Transcript

Hey, everyone.

Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites.

Truth Unites is a place for theology and apologetics done in an irenic way, which means aiming for peace.

And I'm really excited to be talking with Trent Horn.

We're gonna talk about baptism.

Trent is a Catholic apologist and speaker and author of many books.

So, Trent, thanks for doing this.

How you doing today?

I'm doing well.

It's really cool to be able to finally dialogue with you in person, because I mean, I've seen a lot of your work.

I've engaged some of your work on my channel.

You've engaged some of my work on your channel.

And so, I, I...

Which I think is great.

But I'm also a big fan of people just being able to sit down across from one another, even if it's virtual, to hash out their theological differences.

And that's something I always really appreciate about the work that you do, because there are...

Frankly, I have a hard time both with non-Catholic and Catholic speakers who make pretty big theological claims, but then aren't willing to back them up in dialogue with others.

So I'm always appreciative to see people who are willing to do that.

Yeah, totally.

Yeah.

Yeah, dialogue is helpful, especially when it's done in a spirit where we're truly trying to understand the other side and not in a triumphalist way.

And I know that this conversation will be like that, so I'm really excited for this.

So, maybe I'll just share the backlog that brings us to this video-

Sure.

in case someone has clicked up on it and doesn't have any prior awareness.

So, I had put out a video offering some responses to common arguments for baptismal regeneration, and then you offered a video response to that.

I offered a video response to your video.

So, like you say, it's good to find that we're actually connecting.

Oh, I...

Well, I have a...

Yeah, I have a rule.

So yeah, you did a response to my response.

and it was...

You offered actually a series of questions.

Exactly.

So there were six questions in there that basically I thought a good frame.

Now, I'm fine if we go onto rabbit trails, but I thought a good at least effort or starting point would be just to kind of work through some of those questions.

But I also mentioned it might be good to start with definitions.

Sure.

I've found that it can save us time later on if we just very clearly explain what do we mean when we use a word like regeneration or a word like baptism.

And I just want to say one quick thing before we dive in, and that's for viewers of my channel.

I'm gonna be taking the month of May...

So, we're recording this toward the end of April 2022.

I'm going to be taking the month of May off, completely off from YouTube.

So, this will be my last video for a month, and then I'll have a live stream on June 3rd, a Q&A.

So, just so people know if they don't see videos, that's why, and I'll be back in June.

And don't forget to subscribe to the channel and like the video and share this.

That will be helpful for both of us too.

So, do you want to go first on maybe just giving a definition of what you mean by...

with the words baptism or regeneration or either of those words separately?

Yeah.

Well, I think the general idea here is that baptism...

Well, I guess I should start with regeneration, because that's the more fundamental concept.

So, by regeneration, I would mean the moment when an individual becomes an adopted son or daughter of God and is given sanctifying grace to cleanse them from original sin and from any personal sins they may have committed.

So, regeneration is just when you go from spiritual death to spiritual life, from being alienated from God to being spiritually adopted by God, and the stain of original sin is removed and any punishments related to sin, temporal or eternal, are removed in regeneration.

And the sacrament that confers that would be baptism, baptism being the use of water and the baptismal formula to do as a church intends, to cleanse someone of sin.

So, I guess that...

That's all thrown out there, I guess.

Okay.

No, that's helpful.

And I'll just share my definitions.

Again, I found this helpful because sometimes people assume that I have a lower view of baptism than I do because I'm a Baptist minister.

But I would define...

And I think my definition here will speak to that.

So, I would define regeneration as the initial act of being made alive to God, when one passes from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life.

And if people would like to define regeneration as a process, then I would simply say that could work, but I would just say, "Well, this is when the process starts." Okay?

So this is when you go from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life.

For baptism, I actually find article 27 of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church to be a helpful statement.

But I, I...

Just to be brief, I'll just say two things.

One is I do understand baptism to be more than just a symbol.

Sometimes Baptist views are characterized in this way where it's the options are either baptism or regeneration, or it's just a sign.

And I would want to make clear that I understand baptism to give grace.

I understand God to be the one working through baptism.

I've gone on and on about this in other videos.

So, just to summarize, I've used the language of sign and seal, common in the reform tradition for what God is doing in baptism.

What I would say is I just don't understand it to be the cause of regeneration.

I don't understand it to be what makes someone alive to God.

And I'll just say one word about metonymy.

This is the word I've used to describe, you know, then how do we understand it when the scriptures speak of baptism as saving?

And I would say it's kind of like when we say the blood of Jesus saves.

We don't mean the blood as distinct from the flesh.

Similarly, when we say baptism saves, we don't mean baptism as distinct from those events that lead up to it, but we mean baptism in its symbolic and kind of representative character.

Kind of like I've used the metaphor of a coronation service for a monarch.

This is not technically the cause of when they become the monarch, but it's the kind of formal, visible, public expression of that and can be spoken of as such.

So though all that is just to try to clarify what my view is.

So, the first question we were gonna talk-

Oh, could I get just-

Yes, please.

Go ahead.

a quick clarification on your view?

And I know these words mean different things to different people, but under your view, does baptism justify, sanctify, or maybe a combination of both?

I understand justification.

I use that in a typical Protestant sense to be that initial act of being declared righteous in God's sight.

So, I wouldn't say that baptism justifies.

Mm-hmm.

I would say that we can speak of God communicating grace through baptism, which would include forgiveness.

So, there's ongoing forgiveness in the Christian life.

But I follow typical Protestant language in thinking of the word justification per se is that initial-

Mm-hmm.

...

transfer of status legally before God.

So, maybe it might fall under what we might call s-...

Because you talk about a communicating grace, do-

being more than a symbol, would that be more like sanctifying?

Yes, it would be in that bucket.

And you know the...

I think I mentioned article 27.

It talks about grace is increased, you know, through prayer unto God.

So, e-

and I want to clarify too, I don't think that that's automatic.

I don't think that this just, you know, anytime you baptize someone, automatically it's like this spiritual boost.

I think that does depend upon receiving the sacrament worthily, which I would understand as by faith.

So, that would mean your view would preclude infant or pedobaptism.

I don't believe in pedobaptism.

That's really on other grounds.

It's not like I...

because of my view of the meaning of baptism, therefore I reject infant baptism.

But it is true theologically that, basically for ecclesiological reasons or reasons having to do with the doctrine of the church, I don't think the infant-...

children of one or more Christian parents are to be considered members of the church from birth.

I just don't see that ecclesiology, so.

So, yes, I mean, that would be...

And that actually is an interesting thing that I don't know if we'll get into is the relation of these two differences.

The question of meaning, which gets into baptismal regeneration, and the question of the subjects, which gets into credo baptism versus pedobaptism 'cause it's, you know, those are separate, but they affect one another, so it's kind of interesting.

I find often what in many cases, 'cause really there are, I see kind of three views.

One would be, well, I would say, I don't know anyone who believes in baptismal regeneration who doesn't also believe in pedobaptism.

Well, let me try to refocus.

I don't know, because I think most traditional proponents of baptismal regeneration see this as the cause of salvation, and so they would also apply that to infants.

Then among those who do not believe in baptismal regeneration, some would be credo Baptists, others would be pedobaptists in seeing, well, while baptism does not regenerate you, it's a fitting thing to do to make someone a member of the people of God or there's other reasons that are given.

So I don't know if this makes sense to you, but I kinda see three views.

Baptismal regeneration usually tied to pedobaptism, those who don't believe in baptismal regeneration, but are divided over pedobaptism versus credo baptism, if that makes sense.

Yeah, it makes sense.

I see four views, so if you kinda do two lines like this, you got...

You do have the Churches of Christ.

Now some of them will not like...

So they'd be a credo Baptist plus baptismal regeneration.

So they'd be a fourth example.

Right.

I guess, yeah, they'd be the fourth.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

Sorry.

Then it all works.

You fill out the whole square, yeah.

Right, yeah.

And it's interesting 'cause you can be all different, but I think you're right, you know.

Usually, it tends to be baptismal regeneration plus infant baptism.

That's more common.

Right.

And then among the credo Baptists, it's more common not to affirm.

So that'll

Maybe we can get into that here, but so let me...

And I'll try not to talk too much, I promise.

I'll try to give you the last word on most of these things.

But, 'cause I've already kind of put out these questions on my video, but so the first question I put out was, does baptism save Cornelius?

And I'll just explain it in that, you know, we were talking about Acts 10, and how it looks like Cornelius is regenerated and speaking in tongues prior to his baptism.

And then the question comes up, is this an exception or is this more of the pattern, and those kinds of things.

Now either way, whether it's an exception or more of the norm, we need to understand does First Peter 3:21 apply in such a circumstance.

Even if it's a very rare exception, can we say that baptism saves Cornelius?

And I'm just curious for your thoughts about that.

Yeah.

So in that case, I would say that this is an exception.

So I would say that Cornelius was spiritually regenerated prior to receiving baptism, and there was an important point in that happening.

I think the language I used in my reply to you is I called it a boundary case, and I think that's actually fitting because the dispute here was about the boundary of the Kingdom of God.

