such a way that regeneration was ever -present with the proclaimed

Word as well, whether it's proclaimed or through the visible Word like baptism. So like, regeneration had to always be there, and this comes from other verses that I think

Lutherans misunderstand. You mentioned this earlier, Romans 10, 17 talks about faith comes by hearing, and hearing of the

Word of Christ, or the Word of God, if you like that good old King James Bible. And so, in their mind, in order to get faith, it only can come through the

Word with the Spirit, and regeneration is there. And we're saying the

Spirit's always present in regeneration. It's always present with His Word, but regeneration doesn't always go with the

Spirit -filled Word. Sometimes, and this is God's prerogative, and we're gonna continue to build this case, the

Spirit -filled Word goes out in power, but not always regeneration being with the

Spirit -filled Word going forth. But we still see the Word going out in power because of the nature of the

Word of God. It's living, it's powerful, sharper than any two -edged sword. And Jesus said that the

Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. And so it's always a

Spirit -filled Word. It's just, make sure I say this right, because I caught myself in the debate. I said this in such a way, I'm like,

Spirit's always in regeneration. But regeneration doesn't always go out in the proclaiming of the

Spirit -filled Word, right? So we're saying it's God's prerogative to sometimes have the

Spirit -filled Word to go out in judgment, right? And that doesn't entail regeneration being embedded in the

Spirit -filled Word. Did I say it right this time? Thank you. See, that's why

I need you. I need you to keep me in check with things. I hope I'm not stepping too far past.

This is where the question you kind of put back in Mark, why would one believe over the other?

Stop that. We're gonna get to that cliff as well. No, but this is a good transition, because their understanding of regeneration in such a way that it necessarily is embedded with the

Spirit -filled Word is gonna lead to future contradictions that they put in this mystery box.

But there's actually another verse, too, that I think we need to be able to give a good account for, and I believe it is 1

Peter 1, 23, and it talks about how one is born again by preaching of the

Word. Real similar to Romans 10, 17. And so, with our understanding, when someone is born again, it is understood as the

Spirit -filled Word that also carried that regeneration with it. Right?

So, we can say, yeah, the Word of God causes someone to regenerate because the

Spirit is with the Word and regeneration, right? And so, it's a work of the

Spirit. And so, this actually ties into Titus 3, 5. And so, Pastor Nathan, if you could pull up Titus 3, 5,

I want to look a little bit at context and have you help me develop this out. So, I'm actually gonna look at starting verse 4 through verse 8.

So, we read, "...but when the goodness and loving -kindness of God our

Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the

Holy Spirit, whom He 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 this is important. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.

These things are excellent and profitable for our people. And so, there's a lot there that's actually important.

So, the proof text is Titus 3, 5. And what is so important is that God saves, right?

God our Savior. In the contrast is not you. Not you,

Adam. You did not assist God in His work of redemption at all. And that's the same for me.

And this is where tongue -in -cheek again. Remember how if someone could ask me, do I think water is involved in John 3?

Yeah, but not in the way that you think, right? It's actually a rebuke against Nicodemus for thinking those categories.

It actually comes back out in 1 Peter 3, 21. Is baptism present? Yeah, but not in the way that you think.

It's not the removal of dirt from the body, right? You're talking about something else. And so, I could almost say this.

Yeah, baptism is somewhere involved. Water baptism is involved in 3, 5, but not in the way that you think.

Because God saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness.

That is where baptism would fall for us. Now, we'll say this. With infants, they're not doing any works.

So, they have me on infant baptism. I can't say, oh man, you're adding works to the gospel.

Because with infants, it's being done to them. And so, we just got to say, well, given the nature of the New Covenant, it's for those that confess

Jesus as Lord. That's why infants shouldn't be involved in baptism. It's not to say that we don't love children.

It's not to say we don't honor the verse where Jesus says, allow the little children to come to me, for such is the kingdom of God. We love all those within their context, right?

And so, the deal is, and I tried to key in on this, and I think it worked really well. I'm talking about adult baptisms.

Those are participatory works that we work together in our sanctification.

