The Relationship Between Baptism and Faith: A Defense of Baptismal Regeneration

This is a response to an article from Themelios which argued that Luther's view of baptismal efficacy contradicts sola fide.

[KennethSmith-zscq]

I have been going to a Baptist church for 20 years but have been wrestling with a lot of things over the last five years. Lutheranism and baptism are one of those things, that I’ve wrestled with and you’ve addressed those struggles in this video. I’ve been driving myself crazy trying to understand how baptism wasn’t a work. I was so worried if I embraced Lutheran doctrine, I’d be embracing works salvation. This has helped a bunch. I don’t want to trust in anything but the finished work of Christ but I want all of what God wants for me.

[marybeneke]

Yes do the debate!! Do continue the article!! I never get tired of hearing about baptism!

[EricBryant]

11:30: "Does the faith in standing and status... whether or not the priest is regenerate ... Does the faith in the one administering the sacrament have anything to do with the efficacy of the sacrament?"

The answer that Augustine and pretty much the rest of the Church came to was: No, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on its Institution by our Lord, in accordance with God's word. As long as the proper Words of Institution and elements for the sacrament are used by the priest/pastor, God's grace is always available through God's promise, not based on the status of the priest.

Thanks for this! I had been looking for the Lutheran view to this question for a while now, and you answered it.

[jevonmatthews]

The comparison of baptism to the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt into the wilderness and the Lords Supper as the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites was awesome. Thank you.

[lutherserbe]

Definitly finish the Article, great to hear your thoughts.
Btw big thanks for everything you do. I know it must be hard for you as father of (I think 2?), pastor, working at university, doing the weidner Institute, Just and Sinner website, publishings, merch, Youtube, podcasts, twitter and still keep studying. My deepest respect that you do this much for the Lutheran community and you should know, that we appreciate it. I can't understand how you are not completely destroyed by all of that things already. God bless!

[andrewflegler]

Please continue the article. That article is the best I have read so far disputing the Lutheran view of baptism and your response to it has been great. Thank you for the work you are doing!

[jonathanvickers]

Thank you for sacrificing your time to make these videos. Very much appreciated.

[nealstafford]

Another way to strengthen the "household" argument is to place emphasis on the "Word" being present in the household. Wherever one convert is in the household, the "Word" will be present to create and sustain faith. We baptize household, because the "Word" will continually create faith among all within those living there. I think the same argument can be made I Cor. 7:14 "children made holy" not because one parent is a believer but because the "Word" brought that one parent to faith. This power of the "Word" is present within the family. Enjoy the podcast.

[terratremuit]

Great video! I'm one of those boogeymen Augustinian-Thomists, but I agree with a lot of what you said!

[changjsc]

Argument starts at 3:08.
In summary:
(1) The two points at issue is whether we can call "baptism" a work, and if so, whether it along with faith is efficacious for salvation
, in which case sola fide is compromised.
(2) To the first point, reformed Baptists would argue that baptism is a non-saving work that is the ultimate sign of a saving faith.
(3) Reformed Baptists would say that baptism's use in scripture is symbolic, representing an expression of faith. (1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38)
(4) In contrast, Lutherans would argue that baptism is a passive yet objective receiving of regeneration (i.e. the creation of saving faith) which is in the action of being immersed in water, and can be rejected.
(5) As for infant baptism, the idea that infants have faith is a logical result of believing three points; (i) that infants should be baptized, (ii) baptism saves through regeneration, (iii) salvation is not possible apart from faith, ergo, infants must have faith.
(6) As an example, to a Lutheran baptism is not a meritorious work in the same way that choosing to hear the gospel from someone is not a meritorious work but is
(7) The Lutheran view of baptism is correct because a more plain reading of scriptural text points in that direction.

Some questions and requests for clarification from a Lutheran's perspective:
Q1: Around 36:55, Dr. Cooper says: "Baptism is efficacious in that it regenerates. What is regeneration but the giving of spiritual life, which is faith? So baptism is efficacious unto faith. Baptism brings one faith." In this case, must one have saving faith before the event of efficacious baptism? If so, in what way does baptism save if faith apart from baptism already justifies, or does baptism save only in the case of infant baptism? Or does the event of baptism only create saving faith in a faithless but consenting individual?
Q2: Lutherans seem to believe that regeneration through the word alone is efficacious for salvation. So why call baptism other than infant baptism salvific? If because scripture claims so, then how can the world alone truly efficacious for salvation?
Q3: At 44:30, Dr. Cooper uses the phrase, "submit to the work of believing the gospel." I think reformed theologians would argue that there is a strong distinction between "belief" and a "work." Commanding someone to be baptized is qualitatively different from commanding someone to believe, as in when Jesus said "repent and believe" he was saying two different things. Dr. Cooper later says that the misunderstanding is in how the "relationship between the law and gospel works." But Baptists would likely say that baptism is a good work done under the gospel following salvation as an expression of faith. And thus unrelated to the process of our salvation. Am I misunderstanding the flow of the argument here?
Q4: At 56:00, Dr. Cooper starts to say that we should not interpret baptism a particular way because of the conclusions we draw from other texts, in particular regarding Perseverance of the Saints. But isn't that how we are supposed to interpret scripture, letting scripture interpret scripture while being internally logical and coherent? In which case, the problem is not that we are using scripture to interpret scripture but rather that Perseverance of the Saints is falsely being arrived at as a conclusion. Am I understanding him correctly, or is this again my Calvinist background disabling me from understanding Lutheran teaching?