Does one have to become a Jew first in order to become a Christian?

And this was to break into the Kingdom of God to say, "No, you, the Gentiles do not have to become Jews first." And to make that really clear, Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit and is spiritually regenerated prior to baptism.

So if I had...

But how I fit in the big picture, and we can go back and forth on this, is I would say baptism did not save Cornelius just as faith in the risen divine Christ did not save Dismas, AKA the good thief on the cross.

So, which tradition Catholic theology traditionally his name is Saint Dismas.

So I think that in any view when you have a normative view about what is it that saves us, baptism, faith, whatever it may be, you're going to have exceptions that you have to wrestle with.

So Cornelius would be an exception to the rule for baptism.

I'd also say that Dismas is an exception for the rule of salvation by faith.

Because here, it's very clear Jesus says, "Today you will be with me in paradise," but I find very little or no evidence that Dismas believed that Jesus was divine.

He certainly hadn't risen from the dead yet.

Yet he was saved.

But I don't think that would nullify the general requirement of faith to be saved.

Similar with Cornelius.

And so, yeah, so the way I look at it is that Cornelius is the only example I've seen in Acts where the Holy Spirit is received before baptism, and the reason here as Peter argues in Acts Chapter 11 is that this shows that the Gentiles are fitting recipients of baptism.

So I guess that's how I would look at it.

I would say baptism did not save Cornelius, but that doesn't nullify the general rule.

Okay.

So I guess that's my thought.

Yeah, and that makes sense, and I think that's a fine position to take in terms of...

That's just what I'm interested in is if we see it as an exception, 'cause I know we differ on whether it's an exception or a borderline case or not.

I think I pointed out that I see this is actually kind of consistent with how baptism is functioning in Acts where it just doesn't look like you ever have the spirit poured out or any fruits of regeneration at the time of baptism.

But either way, we've got to find a way to say...

'Cause the reason this is interesting to me is that there will...

I think baptism can be spoken of as salvific even if it's not the cause of salvation 'cause I would be fine with saying baptism saved Cornelius, and I would just mean that in the way that I think that I understand baptism more generally.

But it sounds like you're saying, okay, it's just an exception, and that makes sense and that I can see that.

Now I do want to say on the thief, I don't think the thief is an exception to salvation by faith.

I think he has faith.

He may not have faith in the divinity of Christ, though I don't think we could actually know that.

I mean, he seems to...

The very fact that he's asking him for salvation, he says, "This man has done nothing wrong," he has some awareness of who Christ is.

But I would say salvation by faith doesn't necessarily mean faith in the divinity of Christ, right?

I mean, I'd say Abraham had faith, but he lived way before the incarnation.

So I don't see that as an exception, but I would grant there are other cases that are exceptions.

So I would grant that God can save infants, for example.

That's something we might get into as well.

Go ahead.

But I think you would say that within the new covenant economy that we have now, when you say salvation by faith, I think you would say that that would include belief in Jesus' divinity and resurrection.

Like, for example, I don't think you would consider the faith that Jehovah's Witnesses have in Jesus to be the sufficient kind or the kind of faith you're talking about.

Correct.

Right, so what I'm saying is that when I look at Dismas, I mean, it's possible his faith, even if it was, even if Jesus was more than just a prophet, it might be at the level of what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Jesus.

Dismas saw that Jesus was this highest creation of God sent to us to have faith in.

I don't think we're gonna find Chalcedonian christology there, but that's okay because that was under the old covenant economy before the resurrection.

Once again, I think both sides will have exceptions they have to deal with.

Yeah.

I worry about it, you know, we've talked a lot about arguments from silence.

I worry about an argument from silence in the conclusion that the thief didn't understand the divinity of Christ because I just don't know how we could know that.

I mean, we, everything that we know about him comes in, like, four verses.

And he does say, you know, right before then, people are saying, "Isn't this man the Messiah?" So that's right out in there, is Jesus the Messiah, and then he also says, "When you come in your kingdom."

Mm-hmm.

Now, I think it's totally plausible that that could indicate a kind of Daniel 7 awareness.

Of course, maybe not fully fleshed out, but-

Right.

So I don't know whether his views on the divinity of...

I don't think I can speak to that.

But I'm happy to just acknowledge the more general point, that whatever we think is the cause of salvation, I think both of us could say there are exceptions to that.

Sure.

Yeah-

-

And, but I think it's also important, and I think you brought this up in your reply a little bit, that I do believe Cornelius is a true genuine exception because while there are other cases where, in Acts, the Holy Spirit is received, there is a description of the Holy Spirit being received apart from baptism, like with, in Acts 19 or Acts 8, like, Philip baptizes, Philip being a deacon, but then, who is it?

John and Peter maybe going and laying on hands, to r- for the Holy Spirit to fall on people who had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Understanding what those passages do not show that they...

They do not say the Holy Spirit was not given in baptism, but in Catholic theology, we would say the Holy Spirit is given...

There are three sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation, and communion.

So there, we would see the tradition of the laying on of hands or confirmation as bringing the fullness of initiation.

But it's only the case with Cornelius where we have a description of the Holy Spirit be- temporally prior to baptism.

Everywhere else, it's always after.

Okay.

And that gets to my where I define regeneration, is if you have some kind of process.

When I, what I mean to oppose my view to is the start.

This is where it, you, in other words, what I'm intending to say I don't think this is correct is that baptism is when one comes spiritually alive to God.

So we can maybe work through some of these cases and kind of kick it around, but let me ask you this, because-

Mm-hmm.

We

So if we're saying there's exceptions, here, I mean, let me start with a real practical question.

This is another question I asked, is, what do you think I should interpret from-

Jumping ahead.

I was excited about this question.

I wanted to get...

Now we're getting to it.

Yeah.

Well, this is, yeah, and me too, 'cause it's so practical.

It's like I see a lot of Corneliuses in my ministry, and just in my life.

And I see a lot that, like, as an example, you know, someone is into witchcraft, okay?

They hear the Gospel.

They

God quickens their heart, awakens their heart.

They are thoroughly convicted by the Holy Spirit.

They realize this is wrong.

They exercise faith in Christ.

They turn away from that.

They get rid of that completely.

Their life is completely transformed.

Now they're in a catechetical process.

Let's say it's six months long.

They give all the fruits of regeneration in the catechetical process.

Of course it's not an infallible judgment.

I don't know their heart for sure.

But how many times do I have to see this before I start to conclude it doesn't look like the baptism is the cause of regeneration?

It just looks like that starts at faith, and is sort of sealed and publicly expressed at baptism.

So how

What are your thoughts about that comment/observation?

Yeah.

So I have a few thoughts on this.

First, I agree with you, that especially in the case of adults, faith will precede baptism.

And even in infant baptism, faith precedes in the sense that the parents seek faith for the child because they have faith.

So, I agree with you that there's a process and the Holy Spirit is at work in people.

So in Catholic theology, we distinguish between two kinds of grace: actual grace and sanctifying grace.

So, actual grace would be God moving the person towards seeking His sanctifying grace.

So this might be the case, like when I was 17 years old, God moving me to seriously consider that Jesus is Lord, and seeking to be baptized in the Catholic faith.

that, I didn't do that on my own while I was spiritually dead, but God moved me towards that.

So it's kind of like a spiritual kick in the pants.

That's a good way to...

I think Karl Keating, the founder of Catholic Answers, called it that.

It's not...

It doesn't regenerate you, but it's a spiritual kick in the pants.

The similar thing in Catholics, we believe that if you've lost the grace of justification through mortal sin, God may give you a spiritual kick in the pants, actual grace, to return to Him through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to seek forgiveness from God.

So I do believe that there's a work of grace there, but it's not necessarily regeneration.

I'm skeptical that we would always be able to have a correspondence between spiritual regeneration and visible behavior.

Hm.

I think that what's going on here is that there's...

It's complicated.

There's a lot of different explanations, and I think we have to sit...

We have to allow those, because they also explain a lot of other things.

So one would be the actual grace working in the person's life.

The other thing may be a natural or a psychological explanation, that the person, through their natural means, apprehends a great good, the Gospel, and so they experience a change in their behavior, the virtues of temperance, prudence, justice, fortitude.

The natural virtues.

Even faith, hope, and love are better carried out, that you recognize this.

And so it causes a natural change in your own virtues.

And I think that these explanations are...

We need to really include them, because they help account for a lot of other things.

And again, I guess here would be a few examples.

One would be, you know, people might say to both of us, "Hey, Gavin and Trent, like, my friend got baptized in the Mormon Church."

Mm-hmm.

And look at him.

He's so nice, and he's just... And Mormons are super-duper nice people.

But you and I both agree that they're not Christians.

So it's like, they could say to us, "Well, what do you...

You know, Gavin, how do you explain when I see all these people getting baptized and just the amazing change in their, you know, in their dispositions, in their faith, in their charity? I'm like, so I think there's a lot of natural psychological explanations that are going on there.