And we're reminded, your justification is not based on what you brought to the table. Something that you did rightly, that you were called to do.

But don't get it twisted. That's not why you stand right before God. Does that make sense? We can see baptism in Titus 3, 5, but not with the washing, regeneration, renewal of the

Holy Spirit. No, it's actually a work that you've done in righteousness, and that's not contributing to your salvation.

Oh yeah. Yes, I really enjoy that. I would also apply when they say that the baby's not doing nothing when he or she's been baptized.

Well, that's a misconception of Ergon there in Romans 4. It means whether you do something or the person that's taking you up.

It is true. That baby may be crying, flailing its arms, and it's, and to their credit, it's not doing any works to assist in its baptism.

They're doing works like even pagans are doing work against God, right? I forget the quote.

Pastor Nathan probably knows it, but there was one theologian that talked about the only thing you contributed to your salvation were the sin, the sinful deeds that made it necessary to have a

Savior. Amen. So that's why you got to just be able to have a conversation about adult baptism and then infant baptism, because it's not gonna be the same as you're

But like you're saying, Ergon is so much broader and in -depth than what people realize.

It's anything that you do or accomplish. Oh yeah. And so that's why adult baptism especially belongs in this category, not because of works done by us in righteousness.

And we kind of talked about this in your debate review video, because people said, well, baptism's not a work that we do.

It's a work of God. I get what you're saying in infant baptism. They're not doing anything positively in their baptisms.

It's all being done to them, even the being brought up into the baptism. But you can't make that case for adult baptism.

Oh no. Because, going to Lutherans, and it's interesting because I don't know if all Lutherans would agree with Mark on this, but I tried to ask him, you know, did regeneration happen before baptism for an adult?

He said, yes. And I'm like, okay, well does regeneration continue to happen in baptism? And he said, no.

That'd be more of, he said, your word, Jeremiah, sanctification. Talk to Lutherans. They say, no, regeneration has to be consistent from infant baptism to adult baptism.

So what they have to do is extend regeneration to mean more than a rebirth. It has to be a continual application of God.

And that's where I just say, well, that goes against the lexical usage of regeneration, and it just goes against the context in which we read about it, right?

You gotta understand proper categories. Regeneration, justification, sanctification, right? We got to keep the ordos loose.

So I want to give Mark's props that he stuck to the actual use of regeneration there.

But does that make sense? How you have to be, you have to qualify if you're talking about infant baptism versus adult baptism.

Oh yeah, there's definitely a different category there, and like I said, I don't know a whole lot about infant baptism, but I do know that Lutheranism is a distinction from Presbyterian, because our brothers there at the

Presbyterian place, we love them, but we see some inconsistencies. Absolutely, and that was something

I was trying to emphasize throughout the debate, is the Church of Christ, the way that they view baptism, and they're not gonna explicitly say it's meritorious, but I'm just saying that's the fruit of their position, right?

They're making it legalism. And so with Lutherans, I get what they're trying to do.

They're trying to hold on to justification by faith alone, when you have faith, and then so we're just talking about inconsistencies that we think flow from that, right?

And so the reason why I think works done by us in righteousness would be talking about baptism, going to church, reading your

Bible, all these things that we do, is because of the context of what Paul is doing here. He's writing this pastoral letter to Titus, and it's intended to go to a church congregation, and all throughout

Titus here, he is talking about good works, right? He even starts in Titus 1, talking about the reversal, talking about those that have had their consciences defiled.

They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

And so he already has this in mind in chapter 1. He's talking about being able to discern sound doctrine, right?

So it can basically edify the body, and that immediately ties into discipleship.

In verse 14 of chapter 2 says that Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness, to purify for himself a people for his own possession who were zealous for good works.

And so all this is laying the foundation for understanding not by works done by us in righteousness.

And so this is the distinction with the Pharisees. They would be trying to follow the law, the letter of the law, but their heart's not in it.

And we understand from Luke chapter 18 that would be trusting in yourself. When you're not looking to God, resting in the finished work of Christ, then you're necessarily looking somewhere else to yourself.

And so you have that contrast going on, and so then this is the key. This is the same point that Jesus was making in John 3.

