MY QUESTION TO STEVE KOZAR: BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (60) Responding to Sean Christie: Part One - YouTube

I can't go any further without responding to Steve Kozar's response to Sean Christie (Revealing Truth).

Sean Christie has posted a new video (below) which will hopefully silence these troublemakers, although I will not hold my breath. Kozar and Long have gained some credibility amongst Christians due to their refutations against NAR heretics. However, I now begin to wonder if their plan was to launch a spiritual hand grenade onto the body of Christ all along. (2 Peter 2:1). I have had reservations about Kozar in particular for some time, but I put this down to personality rather than anything I could pinpoint definitively. Kozar's various slanderous responses to Christie's original video now confirm that my previous uneasiness about him was based on something other than personality. (Proverbs 8:13). 

Kozar refers to "..amateur discernment bloggers who seem to have the viewpoint of 'it's me and my bible against the world, I'm just going to do this all by myself.'" 

My question to Steve Kozar: Who are you to say who can or cannot challenge various troubling developments and doctrines within the church?  

Kozar's comment reminds me of my experience at Holy Trinity CofE Church in Leicester some years ago when I questioned the antics of the then vicar John McGinley and his promotion of various deviant teachings. I went to John McGinley's house one evening to discuss my concerns, and at one point he said to me "Who are you to question us?"  My response was that what I was observing did not line up with the scriptures, and I asked him why I should not question him. John McGinley has now morphed into an NAR "apostle" and he is an associate of Emma Stark, Rebecca King and other false teachers. {1} If we do not test the spirits, and if we allow the "experts" to instruct us unchallenged, I think that we would be in real trouble! (1 John 4:1). Kozar appears to have taken a leaf out of the false NAR teachers' book by misapplying Matthew 7:1 "judge not"!

One accusation levelled against Christie was that he did not take the time to find out what Kozar and Long really believe. If you cannot put a good case for your so-called "doctrine" in a one-hour-plus video, then there is something wrong. According to Kozar, we need to spend several hours studying the subject of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration before we can question their view. I disagree. I heard enough in their original 1.23 hour video to set alarm bells ringing. {2} 

Another accusation against Christie is, apparently, he does not have a PhD and he is not qualified to challenge those who "know what they are talking about". Christie does not mention whether he has any theological qualifications or not on his YouTube channel, but as far as I am concerned, provided his teaching is sound, this is not an issue. Whatever qualifications we have, they are not banners to be waved around to impress or intimidate others. We only have to look at Paul's boasts in the flesh to understand that on their own qualifications mean absolutely nothing. (Philippians 3:4-6).

My understanding from Kozar, without spending hours and hours reading the PhD's he recommends, is that according to Lutheran doctrine, baptism is and is not salvific.  

A bewildering number of views exist amongst those who promote baptismal regeneration. 

Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund sum up the Lutheran view of baptism as "the ordinary means of regeneration.. baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is ordinarily necessary for salvation..  there are exceptions to that."  Chris Rosebrough calls out Michael Brown as "the apostle of obfuscation", but really, you would have to go a long way to make up anything more obscure, unclear or unintelligible as the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. What Christie noticed was that Lutherans pay a lot of attention to the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and I agree with him that this is a concern.

 

1. Conversations - Episode 120 with Rebecca King, Emma Stark and John McGinley - YouTube
2. (60) Baptism Is Not A Work! A Discussion between Steve and Paulette Kozar and Dan Long - YouTube

STEVE KOZAR: INFANT BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (35) A Lutheran Response to Mike Winger on Infant Baptism (Repost from Pastor Matt Knuppel) - YouTube

Steve Kozar recently posted the above video which is Lutheran Pastor Matt Knuppel's (Grace Lutheran Church) response to Mike Winger's analysis of infant baptism. Kozar has come out of the wicked NAR/Charismania deception, but unfortunately he continues to have problems with basic theology. Very sadly he and Daniel Long are currently busy muddying the waters by foisting the aberrant teachings of Lutheranism onto the body of Christ. This topic is salvific i.e. it pertains to salvation and as such, it is a primary, not a secondary issue.