Another example might be, and I guess this will relate to whether someone believes their salvation can be lost, 'cause I don't know your exact position on this, or Calvinism, which I do want to ask you about.

I was reading an article from Pew Research last year saying that 20%...

So it's not just you know

I know you said, "Well, it may not be infallible." I'm not even sure it's a reliable judgment of spiritual regeneration, because I think Pew said that 20% of Americans are former Christians.

How many of those were legitimate Christians for the first place?

I don't know, but I'm sure a fair number.

But it co- So it seems like there's a lot of...

There's all these. It seems like there's a lot of people who manifest these fruits, but then maybe fall away again.

So I don't know.

I threw out a lot out there.

You can throw a lot back at me.

But that's kind of what I think of when I hear this practical concern.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

That's helpful.

So, let me give a name to the person in the scenario I mentioned about being drawn out of witchcraft, just for convenience.

So let's call that person John, just hypothetically for discussion purposes.

So if we've got John and Cornelius, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying Cornelius, it wasn't just a spiritual kick in the pants, it was true regeneration, but with John, it's not necessarily regeneration, it's more of a kick in the pants.

It's more of, you know, God's working in some way, or it could be natural psychological things.

But so, so if I'm understanding, these are different scenarios for you?

Yes, I would say so, because in Scripture, we get an explicit description of what happened.

We have the Word of God saying that the Holy Spirit fell upon people like it did at Pentecost. We also have Cornelius speaking in tongues, for example.

Right.

And I think you would agree that speaking in tongues is not necessary to show you've been regenerated.

Right.

But it was the example in the Cornelius case.

Right.

Okay.

Well, I would just give two quick thoughts and then I'll let you speak to this any further if you want to, and we can keep moving.

One is that when I mean spiritual fruit, I am not meaning...

And this came up in my debate with Patrick Ramsey, Father Patrick, a little bit.

Mm-hmm.

I'm meaning that word as I understand it in the New Testament, and that would be spiritual life and virtue in response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So this is not...

You know, he...

We were talking there about Buddhist positive experiences, and you've mentioned Mormons having a change.

Sure.

That wouldn't classify as what I mean by spiritual fruit.

I'm thinking of people who, in response to the triune God through faith in Jesus Christ, their life is morally renovated.

And I have seen people where they're speaking in tongues.

I don't require that.

Gotcha.

But that does happen, where at faith rather than at baptism they are fully engaged with the Holy Spirit such that a kick in the pants, I mean, it, it...

I really can't accept that.

I don't think these people I know in the catechetical process leading up to their baptism are merely, you know, sort of the Spirit's working in them but they're not regenerated yet.

And that's why I define regeneration as that initial being made alive to God.

And so, you know, and one final thing is on-

Mm-hmm.

...

Matthew 7, I think Jesus does actually command us to make judgements from spiritual fruit to spiritual tree.

You know, he says, "By their fruits, you will recognize them," with reference to false prophets.

And he says, you know, "The good tree cannot produce bad fruit.

The bad tree cannot produce good fruit. It seems to me that his intention in teaching us to do that is that, while the judgments are not infallible, we can make reasonable judgments that the positive spiritual fruit indicates a positive spiritual tree, so to speak.

Mm-hmm.

So I'll let you...

If you have any final thoughts on this.

Well, yeah.

I wanna drill down just a tiny bit more.

So like when I hear fruit, we have to be careful what we're saying so we're not ambiguous.

Like traditionally in Galatians, the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control.

You admit that we can see those things in counter- in false gospels, like those purely natural virtues we see them in Buddhism, Mormonism.

Are-

Well-

So let me

I'm trying to understand.

You're saying...

Are you saying it's those behaviors in response to the authentic gospel, not just those behaviors in response to something else?

Yes.

That's right.

I, and I...

Yeah.

I'm happy to clarify.

Yeah.

In other words, I think that non-Christians can be loving and can be patient in a generic sense because of common grace.

Mm-hmm.

But when I talk about spiritual fruit, I'm envisioning these virtues truly cultivated by the Holy Spirit.

That's just how I'm using that language.

Yeah.

And I guess for me that if I can see both...

The question is so we have virtues, love, joy, peace, patience, the fruits, and also the certain beliefs.

So for example, a Mormon will not believe in the Trinity, but someone you baptized believes in the Trinity and has these particular fruits.

So I would say that the behaviors, the natural psychological will go in both cases.

For the...

I just worry that this is almost like begging the question, or assuming and saying, "Well, I'm talking about how do we explain these fruits in response to this particular gospel that is presented." I would say well, you know, of course they're gonna have a more fervent belief in something that they've already started believing in, in a conversion experience.

But the other concern I have is...

Now, I'm curious to get your...

Because I looked online.

It's always weird to try to snoop out someone's theological beliefs online.

What is your view of Calvinism exactly?

Like are you a Calvinist or not five points or you don't want to say or

Yeah.

No.

I'm a Calvinist and I've addressed that in some of my videos, but not many.

I'm happy to talk about that, although I worry it might pull us a little bit off of baptism.

I'll try to keep a...

I promise, Your Honor, that the line of questioning is relevant.

Yeah, 'cause I saw you did a post once.

You were asking about limited atonement.

I didn't know if you...

if that meant you didn't believe in it or not.

Oh.

Oh.

No.

I affirm all five points, so-

Okay.

I'm trying to think of what that would have been.

I might have just been posing a question about it or something.

Yeah.

Okay.

I see.

'Cause it was phrased almost as if you were asking others.

Okay.

Because

So this is interesting.

Yeah.

Well, this is...

Oh, this is very interesting.

This will be helpful.

So because then there is a concern...

I don't think it's like as rare as one may make it out to be to see someone really flourish, an adult, after conversion.

They receive the faith, they're baptized.

You know, you see the face, "Oh, look at this person with spiritual fruit." And then, you know, they...

Either they are an apostate or I guess the other concern I would have is, what do we do with someone who becomes kind of like a mediocre Christian?

Like they remain spiritually regenerated, but they live just kind of a mediocre life.

Like people hardly know they're Christian, but they're not apostates, right?

They're, but they're...

I think that's a very common individual, which is going about your day Christian.

Does that make sense?

Like they're just kind of

They're not really on fire, but they're mediocre Christians.

So they regenerate, but they don't have those fruits any more.

But they're still regenerate.

So that's why I have a hard time seeing that there's always gonna be a one-to-one correspondence.

I see re-

To me, the sign of regeneration is just gonna be what I would say God has told us the sign will be, and that will be the sacrament of baptism.

But

Yeah.

Do you see how that factors in with the concern that if we have a decent number of people who seem to be regenerate but then fall away, like it's not a really ...

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

I think I'm tracking with what you're saying.

And I would agree with you that it...

This is a general sort of concern and question.

And the...

Kind of the way salvation plays out, it is messy, so you use the language of one-for-one correspondence.

I wouldn't say that.

I don't know.

It's tough to say about any specific person infallibly, but I think what I'd come back to is when you see someone, you know, a 180, okay, they go from the witchcraft to the speaking in tongues-

...

why not see them like Cornelius?

You know, if God can do an exception there, and I think there's other exceptions in the Book of Acts too.

In fact, I don't ever see it's baptism that someone comes alive to God.

But just from that one alone, you know, why not see these as exceptions?

I would just say I don't have enough, I don't have enough data, that only God would have that data because what if I do that and then in five years she's back in the witches' coven?

You know?

And then it becomes...

And we

And I...

You know, and I agree with you that I think many people do stay, but to me it's not like, oh, it's...

That this...

It's not that it's not infallible.

I question whether this approach to gauging spiritual regeneration is even reliable.

But while we were on the Calvinism thing, I wanted to ask you-

Wait.

Hold on.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Just on that real quick, 'cause Calvin...

I really think Calvinism is kind of a bigger animal to

It,

No.

No.

I agree.

It was on your thing about metonymy.

Okay.

I was just gonna say the one...

My one quick observation is it seems like-

Sure.

Go ahead.

...

Peter does make the judgment in Acts 10 that these people have received the Holy Spirit.

I would think that, you know, Peter's-...

inference, like the Matthew 7, spiritual fruit, spiritual tree.

The inference from speaking in tongues to they've received the Holy Spirit is the kind of inference that seems reasonable.

Not infallible but reasonable.

Mm-hmm.

So just a thought there.

I don't

I'm sorry to interrupt you.

No, no.

You're fine.

Because what you were saying about metonymy-

Mm-hmm.

And I guess this would play more, since you are a five-point Calvinist, this would play more into your position.

'Cause I think there's many other Protestants who might agree with you on that baptism is not what regenerates us, but not hold the view of regeneration that I find common in Calvinism.

Because my understanding from many Calvinists is that regeneration occurs the moment before a person makes an act of faith, that a per-...

Well, okay.

You can correct me if I'm wrong here.

My, my understanding is that regeneration is something that God does.

He unconditionally elects certain individuals, regenerates them, and that act then causes them to make an act of faith.

And so what you're, the metonymy argument, it sounds like one could say does faith save us?

And a Calvinist could say, "Well, faith saves us, but really it's God that saves us.

