My Thoughts on Jordan Cooper's Baptism Videos

Here are some thoughts on Dr. Jordan Cooper's responses to my video on baptism, with a view to clarifying our future discussion.

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

My books:

[vngelicath]

I discovered you as a result of the debate, and as a Lutheran I did NOT expect to become a fan. But WOW I'm glad I found you -- you are such an intelligent and calm presenter, and cover so many topics!

[ewene]

I am so thankful to have discovered you Dr. Ortlund. I have been in a process of retrieval for renewal with a particular interest in historic Protestantism and its relationship to the patristic era. I have learned a lot from Dr. Cooper too and have been drawn to confessional Lutheranism because of his teaching; but, doctrinally I am closer to your position and find your videos invaluable to making sense of all this. I can't wait for these dialogues with Dr. Cooper. Keep up the great work!

[johncocoma]

Dr. Ortlund is… built different. Thanks for your videos

[onesneak]

Dr. Gavin, how do you not have more subscribers? I just recently found you and really love your approach. You are very respectful.
Now I am Catholic and do not agree with half of things you say but man I have to agree with these other 4 thousand subscribers. You are amazing. I already study a lot and you make want to continue to study especially other faith.
Keep up the great work my brother in Christ.

[jotink]

What my Catholic and Orthodox friends seem to miss is the power of faith in coming to God in repentance. My sin may be washed away thriugh baptism but as your analogies brought hone something actually happened when being born again by grace through faith.

[jacobroel]

God bless You brother your videos has really helped me and led me to grow to the knowledge of Christ and his church

[eastsidefellowship]

Looking forward to your discussion with Dr. Cooper with Austin Suggs moderating. You guys are my three favorite youtubers!

[toddvoss]

Found your comments on historic Baptist views and terminology enlightening. Learned something. Look forward to your discussion.

[st.christopher]

122 comments (thus far), many concerning the washing away of sins, and not a single mention of the blood of Christ. Everyone seems sincere here, but if we compartmentalize our doctrinal positions on baptism so much to the exclusion of that which truly washes away our sins, namely the precious blood of Christ, then we are in danger of missing the whole point. We were bought with the price of His own blood. So regardless of how much we do or do not make of water baptism (as a church or as an individual), it does not add a single thing to the finished work of Christ. However, it sadly can have the effect of taking our eyes off the true prize, which is Christ Himself. ✝️🙏🏼📖

[nick.s.c]

This conversation is going to be very interesting. This clarification video is pretty helpful in my opinion. Can't wait!

[Thicknchunky]

I can understand your slight frustration with people that keep bringing up the whole “baptism isn’t just a symbol” thing but I think I understand why it’s brought up so much. After leaving Mormonism a few years ago I attended a nondenominational church here in Utah for about a year and a half and there was an over emphasis that baptism does nothing for the person. Anytime there was a baptism on a Sunday the pastor would take a minute to remind everyone that this was an optional outward show of faith. Nothing more. When I asked him on the side whether I should be baptized after being told that my Mormon baptism was invalid he said that it was up to me and that I would gain nothing extra from it if I truly had faith in what Jesus did for me on the cross.

Your take is definitely different that this church that has Anabaptist roots. But I feel that’s the problem or issue. Protestantism varies so much in its beliefs. Dr. Cooper and you are a perfect example. This was very confusing to me being an ex Mormon that was fresh out of the church. You, Dr. Cooper and other non Catholic/Orthodox people say the phrase, “In my point of view” a lot. When I hear that all that I think about is that truth when it comes to theological topics of the Gospel is simply relative. I’m not comfortable with that and I don’t think that when Christ prayed for unity that he meant for the doctrinal plurality that is what I see today.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Thank you for the videos that you put out.

[alexjurado]

I never understood the appeal to Tertulian. Tertulian affirmed BOTH A and B, but he discouraged A because of how much he believed in B and was afraid of sins committed by people after being regenerated by Baptism.