Not the things that you do, not the things of earth and below, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the

Holy Spirit. And so this is a work of the Holy Spirit. When God has ordained that the

Spirit -filled Word go out in such a way to some, and we're gonna get into this, it then also carries regeneration.

And so when that hits a dead sinner's heart, it brings them newness of life.

And so I don't know if you want to speak any more to the context here, but it continues to talk about justification so we don't miss it.

"...whom he 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."

I feel like this is such a connection with Romans chapter 3. Oh yeah, Romans 3, 25,

I believe it is. I can't say it off the top of my head, but... We're justified by his grace.

Yeah, justified by grace. So the atonement there is always in categorical working towards Christ, the one that he's our great

God and Savior. And he justifies us by his grace through faith, apart from our works.

And I keep bringing up works, righteousness done by us, right? Because in verse 8, this saying is trustworthy.

This is almost like a creed, if you will. This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these things so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.

And so so many things are going on here, and I love the consistency of what we're seeing with John chapter 3, 1

Peter 3, 21. Everywhere we go, because infants can't do these things, right?

And we're seeing this is a work of God. This is something that has to be from above, that God says,

I will do these things. And so this sets us up for our next point, because like I said,

I think Lutherans today are just a reflection of Melanchthon, a protege of Martin Luther.

And Luther, bless his soul, was struggling against the vestiges of Rome, right?

We believe in semper reformanda. We're always reforming, and so when we look back at history, man, praise

God for Martin Luther. Justification by faith alone. We're standing on sola scriptura, God's Word as the only infallible rule of faith for the life of a believer.

But there are a lot of things that we see that he was still warring with, right? He even had certain views on Mary where I'm like, man, there are still things that need to be worked out with, and I believe his baptism, his view on baptism was something that still wasn't completely worked out.

You know what I mean? And so like I said, it comes, and this is where the person that was telling me that I was shifting the debate away from baptism, well they hold to baptismal regeneration, right?

And so I'm allowed to then get their definition and understanding of regeneration itself and its effects.

So with that being said, Pastor Nathan, will you please roll that next clip? Yes. So to kind of recap where we're at, so we both agree on total depravity, meaning that man is unable to respond positively to the gospel.

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

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

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

So I'll put it like this. If there's two people, one rejects the gospel that came out that was spirit -filled, right, and he rejected it, and a second person receives the gospel, how does that second person receive the gospel?

How does he receive it? Mm -hmm. I'm not really...

would you say that that's a different question from why does he receive it? No. Or is that the same question?

Why does one receive it and not the other? Okay. Okay. That sounds the direction I'm going.

Well, the simple answer is I don't know. But in the case of the person who does receive it, he's regenerated by the

Spirit through the Word. Thank you, Pastor Nathan. You're doing a phenomenal job back there, by the way.

So this is one of my favorite parts of the whole debate, Adam, is because in my questioning,

I was wanting to lead him down a path, and we were agreeing, we were agreeing, and then I wanted to bring something out of left field because, man, and like I said,

I love Lutherans. I love Martin Luther and studying the history, but they affirm total depravity and reject the doctrine of irresistible grace, this effectual call, this inner call that is distinguished from the external call that's for all men.

And I think they are in a huge pickle, and they call it a mystery, you know.

And I do want to say that we all have our mystery boxes, right? If you're asking me how the eternal counsel of God works before the foundation of the world,

I don't know. That's somehow a reflection of a human counsel, but that doesn't totally capture perichoresis, this perfect harmony of Father, Son, and Spirit counseling categorically different than how we counsel.

You know what I mean? There are mysteries, and I get that, but what I don't like is

I don't like saying, well, there's a plain sense and meaning of a verse. You have to prove your position because my position is just the plain meaning of the text, and then when you ask me really hard logical questions, mystery.

So I just, I try to wait a long time before I'm gonna pull out the mystery card, you know what

I mean? Like I want to exhaust all of what God has revealed before I do that.

And so anyway, that was a little bit of my thought going into this, but I wanted to set him up because studying this,

I noticed this huge gaping hole as they affirm tolerant of prophecy, reject irresistible grace, and reject libertarian free will.