Faith isn't the cause of our salvation.

It flows from the fact that God has chosen us and regenerated us. That's been my understanding.

You can correct me if I'm wrong or if it doesn't apply to your theology.

Yeah.

This is where...

So Calvinism I do feel is often misunderstood because,

And trying to get into this might, again, so I'll just speak to it briefly and then-

Yeah.

I won't try to go down this road too much.

But the metonymous objection you're making, it seemed to go, like it could go in that direction also.

Yeah.

I see.

Okay, that's interesting.

Yeah.

I think the

Calvinism doesn't necessarily say that, regeneration is temporally prior to faith.

The most of the time it's gonna be kind of a logical priority.

Sure.

Subject got timeless.

Yeah.

Sure.

Yeah.

So, and, you know, so Calvinists, I, I, I...

My big concern with Calvinism is people misunderstand it as though we're saying God's sovereignty rather than human responsibility, i.e.

in this case faith, and we're just trying to say it's a both/and.

We're just trying to say in this mysterious way all of this at the plane of human responsibility, the necessity of faith, is true and valid, but God's sovereignty, just as we see in other aspects of the world, God's sovereignty is mysteriously at work alongside other causes.

And so that's...

You haven't done this, but just for people watching, I just hear these descriptions of Calvinism.

So as though we think God just arbitrarily damns people or that you know you're not saved by faith it's just up to God and things like this.

And so I'm always trying to clarify those things, but,

Sure.

Would you, because it sounds like you would affirm this statement, baptism saves us but it is not the cause of our salvation?

Have I understood that phrase correctly for you?

Yeah.

That's a, that,

Yeah.

Exactly.

A- and then if someone says, "Well, what do you mean baptism saves us and it's not the cause?

How does it do it? And that's where I look to the where it's put in 1 Peter 3:21.

It's as an appeal to God.

So it's not baptism.

It's not the act.

It's not like your sins aren't forgiven and you're not yet regenerated until you get in the water.

Right.

You know, it's baptism as the visible expression of this larger reality.

Would you be willing to make the same proposition, faith saves us but faith is not the cause of our salvation?

It would just depend upon what kind of causation we're talking about.

Sure.

'Cause I actually would say faith is the cause of salvation for most people, but as I say, I think God can save someone apart from faith as in the case of infants, for example.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's interesting here, because when I've read up on...

And I promise not to go on the rabbit trail too far.

Like Calvinism and other issues here, other Calvinists have tried to make a big deal that the theological view they have is monergism-

that it is God alone who saves and anything else that imparts to human beings being a part of salvation is some kind of invalid synergistic system of salvation.

I don't know if you've heard that, those two, how those are used.

Oh, but you're...

You seem to have said before no man is involved as a cause in some way, maybe a secondary cause, and it's kind of mysterious how that happens.

Oh, certainly.

Yes.

And I

That's my understanding of kind of mainstream...

I mean, that you do find more kind of hyper Calvinistic trajectories within the reform tradition.

But, I mean, that's classic Charles Spurgeon and others who are saying it's a both/and.

It's not God's sovereignty rather than human choice.

It's both.

Just like in the book of Proverbs it says the die is cast, that every decision is from the Lord.

And we would say, "Well, that doesn't mean that there, you can't, like, talk about the physical causes." That doesn't mean that it's, like, gravity isn't a cause also.

Mm-hmm.

It's a both/and.

Okay.

So

Yeah.

Anyway, we...

We'll-

Yeah.

We'll have to leave that aside.

But it, to me, I...

It does go down this road when the crux of our disagreement is over the cause of salvation and the word cause can be parsed in so many ways.

Sometimes it's helpful to compare that in other elements to see what I mean.

But I do believe that it is a primary cause.

I'm willing to allow there may be exceptions.

The only place where...

I mean, well, I'm willing to allow that there could be exceptions in cases where we have baptism of desire, where someone...

Perhaps it's the case that God in his foreknowledge recognizes some people who desire salvation, that grace is communicated to them because God in his foreknowledge knows they will perish before they receive baptism.

That might be another exception explained.

Those are like the only cases where I would see it happening because the church recognizes the validity of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, like the early Christian-

Right.

...

martyrs who weren't baptized.

But otherwise, I would say that the traditional view would be that it is, it is a primary cause.

Though I will say faith has to be associated with it.

Like if you are baptized against your will as an adult or without your will, it's not salvific.

So faith is involved in it but baptism is still a primary cause.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And okay, well, it's helpful to talk this through.

I think at the end of the day what I find myself getting to is I just wouldn't know how.

Like I've, I've

On any issue, I always try to circle back to it, humble myself before it and say, "Am I willing to change my mind if I can see the other side?" And I also try to imagine if I believed this other view, how would I defend it?

And that helps me sympathetically understand it as best as I can.

So at times where I try to do that with baptism of regeneration, the sticking point for me is both in the Book of Acts and in my just common Christian experience.

And this is just one of my concerns.

It's not my main argument actually, but

Sure.

is I just don't...

wouldn't know, I wouldn't know what to do.

I mean, I can't say to these people in the catechetical process, I can't say to John, "You're not yet regenerated just because, you know, maybe the Holy Spirit's working at you in some way but you're not yet made alive to God." That would just go against everything that I understand in terms of what the Holy Spirit's work in drawing people to salvation is.

And I don't see it as that crazy of an idea to just think, well, look, we've got two cause...

I mean, faith and baptism are both spoken of as causative for salvation.

So we've got two causes here with one effect.

And I...

Because of what baptism is as a symbolical and representative event, and I'm not saying that it's just a symbol, but as that, it just doesn't seem at all strange to me to say, "Yeah, you're saved at baptism at faith."

and that leads up to baptism where it is kind of formally expressed.

So I guess I'm just

I said I wouldn't talk too much here, so I'll be quiet.

That's fine.

No, you're fine, and

That's just my sort of summative kind of like

I wouldn't know what to do with that view, if that makes sense.

Yeah, and I think the position that I would take is, you know, like Isaiah 55:8-9, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are your ways above mine." I am very hesitant to want to include empirical observations of behavior and correlation to behavior to inform my theology.

I'd rather have it the other way around, my theology is the framework to interpret the different behaviors that I see.

And so seeing that, I would say that the act of spiritual regeneration is something so foreign to me as a redeemed sinner, this is an invisible work of the Spirit in the heart of man, that my primary source of knowledge for how that happens must come from divine revelation.

And I'm very convinced that scripture and tradition of the magisterium all affirm that it's baptism.

It

What's interesting, it's kind of funny, I was reading some of the comments.

And by the way, for people listening on my channel, you all be nice to Gavin, he's a good guy.

I already had my

I did a little announcement when I did a video on Cameron Bertuzzi, telling my commenters, "You got to relax a little bit." 'Cause people, you know, get like that.

But it was funny, I would see...

But it goes both ways.

Sometimes on your channel I'll see people saying things like, "Well, Gavin, Trent won't listen to you, 'cause he's committed to defending Catholicism at all costs."

Mm-hmm.

And I was like, well, actually, even if I weren't Catholic, I would still believe in baptismal regeneration.

It's kind of funny, it's kind of funny, we should play a game with people, what's your fallback denomination?

If you weren't X- ...

what's the next one you would pick?

For me, it would be Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, then maybe Lutheranism.

It's like what...

So that'd be a fun review with your people and with others, what's your fallback denomination, if yours turns out to be false?

And so for me, a common thread in all of those is that they believe in baptismal regeneration.

So for me, that's how I would look at it, when I'm...

So because it's such a foreign thing, the work of God here, I'm heartily convinced that it's a part of divine revelation, and that it's baptism that saves.

So I guess that's how I would put it.

Yeah, that's fair enough.

Well, let's go to another question.

One of the ones I put out there was about unbaptized babies who die-

and what is their state and the historical record on that.

And I think I had articulated a concern about selectivity here, where, you know, it's,

There's an appeal to tradition and an appeal to the consensus of the Fathers and so forth.

But on this question, it seems to me that all of us today depart from not universal, but long-standing tradition.

And to summarize that, I would say it looks to me like from Augustine on, you've got limbo, you know?

Okay, so you've got various ideas, people are trying to mitigate the suffering in various ways.

But I don't see anyone affirming that infants who die apart from baptism get the beatific vision, they get full salvation.

I don't see anyone.

And so this i-

And that's consistent with, you know, there was a commission in the early 2000s that,

The ITC, yeah.

that addressed this.

And that's kind of consistent with their historical summary as well, I don't think I'm way off on that.

So I guess I just, you know, I do...

Here's the thing, I love the Church Fathers.

I do want...

I don't think it's fair when people accuse me as being, like, a radical individualist who doesn't...

Who's just kind of making judgments on their own or something like that.

I understand from a Catholic perspective the concern about if you don't have an authoritative magisterium, you're just functioning on your own and that kind of thing.

But on a question like this, I just believe that there are times where errors come into the tradition.

And I'm curious, how do you think about this in terms of...