[daltonb]

That’s an interesting point that there’s a distinction between Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism. The Protestant Reformer Balthasar Hubmaier made the same distinction back in the 1520s.

[darewan]

I think the marriage metaphor is more consistent with the biblical record, old and new testament.
As I see it, an inviolate bond is created at the exchanging of vows and symbolized by the ring (ring is probably anachronistic) but there is a later consummation of the vows which confirms the bond already created such that it would be unimaginable to have one without the other. Thoughts?

[beowulf.reborn]

I posted this on the latest baptism "debate" video but figured I'd share it here too given you provide a number of analogies here.

If I was to try and explain my view through an analogy, it would be that of giving birth.
When a person first believes, that is like the moment of conception. They are alive, just as a child in the womb is alive, but they have not yet been born again, just as the baby has not been born.

This initial moment of faith, I believe is sometimes mentioned in Scripture as being cut to the heart, or having the heart pricked, and it is generally followed by a great conviction of one's sins, that culminates in repentance. This can be likened to the child developing in the womb, leading up to the mother going into labour.

Then the child is born, just as the believer is born again through the waters.

And finally, just as the child takes their first breath, the believer receives the Holy Spirit. Now, this is not to say that the child was not alive prior to their first breath, or that the Holy Spirit was not at work in the life of the believer prior to Baptism, but that this is when the Believer is first filled with the Spirit, as a new creation, having their sins washed away. This is the first breath of their new life.

This of course raises the question of Cornelious, who received the Spirit and then was Baptised, but I think that the analogy of birth can fit this too, as there can be a great delay between a baby's head emerging, and the subsequent birthing of the shoulders and rest of the body. During which a baby can take its first breath, and cry, even though it has not yet been fully born. Likewise, under certain circumstances, the LORD may see fit to give the believer their first breath, before they are fully born, having the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to Baptism.

Likewise, there are plenty of other variations within when is the normal process of giving birth, such as c-sections, or breech births, etc. That can demonstrate that just because there is a normal modus operandi for the New Birth, doesn't mean that that is always how it happens.

[teletheates]

Hello, Dr Ortlund! The Nicene Creed (rev. A.D. 381), which both you and Dr Cooper can recite (I am assuming without reservations), states: ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, 1662 B.C.P.). In so reciting, would this not indicate that you both assent to some form of baptismal regeneration? Also, I can't wait to see what you do in the discussion with the whole thing. Best regards from Thessalonica--yes, that Thessalonica. Have a great vacation!

[barelyprotestant]

I'm confused as to how you can point to someone like Tertullian as someone on your side. It's not enough that he simply be opposed to infant baptism. His opposition is entirely contradictory to the reasons you would give. He is opposed to it precisely because he thinks it works. In fact, if his error in thinking sin after baptism is never forgiven were corrected, he would be completely on the Anglican/Lutheran side, here.

[tomlem]

Couple of thoughts on your comments on Baptism. 1) If baptism is closely related to circumsicion (I agree with this statement), and if one cannot oridnarily be a Jew without circumcision, would it follow that one could not ordinarily be a Christian without Baptism? 2) If baptism is the visible gospel (I agree with this statement as well), and if one can only be saved by the gospel, then Baptism could be salvific, correct?
This is not to say that an all powerful God can't use some other means to make one a Jew or to save someone, but don't both of my statements provied in 1) and 2) nicely line up with scripture as well? Would it not be difficult to argue definitively against either of these statements? Thank you for your thoughtful ministry

[toddvoss]

Agree on Hippolytus. Just read Bouyer's Eucharist (rather dense - understatement!). And this was a 1966 text. Actually he has his own particular theory which is interesting (won't rehearse it here). But yes the scholarship is mixed on this and increasingly towards the 3rd or 4th.

[graydomn]

Westminster says that baptism confers what it promises. It also says "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it" which means that ordinarily grace and salvation are "annexed unto it."