And I'm over here like, ooh, that's a tough road to go down, you know what I mean? And I wanted to bring that out in the debate because I was trying to get him to agree with me very easily from what

Martin Luther talked about in the bondage of the will, and something as clear, talking about the plain meaning of the text here, something as clear as what the

Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2 14 that says, the natural person does not accept the things of the

Spirit of God for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Now I tried to quote the Greek, you may have to correct me on this, but un duname, man doesn't have the power within himself to be able to hear the spiritual gospel, the

Spirit -filled Word, and say, you know what? I'm gonna accept that. Right? It's not in him.

He's not able to do that. There's an inability on man's part. And so we look outside of that, and you know,

Mark said, we don't answer questions like, why is it that some respond and others don't?

Well, I'm over here saying, I would only believe that if I felt like it was super clear that the Scripture teaches that, and I think

Ephesians 2 1 through 10 beautifully paints this picture about how supernatural work of God by His grace and His mercy is bringing someone to newness of life, someone that was once, you know, part of the dominion of Satan, the spirit of this age, right?

And then I would go to Titus 3. I would go to John 3. I would go to 1

John 5. I would go to 1 Peter 1 to say, yes, the

Spirit has to, in the preaching of the Word and regeneration, bring that new sinner to life.

But the assumption on their part that is just the plain meaning of the text, I suppose, is that regeneration always goes with the preaching of the

Word. See? That's the key. That's the something that he would have to demonstrate and not assume it. And I'm not assuming my position.

I want to, you know, prove that from Scripture. So, total privacy is really huge in this conversation.

So, do you have anything else to say with total privacy? So, like, I know in Romans 8, right, the natural man, the person that doesn't have the

Spirit, cannot please God, right? But doesn't Romans 8 also talk about how it's just, it's more than that, too.

They're in the teeth, God, and hate God. Oh yeah, yeah. If we look here at Romans 8, 8, those who are in the flesh cannot please

God. I want to kind of look out, and I love Shannon here, and he's a buddy of ours.

I kind of went back and forth, the total privacy. Which camera, Nathan? Is it this one? Yes, Shannon.

Max Slick, I watched a little bit of that, and I believe it was Shannon that brought up that text, 2 Corinthians 4, 4, about Satan blinding to where we can't see the light of the gospel, and I'm like, amen.

But that doesn't negate the fact that we are already totally depraved from the fall of Adam in the garden, so we just see on top of that total depravity that Satan is also at work blinding.

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm just going to read it real fast. In their case, the God of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, the glory of Christ who is in the image of God.

I love this because this makes me think of the parable of the sower. That first wayside soil, wayside heart, the birds come in.

Satan comes and snatches it up. So man is blind, but that blindness represents a darkness and a suppression of the truth and their love of sin, and there's so many layers.

Not every man is as evil and wicked as they could be. What's interesting, tying this back, we had to give

Shannon, wherever you are, a shout out, but total depravity is important in our conversation with the

Lutheran, right? Because they're in this dilemma, and they put it in this mystery box, and I'm fine with that, but just please let us say there's just a major inconsistency here because you're trying to take our doctrine of total depravity and try to say, well, man can't respond to God, right, until the

Spirit -filled Word hits their heart. Well, we believe that, but how do you account for the one that rejects it?

And they're just saying, well, we don't want to go deeper and answer that because we're saying, what distinguishes the one that receives it and rejects it?

And if you just say, well, the Spirit quickened this one, and the hardness of this one reject it, great.

We believe that, but why did he reject? Why did he receive it if they're both totally depraved?

You know what I mean? Yeah. So that was my favorite part of the whole debate because that just shows the gaping hole in Lutheran doctrine, and it's on regeneration which necessarily ties this back to baptism, right?

So I asked another question to Mark, and bless his heart, he just he didn't understand, and I felt like I laid it down.

I know time was running out, but I asked him the question, are there non -elect individuals in the

New Covenant? I believe this is our last clip, so Pastor Nathan, if you would please play that. The question is, are there non -elect people in the

New Covenant? I guess I'm struggling because it's not like the kind of terminology that I use, that I'm familiar with.