It seems like there's a pretty long-standing tradition here that all of our churches tend to depart from today.

I know there's not just one view on this within Catholicism.

Yes.

And when you brought this up in your reply, I, I'm actually quite sympathetic towards this, this concern that you have.

Because, yeah, I mean, I appreciated in your original reply, and I tried to speak to this, that it's not wise to just triumphantly throw out your little statement and think that resolves the issue.

Many of these issues are quite deep and complex, whether it's what scripture means on baptism or the historical record.

I do think that

So I agree with you and the International Theological Commission, that at least from Augustine up until the time of the Reformation, in the West, there was the common doctrine of the Church, it's not an infallible teaching, but a common doctrine held by every theologian was that infants are denied the beatific vision.

What happens then, there's disagreement about that.

But that they don't have the same beatific vision, place in heaven that we do, seems pretty common.

So, let me see if I can process this all through so I'm not warbling around here.

I can see your concern saying, you know, Catholics will say to you and other Baptismal Regenerationists, "Gavin, look, all the Church Fathers uniformly agree on this.

How can you say no? And your correct response is say, "Yes, but what about other cases where the Fathers agree and we don't agree with them?" Now, for me, I think that does point towards the need for a magisterium to help us understand scripture and help us to understand what sacred traditions are witnessed in the Fathers and what are not.

To give you another example, prior to the 11th century, I think every Church Father said that lending money at interest was immoral.

Every single one.

And that doesn't start to change among the medieval theologians till like the 11th or 12th centuries.

and yet, our understanding of the sin of...

They all condemned the sin of usury, and then they identified that with lending at any interest whatsoever.

Whereas the Church's understanding of what constitutes the sin of usury has certainly developed since that time.

So it wouldn't be the case just 'cause the Fathers condemned something, that does not ipso facto mean it's a part of the deposit of faith.

So I think that's a fair point that you raise.

It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a big giant red flag waving at us to seriously consider, and then to help us see what is a part of tradition and what isn't.

And I think just as to understand what is affirmed in scripture, there's a need for a magisterium.

That's also the case with tradition as well.

So, yeah, as I said, I'm sympathetic to it, but I still think, though, that this uniform tradition in the early...

'Cause even with usury, there's qualification in there in the Fathers and things like that.

To me, its universal status is something at least to be reckoned with.

Like, would you...

I guess, yeah, do you...

Do you have this position,

Is there any Father, and we'll just cut him off at, you know, Isidore of Seville or whatever, the Church Fathers-

Mm-hmm.

...

that you would say ex-...

'Cause there could be some where it's ambiguous, some that deny baptismal regeneration, and say, "Here is this view, but it's not the case." I don't know, what are your thoughts on the historical record?

Yeah.

I addressed this a little bit and I'll just summarize.

But basically, I think the challenge here is the same with scripture, where it's very difficult, so you've got the sign and you've got the thing signified.

Mm-hmm.

And as with circumcision, one can often stand in for the other.

And so a lot of times, it's very difficult to tell what the language means. And when I find language like I've located in Justin and Cyril.

These are two examples I gave where they'll say, may not, you know, they'll say you regenerated in baptism.

But, I think they make it pretty clear that the person that that's said of was already regenerated.

Mm-hmm.

So, you know, they've been made new.

That's Justin's term.

Cyril says, he's talking about Cornelius as an example, for the necessity of baptism, actually.

So, he has a very high view of baptism, but he'll say, you know, he was born again at faith.

So I think...

So my answer would be, yeah, I do think that you can see in the fathers this complexity here, and this is why I feel that it's unhelpful, not from you, but when in comments there's this triumphal spirit of kind of like all the church fathers, because as soon as you ask, "Well, what do you mean by baptismal regeneration?"

Mm-hmm.

This, the, this all the church fathers things starts to get a lot more opaque.

Because I don't think that Justin and Cyril are thinking of the catechumen as just having gotten a kick in the pants.

I

They look like they're thinking of them as, no, they've been made new.

They've been regenerated.

Mm-hmm.

So I, I...

So it sounds like your position is, well, with some of these fathers, we may not have an explicit rejection of baptismal regeneration, but we got views that seem at least contradictory to that notion, where it might seem like they're affirming it one place, but affirming the opposite or something that might contradict it in another place.

I guess another question I would have...

Look at me.

I'm the one asking questions now.

Would you really...

It seems to me that most church historians, like when I read their surveys of early doctrinal history in the early church, J.

Andy Kelly, Everett Ferguson has a great book on baptism in the first five centuries, they all seem to talk about baptismal regeneration.

They describe it as universal or most church histories seem to find that doctrine.

Is that what you see at least when you're looking at other church history scholars or how people sort out...

Like, it's agreed there's division in the early church on some things, millennialism, things like that.

A lot of church history scholars don't see division here.

Do

Would you agree with that assessment of them?

Yes, but I would just put in the qualification of, again, when they talk about baptismal regeneration there, I'm not actually sure that they're targeting baptism as the cause of salvation so that...

You know where you and I would actually differ.

Mm-hmm.

Because David Wright is another one.

So, when I did my dialogues with Jordan Cooper, I read through Wright, Ferguson,

Oh, gosh, a few others, some of the other Anglicans, and this is one of the things they're drawing attention to, is so much of this comes down to the linguistics of it.

And that's why I'm trying to keep...

Trying to say we should be patient for the complexity of this is, what does baptismal regeneration mean?

If it means that the catechumen is not yet made new and not yet regenerated until they get in the water, now they're in the water, the Holy Spirit regenerates them, they're out of the water, they're getting dry, now they're regenerate.

That's the time at which it happens.

yeah, that just seems...

And so I think what those scholars are summarizing is a more general high realist view of baptism where God is communicating grace.

It's not necessarily saying that that's where the cause of regeneration, that's where it starts.

I mean, I'm thinking of Wright, for example, like the way...

Oh, George Beasley Murray was the other one.

He's a Protestant Baptist-

Oh, yeah, that's a great one.

who gets into this and he, you know, ends up having a very high view of baptism.

But I don't think it would be where you and I would differ, you know, on those questions.

I don't know.

Beasley, I also just

Let me just

Hold on.

It's right here.

This is,

Yeah, I've got it right here actually.

Yeah, but he adds a view that's...

He admits himself, runs extremely contrary to his own denomination.

That he says, he says in the book, that he's really kind of a lone figure and about what it does.

But I...

But when I read others like I think Ferguson and others, in the summaries, not just using the term regeneration, but I...

They'll use...

They'll say, "The fathers associated baptism with forgiveness or remission of sins." And they're talking about baptism itself as that moment of forgiveness.

Yeah, but I see what you're saying though about qualifying the language involved.

But,

And

But in any case...

Yeah, go ahead.

And one thing I could acknowledge on my side is you mentioned Beasley Murray's views at odds with his denomination.

Well, I want to acknowledge that a lot of contemporary Baptists...

One of the many ways we can be enriched by dialogue with other traditions is we have too low a view of baptism.

It's ironic because we're called Baptists.

Called Baptists.

But many modern day Baptists have fallen away even from historic Baptist views.

Another interesting book for people to read is Stan Fowler's book, More Than a Symbol.

He's canvassing historic Baptist views and is showing it wasn't just a symbol for the historic Baptists.

There's all kinds of things that Baptists believe God is doing through baptisms.

So, Baptists need to rediscover our own history as well, 'cause, you know, 300 years ago, Beasley Murray's view wouldn't have been as much at odds with kind of the common street level Baptist practices today.

So, I was trying to be quick to acknowledge, especially low church evangelical Protestant churches have blind spots and weak areas, and we can be tremendously helped by talking with those of other traditions such as yourself.

W- who would you say then is the first Christian author, maybe it was Reformation, maybe it was somewhat pre-Reformation, that you would point to to say that, yeah, this person is affirming, like, my view on baptism, like, and in their theological writings, like, it's pretty unambiguous?

Well, I pointed to Justin Martyr and his language, because he's basically saying baptism is regenerative, but, by the way, you're already regenerated before you get in the water.

And that's basically what I'm trying to say is

Yeah, baptism does save, but it's not like that's when it happens, or that that's...

You know, you're not regenerated until that time.

Rather it's baptism in its...

That, that's the official public expression.

Mm-hmm.

So.

All righty.

let's...

Well, actually you were gonna ask me questions, so that's why-

Yeah.

I think we covered that well about the,

The other question is, what do we do when we have a lot of the fathers agreeing on something?

And I think it's important for Catholics to understand we're not,

Because some Catholics can do this.

They can create doctrine of their own making by their own reading of the fathers.

They need to be careful with that.

that's why the magisterium...

The catechism says that sacred tradition is witnessed in the fathers.

The writings of the fathers are not identical to sacred tradition, obviously, but they are a witness to it, and so the magisterium helps us to determine when they are witnesses of it.

Yeah, yeah.

Let me ask this question.

This is another one I put out there.

So, this is more specific exegetical question about Hebrews 10:22.

Mm.

Yes.

So, this came up.

You know that verse says, "Let us draw near to God."