[AstroMonkey]

Dr. Cooper, would you summarize the Lutheran view as: Baptism is a means by which salvific grace is administered to the individual, but the means is only an effectual means of received by faith? (This also being why Lutherans can hold to a denial of irresistible grace without contradicting their understanding of predestination).

[j.sethfrazer]

It would be MAJORLY helpful to hear a Lutheran theologian engage in a public debate on baptism. I’m sick of talking past evangelicals on this issue.

[lc-mschristian]

Thank you for all you do. God's peace be with you.

[flashhog]

I don't think a debate with Slick would be very productive. I've heard him talk about baptism many times and he brings up two things: 1) in Acts 2:38 he replaces "for" with "because of" the forgiveness of sins. 2) claims baptismal regeneration is incompatible with salvation by faith alone. However, I would like to see more discussion of this article, it is interesting to see someone make an honest effort to interact with what Lutherans believe instead of the tired surface treatment.

[jamesparker]

1. re "just look at the baptistic texts", JBC doesn't do that, because: a) he takes non-baptistic texts such as John 3:3-6/Titus 3:4-6, which mention "baptism" NOT once, but he arbitrarily MAKES them, "baptistic", because "all the Fathers said so", thus violating Luthers (accurate) dictum, that a mere "say-so" from the Fathers was NOT intrinsically adequate, to certify any doctrine, as being Biblical and true; b) any serious student of Scripture knows that "face value" interpretations of texts can lead to denials of core doctrine, thus: Scripture nowhere uses "Trinity" to describe God; on the "contrary", such as "face value" texts, as Deut. 6:4 would "appear" to deny the Trinity, saying, "the Lord our God is ONE LORD" (not "three); re, the current discussion (and closer "to home"), 1 Tim. 2:5 says that woman are "SAVED through child-birth"; are women REALLY "regenerated/justified" via child-birth? Did God get "saved", when He was "justified by the people" (Luke 7:29)? and what about this "foolishness" that Paul says God has (1 Cor. 1:25)?, etc. etc. 2. the Reformed objection to BR is not merely "based upon perseverance", there is MUCH more to it, than that, to wit: a) NO external, physical rite ever produced inward, spiritual realities; not so in Old Israel (Rom. 2:28, 29), and certainly not in Christ's Church; thus, in the N.T, you have i] many examples in Acts, of people being saved, BEFORE their water baptism (the Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8], the Philippian jailer [16:30, 31]); you have ii] a man saved under the "New Covenenant" (John 19: 32-34; Heb. 9:16, 17), yet with NO water baptism (Luke 23:33-43), and iii] you have a man (Simon Magus) water baptized, who received NO salvation, whatsoever (Acts 8:9-24; mind you, with your Lutheran, "loss-of-salvation" doctrine, maybe SM "set the record", for the fastest, to ever "lose" his salvation"?), yet iv] there is NOT ONE clear-cut case of anyone being "saved by water baptism" in the N.T.! 3. re the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance", what is adduced to/against all "loss-of-salvation" schemes remains true, that such schemes (by subtily "subbing" "probation", for "salvation") eviscerate the entirety of Christian theology, in ALL of it's major heads of doctrine; re "baptism", it does so, as follows: according to the Lutherans, water baptism sin/gives the Spirit/unites with Christ", and Lord knows what else; yet, due to a totally ironic affirmation of a "free-will" that can "resist God" (and so is NOT "in BONDAGE" after all! LOL!!), ALL of these multitudinous benefits can be "forfeited/surrendered/cast away" at the drop of the "free-will" hat, thus revealing the sub-standard, NON-life-changing "gospel" (?), which is the "hall-mark" of ALL religions....thus, Mr. Coopers noble attempts to "prove" BR, ends up as a lost cause, grounding itself out, against a) the "free-will" of Man, and b) the impotency of God, to savingly over-ride "a"....

[sparky]

I really appreciate the Lutherans and the revival of the truth in faith alone. Why does this have to be so difficult? It seems as though a person has to do a lot of mental jogging to make the puzzle work. I wish i could sit down and chat with you. It seems to complicated to fit it as a work of God. I personally don't disagree or agree. I have been flip flopping on this issue for a long time due to deductive
I have been following you for a long time and have a lot of respect for you and Lutheran teachings. Thank you again.

[rogerplested]

You forgot to put the citation for the article from Themelios in the description. I would prefer to read the article and then listen to the video. I will get far more out of the video this way.

[juggler]

Fantastic treatment of the the topic. I think a debate with Matt slick would be an interesting discussion. Also it's not James white 😁

[r.lizarraga]

Did medieval catholicism really believe that communion is efficacious even without faith? In Orthodoxy there is a very strong emphasis on partaking of the Holy Gifts in a worthy manner. Our pre-communion prayers state multiple times that you will be "burned" (spiritually speaking) if you commune unworthily. It sounds very similar to the Lutheran view.

Also, can we get a list of what exactly qualifies as a "work" and what doesn't, and why? I think it would clear up a lot of the confusion. Thank you!

[KD-bnuq]

"No doubt that infants have faith?" Don't you think that John the Baptist and Jeremiah are kind of exceptional examples? Would we conclude that because God spoke audibly to Samuel as a child, God will speak audibly to all children? The example that you gave of David in Psalm 22:9, 10 is definitely not a clear example that all children have faith in the womb, especially seeing that this is a prophecy of Jesus. Furthermore, when someone reads these verses do they conclude that David had faith as a baby or that David's entire life was being governed by God? Finally, since Timothy has known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:15), are we supposed to understand that this means he understood them as an infant? If I said to someone, "I have been reading books continually since childhood, " would they think he means he has been reading books since he was an infant?