Why begin with the Lutheran Confessions?

Knuppel: "What do Lutherans believe about baptism in general?" He goes on to quote Article 9 of the Augsburg Confessions and the Small Catechism. Surely we should begin with the scriptures rather than Luther! The general consensus is that Luther and the other reformers did not go far enough with their reforms. Luther made some terrible blunders, not to mention his legendary antisemitism. Luther's first German translation of the scriptures omitted 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther referred to the Epistle of James as "straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder".  He referred to other books as "Judaizing nonsense". {1} It is obvious to me that Luther was a very arrogant man and that we should not hang onto his every word! What we find below is Luther's view of baptism which goes beyond what is written and is unsupported by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

The Small Catechism: 

First
What is Baptism?

Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.
Which is that word of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19)

Second
What benefits does Baptism give?

It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are these words and promises of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

Third

How can water do such great things?

Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5–8)

Knuppel: "Baptism is a means of grace that works forgiveness of sins.. Water, all by itself, without any word of God is just plain water. You can drink it, you can use it to wash your car; but with the word of God, with God's word of promise, it is no longer just plain water, but it becomes a holy baptism.." The claim that the actual water (H2O) changes mystically in baptism has no biblical support whatsoever. This idea is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's supper (consubstantiation), which is an unfortunate throwback to the Roman Catholic Church.

Household Baptisms

Knuppel refused to spend time responding to arguments against the inclusion of infants into household baptisms in the book of Acts, although he thinks this is "strongly possible". I am not surprised that Knuppel is unwilling to substantiate his views on this subject. There are definite weaknesses with the view that entire households, including infants, were baptized. For instance, it is not feasible that infants belonging to the "entire household" of the jailer mentioned in Acts 16 heard the gospel, believed and rejoiced. Infants by definition would not have understood the gospel. 

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34).

The scriptures show that faith precedes baptism. By necessity, baptism is a subsequent act that arises from faith and repentance. In other words, salvation occurs when believers receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would not be saved and there would be no deathbed conversions. (Luke 23:43).

Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Acts 10:46-48).

The Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to Paul's message and baptism followed:

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:14-15).

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41).

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16).

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:3 cf. John 3:16. 5:24; Acts 8:12, 11:16).

Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).

Gill: "..because baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness." {2} 

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16). The early church appears to have performed baptism at a very early stage in the lives of believers (arguably on the same day). (Acts 8:36; 10:47 etc.). The emphasis in this verse is on whoever believes/does not believe. Given all the other scriptures confirming that faith precedes baptism, it is a reasonable deduction that the inclusion of baptism in this instance is based on the assumption that baptism will occur within a very short period following conversion. 

..when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:20-21). A good conscience is pledged at the point of baptism. The scriptures indicate that baptism was performed on those capable of personally believing in Jesus Christ, pledging a good conscience, and calling on His name. (Acts 22:16).

 

Baptism and Circumcision

Baptism differs from circumcision in a number of ways. A key difference is that inclusion into the New Covenant is not something that parents can do for their children by proxy. Biblical faith is a personal saving relationship and a commitment to Jesus Christ. A definite command in the Old Testament was that only male children were to be circumcised at eight days old. (Leviticus 12:3). Infants were automatically included in the community of Israel when they were circumcised. Although children of believers have the advantage of being part of a Christian family, they are not considered to be Christian in their own right until they are old enough to make a personal commitment to Jesus Christ through faith. The sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit: For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28-29).

Paul contrasts circumcision and baptism as follows:

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses.. (Colossians 2:11-13).

Parallels between Genesis 17 and Acts 2

Genesis 17:9-14

And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Acts 2:38-39
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

In the above passages, descendants or posterity are denoted not infants.