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Now, the argument I was making is that the Old Testament has language of water, which refers to a spiritual cleansing.

In Ezekiel, for example, and the New Testament picks this up and baptism recalls this language, points to this language, but the language doesn't always strictly refer to the act of baptism.

And I was saying that it looks like that here because this is in the context of perseverance.

These are people who are already Christians.

So, I wanted to give you a chance if you wanted to interact with that, verse at all.

Yeah.

So, what I would say here is that this is also a reference to baptism.

James Brownson, in a 2007 book from Eerdmans, some...

And I think the book is called The Gift of Baptism. He references and compares it to Ephesians...

to Ephesians 5:25 and Acts 22:16, talking about baptism having this cleansing element.

So, how I would look at it is that the author of Hebrews is encouraging people to persevere in the faith and drawing on different elements, past and present, in the life of a believer to spur on that perseverance.

So starting at Hebrews 10:19, we have conf- "Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence, enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus." And so by the crucifixion that happened in the past.

"The new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, through his flesh." So, we have confidence because of the crucifixion that has happened before.

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." The verbs there are perfect participles.

So, they are verbs that are functioning as nouns or adjectives, but they are describing an event that is completed in the past that now has an effect on something in the future.

It's like if I said, "Having eaten dinner, let us go enjoy our walk on the beach." You know?

It's something that has happened and because this has happened, this can give us strength and confidence.

In fact, the next verse in 10:23, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful." So there, you know, the confession is something that we made in the past...

You know, you still make, but it's talking about something that we have made before.

And then it goes on, "Stir one another up, not neglecting to meet," things like that.

So, I would see that as perseverance rooted in baptismal graces, things that have happened to us that still have effects today.

So I guess that's how I would look at the passage.

Okay.

Fascinating.

All right.

So question of clarification.

So the clause there, "With our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Do you see the, "Hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience" also as a past event being recalled?

Or do you think that this is in concert with drawing near; you're receiving a fresh sprinkling?

Well, well, yeah.

I think both sprinkled and washed are the same verb form as a perfect participle.

So, I would say that this is...

That both of them are allusions to baptism, just like going back to the promise that would be in Ezekiel, your hearts...

I think the language of sprinkling can be found there.

And that was also a mode of baptism in areas that didn't have rivers or a lot of access to water, like desert areas.

So I would see both as references to past baptism and the graces of baptism, continuing on.

Okay.

Fascinating.

So the idea of the verse is kind of draw nearer to God in the present, having had this happen in the past?

Right.

Okay.

Interesting.

All right.

Well, I'll think a bit on that.

That's good to get your take on that.

What about,

Here's another specific exegetical question, the,

I want to give you a chance to speak to because I raised it with circumcision.

So I had one of the things I pointed out is that circumcision of the heart and circumcision of the flesh seem to have the same complicated sign-signified relationship where one can stand in for the other.

So I think if I were to say to...

If I were a Jewish person in the 200s BC, I could say to a Gentile, "Be circumcised, coming to the living God," or, "Be circumcised, having your sins washed away."

Right.

And what I'm saying is, become Jewish, circumcision is the symbol of that, and part of the package of that is salvation.

It's the whole thing.

I'm talking about the whole process.

Right.

and then we've...

And I mentioned Romans 2:29 where Paul is saying, "Circumcision is a matter of the heart by the spirit," and it seems to me like he's teaching us what physical circumcision is.

Mm-hmm.

How would you comment upon this connection and tie it into our discussion?

When you said he's teaching us what physical circumcision is, are you saying he's making a reference to the Jewish rite of circumcision or how the language is applied to Christians?

the former.

The first of those two.

But, well, both by implication.

Mm.

But not just how it's applied to Christians.

Yeah.

A- and what I would say is that, you know, in Romans chapter two, you know, Paul is talking about how everyone is convicted under the law.

Everyone stands in need of salvation in Christ, Jew and Gentile.

Convicts the Gentiles with the arguments from Romans 1.

no...

Romans 2, though he also holds the Jews accountable, that just being circumcised is not a magic key to get into heaven.

'Cause there's people who are outwardly circumcised but their hearts have not been...

Have not been purified, that the act of circumcision does not have the same effects on the soul.

One must also be circumcised of the heart as a matter of that.

So, I could see how your language might apply there, but that would only show that circumcision as part of the old covenant was deficient in some ways.

And this is prophesied in Ezekiel when God says, "I will take your hearts of stone.

I will give you living hearts, hearts for me alone.

I will write my law upon your hearts, that there was something that while circumcision was quite helpful in the old covenant to create ethnic boundaries and identities for the Jewish people, it wasn't enough for that spiritual transformative element.

So in all of...

Especially the Pauline corpus, I would see that while the comparison you're making about be saved, the circumcision's a sign or seal accompanying it, I don't think that would apply to baptism because baptism is purposely, in the new covenant, superior to circumcision, in those ways, that baptism really does accomplish what it signifies in cleansing the person of sin, making them an adopted child of God.

I think that that's very clear in the letter to the Colossians, in Colossians chapter two, where you have the comparison with circumcision and baptism.

And Paul's saying in Colossians 2:11-12, "In him also, you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh and the circumcision of Christ..." Verse 12 often starts with the word "and", but that's not in the Greek text, "...

and you were buried with him in baptism." Though I read them, if you take the...

There's no word and in the Greek text, "Putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ, you were buried with him in baptism." So I guess that's how I would look at it, is I can see your...

I can see how your description might apply with circumcision, but I see it as kind of deficient, and baptism has a lot of more superior elements in it to what it actually confers upon a person.

so I don't think it would...

It would apply in that case.

So I guess that's how I would kind of look at it.

Okay.

All right.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

And my sense is, and I've thought about this a lot more since talking with Jordan Cooper, is I do appreciate there's an amplification from Old Testament to New Testament with respect to these signs.

So I agree baptism is superior to circumcision in various ways.

I wouldn't see that as located in this sign-signified relationship.

And so when I read a verse like this, I could think people could hammer away at a verse like this to argue for circumcisional regeneration, just in the way people hammer away at 1 Peter 3:21, which-

Are you talking about...

Are you talking about Romans 2:29?

Correct.

They could just say, "Look, Paul says circumcision is of the heart by the spirit," and they could...

You know, and obviously that just doesn't settle things 'cause it then...

So let me ask you this.

Do you

The sentence, "Be circumcised, coming to the living God," can you see linguistically how that's a meaningful statement and how that's at least, at the linguistic level, a possible way to think about sign and things signified?

Okay.

So like you're saying there what it means is, it's not that circumcision brings you to the living God-

Mm-hmm.

but you should be circumcised because that's part of the process that brings you to the living God.

Well, part of the pro- I would say it's the physical sign of the process having happened.

You know someone's a Jew because there's...

And just the same with baptism.

You know when someone's baptized you just say, "Oh, that person is now a Christian."

So Paul's concern is that their heart isn't going along with where other parts of their body are.

That the heart wasn't carried along with it.

You got that, not, that...

The problem is that people are not...

That the physical act of circumcision is not sufficient enough to cause the spiritual effect onto a person's heart.

Mm-hmm.

And so one has to do that as well, along with the sign.

Then I would say that baptism is superior because it really does cleanse and change our souls, in that effect.

However, it's not...

And I agree with you that some Catholic...

You know if you're trying to defend this view, you have...

It's like there's two extremes.

Your extreme is, it's just a symbol and doesn't communicate grace.

The other extreme would be hyper ex opere operato.

Once you receive baptism, the graces flow automatically because of the water and what it's done to you.

Whereas Catholic theology recognizes that it's possible for someone to receive baptismal graces but for no spiritual fruit to come from it because a person has not chosen to yield to that or allow the baptismal graces to flourish in their life, that a person has to cooperate with it.

And so faith, there is a part of faith involved in there as well.

Okay.

That, that's helpful, to segue to my final question.

Sure.

And I'll just say in summary on that, for people watching this, if they're wanting to try to understand, if the word metonymy kind of like, "I don't know what he's talking about." Think about what I'm saying about circumcision, and think about if that were also the way we thought about baptism, that might help people arrive at a clearer understanding, because I am sensitive to the fact that some of these concepts, it is a little tricky to wrap your mind around it.

Yeah, yeah, it's a hard...

It's like if we s- I think I use this in my video, it's like if I say, "The Pentagon told the White House, 'Here's the problems of the defense plan.'" It's like, well, it's not like that building told the other building what happened.

Right.

The building represents...

It was these generals and people that told the President.

and so I see what you're saying.

I think your example of the blood of, saved by the blood of Jesus is helpful because we don't literally believe it's only his blood.

It's the death of him as a whole person.

My concern is that with baptism we would need a similar argument that it is...

Just like as we're just highly confident it's not just the blood, I would need another powerful argument that it's not just baptism I suspect.

But, but I, you're right.

That is, I, it's...

I will give you this, it is an ingenious way to look at it that has a lot of explanatory power.

But you're right.

With grammar, it's like, what do I mean by that?

So

Yeah, yeah.

So hopefully that can help people.