As far as, you know, speaking of someone being in the New Covenant, because when

I think of the the phrase being in the New Covenant, the

New Covenant includes both Jew and Gentile. It doesn't distinguish.

I'm saying non -elect, someone that will not reach glorification, because y 'all affirmed the you in an unconditional election, right?

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

Okay, let me define it this way. Is it fair to say that there are infants that will be regenerated but fall away and not reach glorification, and while they were on earth, they were in the

New Covenant, meaning that they were baptized? Yes, I guess to answer your question as best

I can. Thank you for that, Mark. And we continue to go on, you know, really, because I really wanted to explain to him where I was getting at, is you have infants in the

New Covenant, because they were baptized, and in their view, if you baptize, then you receive the

Holy Spirit in regeneration that produces faith, right? And this kind of goes back to John 3 that works against their position, because there,

Jesus even said, don't marvel at these things, Adam. You can't control where the Holy Spirit goes. You can only see its effect.

And Lutheranism comes and says, no, we can control this environment. We're gonna baptize this infant to get the

Holy Spirit that produces faith. And I'm over here saying, I have trouble hearing how that goes with the plain meaning of what

Jesus is telling Nicodemus, right? So we can play this game of the plain meaning of the text. Look, grammatical historical method, demonstrate your case, right?

And so this ties back into what we mean by the New Covenant, because in their view, you can have a non -elect infant, someone that is not going to reach glorification, but they can be a part of the

New Covenant along the way. They can be baptized, receive the Spirit, have a child faith, and I was so ready to talk about John the

Baptist by the Holy Spirit leaping in their mother's womb. That's kind of the go -to to say, see, John the

Baptist had faith. And so I was prepared to say, no, that's not what's going on. For one, that's not what the plain meaning of the text says.

I want people to hear me. You gotta prove that, right? You gotta have a tall stack of cookies for me to snack on that.

But the prophet Jeremiah 1 verse 5 talks about how he was set apart to be a prophet from the womb, right?

That set apart is a work of the Holy Spirit, right? In Galatians chapter 1, same thing with the

Apostle Paul. He was set apart in his mother's womb for the role of apostle. That's what we see going on with John the

Baptist. The Holy Spirit was, he was set apart by the Holy Spirit, just like the prophets of old and the

New Testament apostles. So I'm just saying, I got off on a little rabbit trail to say, look, you got to be able to deal with proof texts in their certain context, right?

And so with Lutherans, you have infants that are in the new covenant that can fall away and become apostate.

That's why they reject particular redemption. It's gonna be a huge part of this conversation we're about to have. And they reject irresistible grace, right?

And then they don't believe that if you have the Spirit, then you'll be preserved by the

Holy Spirit to the end, right? They reject perseverance of the saints. And so my question for him though is, in light of this, in what way is

Jesus a meaningful mediator on the behalf of the non -elect?

Does that make sense? Because we're over here saying Jesus is a perfect Savior. He saves to the uttermost, meaning

He cannot fail because He saves completely without fail. And so for me,

Jesus dies for those whom the Father has given Him, right? His blood covers them fully, and they make it to the end, right?

So do you want to add anything to that real quick? Well, just the second part of that verse, it says those who draw near to God through Him, we don't necessarily see a baby drawing near to God through the cross because that's something that only a regenerate can do.

I don't understand, Adam. They were baptized, so the Holy Spirit drew them near to God. Oh, I thought we were supposed to use the plain meaning of the text, so my bad.

My bad. Go ahead. I had my Lutheran hat on for a second. Well, just check it out,

Lutheran. It says those who draw near. That is the plain meaning of the text. So we're looking at a spiritual thing because consequently

He is able to save the uttermost. This is all pointing to Christ. He's making intercession for those.

I got an objection for you. I read this in the comments. The text actually says, Mr. Adam, consequently

He is able to save to the uttermost. It doesn't really say that He will.