Cambridge Bible: "39. the promise is unto you, and to your children] Just as “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” {3}

Expositors Greek Testament: "Acts 2:39. ὑμῖν γὰρ: the promise was made to the very men who had invoked upon themselves and upon their children, St. Matthew 27:25, the blood of the Crucified." {4}

 

The sign of the old covenant was circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14), whereas the sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:25-28).

The Wartburg Castle has recently posted further revisions and updates, including a video by Hans Fiene: (48) "WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross??" by Pastor Hans Fiene - YouTube This video is described as "satire" and it is supposed to be amusing. According to Fein, there are two ways to be saved: "Just because someone can be saved apart from baptism doesn't change the fact that baptism saves."  This presents us with the confusing concept that baptism can save someone, but that it is not required for salvation. Perhaps I don't have the Lutheran "superior knowledge", but this does not make one jot of sense to me. 

Kozar and his Lutheran associates should be very careful about mocking those who hold the biblical view of salvation by faith through grace. (Ephesians 6:8). In my view, their scripture twisting and mockery are likely to incur the wrath of God. (Galatians 6:7; Proverbs 18:7). 

1. Luther's canon - Wikipedia
2. Romans 6 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)
3. (Galatians 3:16),
4. Acts 2:39 Commentaries: "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (biblehub.com)

Further Links:

(44) FALSE TEACHER CHRIS ROSEBROUGH-LUTHERANISM-FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
(44) #340 Chris Rosebrough's Defence of Idolatrous Statues of Christ | MEGIDDO RADIO - YouTube
(48) A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism - YouTube
(48) Controversies and Biblical Clarity on Baptism - YouTube
(48) Debate: "Is Water Baptism Required for Salvation?” Dean Meadows and Mike Winger - YouTube
(58) Water Baptism DOES NOT Save - Explaining 1 Peter 3:20-21 - YouTube

LEE BRAINARD'S PHONY TRANSLATION OF EUSEBIUS DOES NOT PROVE THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE!

(38) The PRE-TRIB RAPTURE According to EUSEBIUS | Guest: Lee Brainard - YouTube

The pre-trib camp has been desperate to find confirmation of a pre-tribulation rapture amongst the Church Fathers for many years, but despite all their efforts, they have failed to do so. 

Brainard is not the trailblazer or the Greek expert he claims to be in this interview with Lamb and Lion Ministries. Brainard: "I have uncovered passages in Eusebius that were unknown to the evangelical world." Unless evangelical scholars live in a bubble, they will be aware of Eusebius. Author and historian Roger Pearse published the first-ever translation of Eusebius into English in 2017. This translation includes the Greek text printed in the Sources Chrétiennes edition, and also fragments of the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Arabic versions in medieval bible commentaries. Alex Poulos' translation (published by Pearse) differs from Brainard's translation.

Alex Poulos' translation

“And just as happened in the days of Noah…” (Lk. 17:26)

As was stated,[1] he says that the destruction of the wicked will take place like it did for those who lived at the time of the flood, since the message of the gospel had been driven out due to their apostasy. Indeed, just as he destroyed all people then, except those who had gone with Noah into the ark, so too at his coming he will shut out and destroy as in the days of Noah the ungodly and unfaithful, who waste their time on luxury, sex, drink, and the pleasures of this life.

So that no one would think these too will perish through water, he needed also to use the example of Lot— “Just as it happened in the days of Lot: ‘they were eating, drinking etc.’ but on the day that Lot left Sodom, he rained fire from heaven and destroyed everyone. It will be the same on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” He thereby teaches that unspeakably terrible wrath will come upon all the wicked as fire and brimstone sent from heaven. Thus, the word of the prophet is extended to the wicked who pray for that day to come— “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!” Why? “it will be darkness to you, and not light; a day of darkness and shadow, a day of dispair and disgrace” (Amos 5:18). The Savior was extremely precise in his observation when he said that the divine fire from heaven did not come down upon the wicked in Sodom until Lot went out and was separated from them. It was the same way at the flood, when he came and destroyed all the inhabitants of the earth only after Noah had entered the ark. [24.585] He says that it will be the same at the end of the age: the cataclysm of destruction for the wicked will not occur until those men found to belong to God are gathered into the heavenly ark, in accordance with the example of Noah. To these this word of the prophet will be spoken: “Go, my people, enter into your inner room… until the wrath of the Lord passes by” (Is. 26:20). Now just as in the time of Lot he acted so that the righteous did not perish along with the wicked, so at the end of age this destruction will not take place until all the righteous and God-fearing men on the earth are separated from the wicked and gathered into God’s heavenly ark. So when no righteous man can any longer be found among men, but all are godless, impious, and born from the antichrist and apostasy rules throughout the whole world, then the wrath of God will come upon the wicked. {1} 