But, okay, so the last question is not at all necessarily even where we would...

It's not a challenge ques- more of an interpretation type question of kind of, can you understand the concern of formalism, that I have where the...

See, 'cause my perspective on this...

And then after this I'll ask you what other topics we want to talk about down the road if you want to do any of that too, but.

Sure, yeah.

My honest, sincere heart level concern is something that happens so much that I think the baptismal regeneration traditions can push against.

So I'm not saying this always must happen for anyone who affirms baptismal regeneration.

But what I just honestly see so much at the street level is a formalism where the focus is put on the rite.

It's like, "Baptism saved me, so I'm good." And there isn't what you've mentioned, the need for faith, and there isn't this sense of, you know...

'Cause the whole thing, for me the sacraments, the whole point is to point us to Jesus Christ.

The whole point is to lift...

You see the water and you think, "That's what Jesus does to us.

He washes our sins away. You are submerged into the dark water, you rise up out of it and you feel, "This is what union with Christ is.

I've been raised with Christ. And so the whole point is to point our eyes to Jesus Christ.

Do you

Can you understand this, the worry here, of at least at street level practice-

Mm-hmm.

traditions that think it's baptism that causes regeneration can put so much focus on the rite that if we get stuck there we're not looking from it up to Christ.

And I'm just curious how you'd think about that concern and if you can see that concern.

I can see your concern, but it's not as concerning to me.

So, I would agree with you that, for example, somebody who treats baptism, "Yeah, well, let's baptize the baby so Nana is happy" and, "Look, we got them baptized, what else do we have to do?" Especially in the case of infant baptism.

Now I, now for me, I am very in favor of it obviously, I'm quite happy that my children are baptized because I know that they're all below the age of reason.

If something were to happen to them, I have absolute complete confidence they're going to heaven, 100%.

So I'm fine with that.

But there, if other people could baptize your baby and then you don't instill the faith in them, that's bad, especially since they have the fruits of baptism.

That's why the Catholic Church will not do baptisms unless there is a well-founded hope the child will be raised Catholic.

So like if a priest sees that the parents are just doing it to please Nana, it's postponed until you can see there's that well-founded hope.

But I guess some thoughts on here, I believe that Christ wants us to have assurance of salvation but not a false presumption.

So I get where you're concerned that some people could take the rite of baptism and get a false presumption out of it.

But I would say that that same concern that if you hold the five-point Calvinism, if you believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, for example, that just as much, if not more so, could lend itself to the same kind of presumption of saying, like, "Well, I made my act of faith however many years ago and I can't lose my salvation." So, you know, it's fine.

That if there is...

If one can believe in perseverance of the saints without cons- well, you know, while dealing with the presumption problem there, I would say the presumption problem is less when it comes to the doctrine of baptism.

So, because what I would say is that, that putting salvation in baptism, I think it walks a good line between, presumption and, lack of...

and lack of assurance.

We don't want presumption, we don't want someone to think they're going to heaven no matter what and I can do whatever I want, doesn't matter anymore really.

But, I would also be concerned of...

And I've met people who say, like, "Yeah, you know, I was saved when I was eight years old, 12 years old.

Was I really saved?

Like, now, I'm having a crisis of faith and, you know, not everything you believe when you're 10 you believe when you're an adult. And, you know, so I think it makes sense that God would give us sacraments as these objective signs that can be abused to presumption, but I don't think so.

At least not nearly as much as what other traditions would hold, especially with perseverance of the saints and things like that.

So I see where the concern could manifest but I don't think it is as concerning as what you might find.

The same problem would afflict almost every other denomination of varying stripes.

Does that make sense?

Yes, and I want to clarify.

The concern is not so much presumption as, as...

I think I used the word formalism of...

Or even, we could speak of a ritualism where the-

I-

object of faith is in baptism, rather than in the God who works through baptism.

I see.

And, you know, I see...Again, it's, I want to be, I always want to be careful to distinguish street-level practice and official theology, because this is one of my frustrations with a lot of the anti-Protestant sentiments one hears now and again in comments and elsewhere, is that common evangelical practice is represented as Protestantism, and it's just not true.

There's so much more to Protestantism.

It's but it is hard.

It's a very large, moving target.

It's not to use inflammatory language.

No.

It's I mean like for example I'm hoping...

I offered to debate Ray Comfort, for example, and hopefully we will do that in the fall.

But I'm sure you guys might have similar views, might also have way divergent views.

I highly doubt his view is as nuanced as yours.

So, I get where you're saying, I guess we always have to tread lightly knowing that there's different strains of belief within Protestantism, I guess.

And, yeah, and I would...

an appeal I could make to Catholics summarizing Protestant theology would be one way to, for it not to be a moving target is to look at confessional traditions and just read, you know, quote the confession and say that's the view of this tradition.

Because, in other words, the distinction I'm drawing is not that, you know, all Protestants are similar, we're certainly not, but it's more between street-level practice and official theology.

The, you know, if you want to know the official standards for a Presbyterian, you can look them up and read through the Westminster Standards and see this is what they believe.

But, I'll tell you, though, what's the hardest for me, and I think why many Catholics have this view if they engage in comments and say these things, is you'll...

when you meet a Protestant friend, you ask them, "Oh, what denomination do you belong to?"

Yeah.

Like, I could bet three out of five times, a lot of times, they'll say, "Oh, well, I'm non-denominational." Like, it's just, it's probably the biggest denomination out there.

It's such a common one.

Right.

I think I could probably say this, that the number of Protestants whose theology is rooted in confessional creeds, I would say that's the minority.

I think-

I couldn't agree to that.

I mean, I grew up in the Presbyterian Church of America.

I remember having my experience in that denomination was such where I'm interacting with others as well.

But even if you were right, I mean, the point that I'm making is-

Mm-hmm.

then just say I'm criticizing non-denominational Protestants.

What I was trying to say, my originating comment was, it's unfair to treat non-denominational Protestantism-

Sure.

as representative of Protestantism.

Sure.

And that's why it's important, and I think it's important in others who engage in this, and I try to do this as well, when you talk about views, to qualify.

And to say, you know

and usually what you'll have to end up doing is saying something like, "Some Protestants believe X." And so I think you're really just on a lot safer ground if you just say some instead of all.

Really the only things that are all are just the things that are not Catholic, like all Protestants don't believe in the papacy, or, you know, things.

Now, I do want to...

I want to make sure I understood you, because this is helpful clarification.

I see what you're saying, and that goes back to my illustration of baptizing for the sake of nah-nah, of just like ritualism, of just like doing this...

And this is a concern with any kind of liturgical tradition where you have rituals, you fall into ritualism.

And so, you know, I think one extreme is to just get rid of the rituals themselves so you're more focused, you're more deliberate.

But I think that's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That I think that God gives us many rituals, we're ritualistic creatures.

it's easy, like in marriage, you know, the signs of affection you give to a spouse can become ritualistic.

But that doesn't mean it's wrong to get your wife flowers.

You just have to always move the heart with it.

And so that's why I would say that I see the concern, but it's not enough for me to override the importance of...

that the sacraments are not mere rituals.

Though we have a bad habit as humans to become ritualistic, we have to watch out for.

Yeah.

Well, I'll just say two comments.

One is on, back just rewinding the clock about 90 seconds.

One thing that as a Protestant I could make the appeal for Catholics to do is instead of summarizing based upon just what you see, read the historic-

Sure.

...

standards.

So quote, if you want to criticize, you know, Presbyterian Church polity, quote the Westminster Standards.

Or if you want to criticize, you know, whatever it is, just go quote those-

Or London Baptist or, you know, of course it depends.

Whatever, whatever tradition, yeah, exactly.

And that's something I think would be a positive step.

Because, you know, the thing is, evangelical Protestantism is really easy to observe.

It's very large in the United States.

Mm-hmm.

It's sort of, you know, since the '50s and Billy Graham does his crusades, there's a lot of evangelicals around.

So it's re- whenever there's a majority view, it's easy to just observe it and describe it by means of anecdote.

And I just really think it helps the more that people would quote our confessional documents.

And even evangelicals have those.

So, the other thing I was gonna say is, oh, de- oh yeah, rituals.

Yeah, I just wanted to say in agreement with you, rituals are good, and that the difference here is we do have a different view on whether the power is in the ritual in some sense.

And so that's why I think that my pastoral concern comes up, is people think that baptism saves.

Like when...

so, you know, when an infant is brought to the font and water in the name of the Trinity is put on the infant, they just passed into a state of regeneration, and I don't believe that, but I'm just, you know...

it, it's kind of an invitation to see it through my eyes.

Like if you thought, if you didn't, if you don't think it's enough, can you see how this is going to cause people to downplay the role of faith?

And, not that it needs to do that, but that it often does, it seems to me.

Sure.

And that's why in the baptismal liturgy, when Catholics go to have their children baptized, they, you know, say, "What do you seek for your child?" "Well, we ask for faith, we ask for baptism." And so we do ask for it in the liturgy, we ask for faith, especially for the child who does not have the gift, does not have faith right now at all.