What do you say to something like that? You're being childish. I mean, we're talking about, are the one that was born through a mother,

Mary's virgin birth. I mean, that's Jesus we're talking about. So we can't get too caught up on, is

He able? Amen. God is able. Let's not look past who we're talking about here.

I'm just telling you the things that I have to deal with. I get it. Like I said, I couldn't deal with all the things you deal with because I'm this high up in Church of Christ craziness.

I mean, I love them to death, but they got a false gospel, and let's just look at the text.

Let's look at the plain meaning of Scripture. Well, with the grammatical historical. The plain meaning is the grammatical historical in its context, so there's a lot of people that try to rip it out of its context, like Mark did.

He said he's, what, the ten verses he machine gunned through the opening statement. I tried to cover them all.

I just got so in the moment of just like, hey, let's really develop context of Acts 238. Let's develop the context of Acts 2216.

You know what I mean? And that ten minutes just flew by. And so, because I care so much about context, because that's how we develop the meaning of any proof text.

You know what I mean? And then I love this because he threw me a little jab. He's like, yeah, I noticed you conveniently left out

Titus 3 5 and John 3 5, and I was like, I would have preached a whole sermon on those verses, but that was the order that he went through them, and he gave those last, so I was kind of running short on time, but I loved the sauciness going on in there.

So Jesus is a perfect Savior, and so when someone says he's able,

I'm like, you, of course he's able. He loses none that the Father gives him, and I'm not importing this theology that says, you know,

Jesus tried all he could do to save the whole world, and now he's just basically on the sideline cheering us on, hoping that we make the right decision.

You know what I mean? I don't carry the same presupposition a Lutheran has in this discussion, right?

Because plain meaning of the text, he is a, consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost.

Some translations say completely. That means that he cannot fail, and Hebrews just develops this case so much more.

I've told you this verse on the phone earlier today, Hebrews 9 15, therefore he,

Jesus, is the mediator of a new covenant so that those are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

Then so this begins to lay the foundation how the new covenant are those that are elect or in Christ, right?

We're not talking about just the administration of the sign seal of baptism for false professors.

That's not the new covenant. No, the new covenant is Jesus Christ being the perfect mediator and high priest that never fails to save those whom he intended to save.

So we see this develop in Hebrews here, and I brought out some of these verses, and he kept wanting me to repeat the question.

Thomas, I would have, if we had another 10 minutes, I would have, but I needed to move on, you know what I mean? Because I told him,

I even asked him to read this because just so he would see the context, and I get it because he's trying to think how to rebut it, right?

Which is hard on the spot if you're not ready for the fruit of a theological system aimed at you, you know what

I mean? Because Hebrews 10 10 goes on to say, and by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And so you can continue to read through this, and then verse 14 just hits it on the head and says, for by a single offering,

Jesus, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Well, it sounds like he saves to the uttermost. He is able because he's going to accomplish it, and he's not going to fail.

And so we're over here saying those that are in the new covenant, those who have been regenerated, those that have been baptized, that have demonstrated that faith in sanctification, which necessarily says the

Holy Spirit's at work, he carries you to completion. He who began that good work in regeneration.

By the way, Pastor Nathan preached a really good sermon on Philippians 1 verse 6. People have to go check that out on TwelveFive's website.

But he really brought out the fact that it says, he who began a good work in you, somewhat that work of regeneration.

The Holy Spirit is going to carry us along, help us persevere to the end.

And let me give a shout out to Don Rowe. He loves preservation of the saints.

I love it. It's because it's the Holy Spirit actually, ontologically, literally in us.

Not just a representation or metaphorical. No, the Spirit is in us.

That's why we are being sanctified. It's a work of God that he started, and that he's going to carry it out.

Last time in our discussion, you pointed out how the Church of Christ view that says, well, it's just when you read scriptures and the thoughts of scriptures in your head is the representative view of how the

Holy Spirit indwells a believer. Well, that's all back on you, and what you can do, and you can accomplish. And we've met people that said, yeah, the gospel is a gospel of faith and works, right?

It just goes, it devolves into a misunderstanding of James 2 at that point, right? Oh, yeah. We're talking about the

New Covenant. This is the New Covenant that Christ is the one, the head of, which we see

Paul outlining Romans 5 from Adam being the Old Covenant, Christ being the New Covenant.