Pearse's publication confirms the prewrath rapture position. Eusebius refers to the righteous being taken (raptured) immediately before the wrath of God falls upon the unrighteous at the end of the great tribulation. (Matthew 24:21-22,30-31). In other words, the rapture will occur between the sixth and seventh seal of Revelation. (Revelation 6:17). 

Lee Brainard's translation

As all perished then except those gathered with Noah in the ark, so also at his coming, the ungodly in the season of apostasy shall perish, while according to the pattern of Noah, all the righteous and godly are to be separated from the ungodly and gathered into the heavenly ark. For in this way comes a time when not even one righteous man will be found any more amongst mankind, and when all the ungodly have been made atheists by the Antichrist, and the whole world is overcome by apostasy the wrath of God shall come upon the ungodly. {2} 

Brainard: "So, you notice the order here. First, the righteous are removed from the presence of the ungodly and taken to the heavenly ark. And then there’s a season of apostasy down here on earth where not even one righteous man is going to be found, and the Antichrist is going to take all the ungodly and make them all perfect atheists, and then the wrath of God will come at the Second Coming." {2}

Regarding Brainard's "original" translation of Eusebius' commentary on Isaiah 43:5-6: Eusebius' commentary on Isaiah was translated into English by Jonathan J Armstrong in 2013. {3} Jonathan J Armstrong (Ph.D., Fordham University) is assistant professor of Bible and theology at Moody Bible Institute - Spokane, Washington. {4}

Pseudo Ephraim (Ephrem the Syrian) is another example of Brainard's duplicity! Please refer to Dave MacPherson's article on this subject written in 2017: WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: PSEUDO-EPHRAEM TAUGHT PRETRIB - NOT! BY DAVE MACPHERSON (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)

Brainard's claim that he is doing original research is patently untrue - he is certainly no "Indiana Jones". Furthermore, Brainard is either incompetent or unwilling to give an accurate interpretation of Eusebius and Pseudo Ephraim. Neither of these sources teach a pre-tribulation rapture.

Alan Kurschner: "Every early church father who wrote on this topic believed that the church would face the Antichrist.. It is common knowledge that the church fathers used terms like 'the tribulation' or 'the great tribulation' to refer to God's wrath. Yet can you provide a single instance where Ephraim or an early writer claimed that the church will be raptured before the Antichrist arrives?" {5}

Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. (1 John 4:1 cf. Ephesians 4:25).

1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Luke – now online in English – Roger Pearse (roger-pearse.com)
2. The Pre-Trib Rapture According to Eusebius with Lee Brainard | Rapture | Lamb and Lion Ministries (christinprophecy.org)
3. Fourth Century Christianity » Eusebius of Caesarea – Commentary on Isaiah4. Jonathan J. Armstrong - InterVarsity Press (ivpress.com)
4. Jonathan J. Armstrong - InterVarsity Press (ivpress.com)5. A Reply to Lee W. Brainard | ESCHATOS MINISTRIES (alankurschner.com)
5. Bible Prophecy Daily™ on Twitter: "@soothkeep It is common knowledge that the church fathers used terms like "the tribulation" or "the great tribulation" to refer to God's wrath. Yet can you provide a single instance where Ephraim or an early writer claimed that the church will be raptured before the Antichrist arrives?" / Twitter