And seeing the, and that's why there's so much that happens about, even for an infant there's a prayer of exorcism that is done, because the strong belief that the child is still under the domain of Satan.

They're a very cute dominion of Satan, but they still lack that grace and so there's prayer of exorcism to drive away the presence of the evil one, and also the prayers over the godparents and the parents and their sacred roles and responsibilities in bringing to fruition the baptismal graces that have been given to the child.

So,

Yeah.

You're right.

And so I think that's helpful and I think it's good also for, for other Protestants, and this is something that happens on both sides of any dispute.

There's a dispute about an issue, you're concerned about the other side, so you swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

And I think just both sides always have to be aware of when they might be doing that.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Okay, let's...

so this has been a really enjoyable conversation and a really interesting one because this is an area where, you know, I'm, we're sort of at the opposite ends of the spectrum as a Baptist and Roman Catholic, so it's fascinating to talk.

But on other issues, I think people might be curious what else we're gonna talk about.

I know there's been a lot of questions on here about whether we're doing debates and that kind of thing.

Do we want to talk at all to finish off here about other topics that-

Sure.

...

we may discuss or debate at the time zone?

We don't necessarily need to commit ourselves to anything-

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I mean, there's a lot to talk about and it's just so interesting here, like I always look for things to do, like I'll do rebuttals.

I mean, it's just fun to be like, "You need to rebut this person, destroy them." Like, I mean, I'll offer, I think it's important for people to see the other position, but I much prefer either formal debates......

or dialogues like this, and both have their pluses and minuses.

Debates has some pluses, dialogues have pluses.

So I'd be happy to do a lot more with you.

I think debate, it's not...

Sometimes I have said this, this is not the case with you, there are some personalities I have to put up more guardrails, so I prefer debate to dialogue.

Yep.

There's just some individuals, it's just not helpful to do dialogue.

It just isn't.

Right.

Debate is just more helpful for people to see both sides.

Now however, even with someone you can dialogue with, sometimes debate is helpful because it allows more of a longer flow of an argument and for people to assess the evidences that are put forward, which sometimes dialogue we can get tempted with rabbit trails.

We can, it's more informal in the exchange.

So debate or dialogue.

I think it's important for Catholics and Protestants to talk about Sola Scriptura and also Apostolic Succession and the Papacy.

I mean, that's really the low chi of where we end up.

It always kind of gets back to these kind of points.

I watched your video a long time ago on relics.

Hmm.

And I thought about doing a rebuttal, but it might almost just be fun just to have another dialogue.

Like, you could come up with questions and I could just talk with, like, this.

I think this is a good format for that subject, because I don't even think we disagree, like, that much.

I thought it was interesting.

'Cause I'll give you this, because this will be interesting to see your thought, 'cause, well, with the thing with the relics, when I was doing my debate with Steve Christy on the Marian dogmas, we were talking, the veneration of Mary came up.

And I said, "Well, I can understand how people might be spooked by that." But at the same time, I try to ask Protestants, they once again see things from my perspective, like, to try to relate to me, and I gave an example in the debate, like, "What would you do..." Like, people get spooked by Catholics showing veneration to relics, the bones of the saints, this or that, kneeling, praying, kissing them.

What would you do if we found the cross of Christ?

Like, we dug it up archeologically and we carbon dated it and we knew, yeah, this is the cross of Christ, and you were before that? And what was interesting is in that debate I said, "Would you probably fall to your knees or weep or kiss the cross in veneration of what our savior achieved, our salvation?" And in the debate, Steve Christy was doing this.

He's going...

He was shaking his head dramatically, like, no, he wouldn't.

And I just thought, I don't think a lot of Protestants would agree with that.

I don't know.

I think you might have a different, maybe a different take, or see where I'm coming from there.

Yeah, I can...

Yeah, that'd be fun to talk about.

The relics was one that I never thought I would do a video on, but as I'm reading through Martin Chemnitz and others, yeah, it's just one of those...

It's not like the first thing you think of as a Protestant versus Catholic issue.

It feels like it's a little further downstream from other things, but it gets into larger issues like the distinction between veneration and worship, which is really important for some of the things we differ on.

Sure.

I wanted to say too, I agree with you about dialogues and debates.

Sometimes in the comments, people will call for us, "Oh, you should do this, the other." Both have their place.

Yeah.

The thing about debates where I actually feel more relaxed in a debate sometimes is that you're guaranteed not to be interrupted.

Well, I guess it's not a guarantee.

Somebody could, yeah.

Hopefully.

Hope-

I have been interrupted in debates.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I can see how that could happen.

But, it just ensures, kind of, the structure, which is nice.

But on the other hand, it's also nice to have less structured things that accomplish a different purpose as well.

So I'm certainly happy to do further dialogues.

Now, we had talked about doing two debates, one on Sola Scriptura, one on Apostolic Succession.

My understanding is we're not necessarily doing a Sola Scriptura debate in a live context at this point, based upon your last email about that.

Is that accurate?

Just so people know what to expect.

Well, I

Well, I don't know.

Well, we might.

I don't know.

It's really up in the air.

I really have to probably stop scheduling these things because I love them, but they also take up my calendar and things like that.

I would very much...

I love doing, not just debates, but I like being in person with people.

Mm-hmm.

I'm just kind of tired of the...

Yeah.

I just have a lot more fun when I'm across the table as somebody.

That's why I loved when I was at Emory University a few weeks ago with Nathan Novis.

We were in person at the medical school to debate abortion.

Just a whole different feel when I could just be across with the person.

Yeah.

So you're in California.

We could either have you come down to Catholic Answers.

We have a great space there to do debates.

Jimmy debated Bart Ehrman in a great church there.

It is very well done.

Also, I think it could be fun, 'cause you're up in kind of LA metro area, I think, kind of north of there.

Yeah.

It'd be cool to do, like, a debate, something like this at Biola.

You know we live stream it.

I think we have some Catholic contacts there and others.

I would love to do something that's in person, but also has a streaming element to it.

It's just all about the scheduling and finding the time.

But the reason I picked those two topics was, I do think a lot of these debates between Catholics and Protestants, it boils down to Sola Scriptura.

Some people might think, well, why not also debate the Papacy?

I think there's a place for it.

I've appreciated the debates you've done on that.

But I have a...

My concern always when I do debates with other traditions is, I don't want to debate something where we're too far apart, where it's like if I try to debate the morality of slavery in the Bible with an atheist.

If he doesn't even believe in God, it's gonna be really hard to even approach the text in a fair way.

So not, like, not that I'm comparing you to an atheist or anything.

But I feel like the doctrine of the Papacy becomes much more intelligible if one already believes in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Yeah.

That-

And I agree with you that both Sola Scriptura and Apostolic Succession are both kind of nerve centers for our differences.

So, I'm in principle open to doing either or both of those.

Yep.

So people watching this know my schedule, I'm actually going...

So I'm taking May off over the summer.

I'm not gonna say yes.

I'm not planning on saying yes to any debates or dialogues just because I'm kind of disciplining myself to finish a book project in the fall.

And then going forward, what I'll probably try to do, similar to what you said, Trent, of just...

They're fun, but they are consuming.

And we're having our fifth baby, is due in August, so we're gonna have five babies.

Also fall.

So if people don't see me for a few years, they'll understand.

But, so what I'm probably thinking of doing is doing one or maybe two per semester.

So, one or two dialogue debates in the fall, one or two in the spring.

But I'll reserve one of those slots if you want to do one of those in the fall.

So I'll have-

Yeah.

...

that as an option.

We can just keep talking to iron out details.

I say we do that for Sola Scriptura.

We keep it in person and I don't know.

I think we reached out to Comfort.

If he hasn't gotten back to us, then, you know, we'll,

Yeah, I'd love to set that up with you, and then maybe in the spring we could do something else.

And as your schedule lightens and you feel up for it, we can also just do these interview dialogues.

You have questions, you ask me, and it's a bit more lighter than, like, a full debate or something.

Yeah, and I thought of this one as more of an interview because I posed those six questions in my last video.

Going forward, I'll probably just treat it more as just a dialogue, just to back and forth-

Yeah.

Sure.

share our views and that kind of thing.

Okay.

Anything else before we sign off?

No.

I think you've given some good advice to people, and I would definitely encourage them to people who are watching to continue to learn and dive into these various arguments.

If you want to learn more about what I do, I have my channel, The Council of Trent.

I have a book on Catholicism called The Case for Catholicism.

There's a chapter on baptism, though I'll probably be revisiting those topics in the future, you know, with more updates and things like that.

But yeah, check that out and then definitely, you know, keep checking out Gavin's channel and all the stuff he's doing.

And his books.

He's got some neat books on atheism.

And then I wanted to chat with you about your book on theological triage at some point.

What are the essential doctrines and what are not?

So we'll figure that out in the years to come.

We'll figure it out.

Yeah.

Much to do, much to come.

So this is all good.

So thank you so much, Trent, for the great dialogue.

And thanks everybody for watching.

We'll see you next time.