Man, I just want people to look at the text and see that we're talking about covenants, and when we're talking about covenants, the

Old Covenant, sure, there was curses and blessings. You do this, you get this, you don't do this.

I mean, that's the whole structure of typology, like we were talking about with the Ark pointing to the great

God and Savior Jesus Christ. Well, He come so that He can establish a New Covenant, and the requirement is faith in Him.

Put your faith and trust in Christ because He is the way, the truth, and the law. And Jesus is a perfect mediator, right?

We see in the Gospel of John, He loses none that the Father gives Him. And so another wonderful passage,

I would actually like, Pastor Nathan, if you could bring up Romans 8, starting in verse 31.

I want to show how Jesus is a perfect mediator, right? Not only are we seeing this developed in Hebrews, but in one of the best chapters in all the

Bible. I'm so glad the Apostle Paul tried to build this assurance for those whom

God has called, right? It's a guarantee that He will bring you to glorification. And so in Romans 8 31, what shall we say to all these things?

If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all.

And by the way, who is the us all that He's talking about? Is He talking about man generically, all without exception?

Or is He talking about all without distinction, whether you're Jew or Gentile? Or is He talking about a very particular people in God's eyes?

Well, He tells us. He says, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?

Here's the qualifier, verse 33, who shall bring any charge against God's elect?

Okay? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, so His substitutionary death.

Please keep that in mind, Adam. You didn't know you were getting a Bible study this evening, did you? So Christ Jesus is the one who died that substitutionary death, and more than that, argument from the lesser to the greater, who was raised, right?

So Jesus died for the elect, for us, for all of us. He not only died, but He was raised for us, who is at the right hand of God, and who is indeed interceding for us.

The us is the us all, those that are elect, that are in Christ Jesus by faith, apart from our works, and we have no condemnation credited to our account.

Amen. And so, this objection works on so many different denominations and sects, saying, in what way did

Jesus mediate for the non -elect? Well, if that's within your purview of saying, well,

I have this category of non -elect people that don't make it to glorification, Jesus failed in some way, right?

And I love my Presbyterian brothers out there, but in their, you have, you also have non -elect, unregenerate being in the new covenant, because it's an administration, and then falling away.

Well, in what way did Jesus mediate? Because it wasn't to the uttermost able to save, but He was mediating judgment on their behalf, right?

And that sounds a lot like the old covenant, you know what I mean? And then with Lutherans, you have the non -elect that undergo regeneration, that can fall away.

How did Jesus mediate for them? And then for those systems that have people being able to lose their salvation, right?

How did, how did Jesus mediate for them while they were in the new covenant? So, I think, I want to go the consistent route and just say, look,

Jesus doesn't fail. He's a perfect Savior. Yeah, I mean, who are we talking about here? Are we talking about Jesus Christ, the

Son of God, the second person of the triune, Godhead? I mean, are we talking about just a mere man?

I mean, if you're talking about me, yeah, I'd give up on that. I wouldn't carry you through. I can barely carry myself through. Well, Adam, thank you so much for doing this episode with me.

It was a blast. I haven't, I've took a few months off getting in the debate arena. I think it was back since April.

This is my third debate this year, by the way. You're doing really good. Well, thank you, and a lot of that's from the support that I have from my wife,

Allie. Shout out to Allie Nortier. She's the babe of all babes. Couldn't do this without her, and my church family.

So, all of y 'all's prayers and this discipleship, this sharpening one another. This is why I can do what

I do, and I just pray that it would bring God glory. So, thank you for joining me, and thank you for watching the

Apologetic Dog. Once again, I just want to please ask you to like and subscribe to this channel.

When you do that, that allows us to be able to circulate content, and it helps the YouTube algorithm, and please follow us on other platforms.

We're on Instagram, the Apologetic Dog, so please follow us there. And to Pastor Nathan's prayers, one day

I will be more involved on the Instagram page, but we want to utilize social media to be able to preach the gospel, to be able to contend for the gospel of grace.