LUTHERAN STEVE KOZAR: THE EIGHT-HUNDRED-POUND GORILLA IN THE ROOM!

 (62) Steve Kozar and Jared Mindel Interview on "Scholastic Lutherans" YouTube Channel - YouTube

Above - Steve Kozar has posted a further video promoting Lutheranism on his channel The Wartburg Castle. While Kozar's stance against the NAR and their lunatic claims and teachings is valid, problematically, his solution is just as dangerous as Charismania. 

Kozar: "We (Lutherans) have multiple ways of being delivered from our sins; it's through baptism, it's through communion, it's through confession, it's any number of ways..  we don't have that one moment when you get saved and that's it.." (1:15:00 mark)

Kozar denies what he refers to as "a one-moment conversion experience", in other words, he denies a one-time conversion event or experience.

Kozar:  "We don't believe in a single conversion experience that Evangelicals are so familiar with .. we see that as one of the ways to express salvation but it is not the only way.. "  (1:21 mark) 

There are a number of instances in the scriptures when people believed the gospel and were saved at a particular point in time e.g. Acts 2:40-41; Acts 8:12, 35-39; Acts 14:14,30-34 etc. By contrast, I can find no instance where salvation is jettisoned into various sacraments following conversion. In all the above instances water baptism is performed subsequent to conversion! (Mark 16:16). I view Kozar's anti-conversion rhetoric as very dangerous and anti-biblical! There is only one way to be saved! (Acts 16:31). There is of course the sense that repentance and forgiveness continue throughout one's life, but continuing repentance, by necessity, follows initial salvation. 

Kozar puts the emphasis on Lutheran sacraments rather than an inner relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. The three Lutheran sacraments are the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, the Sacrament of Holy Absolution (Confession), and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Lutheran sacraments involve the aberrant doctrines of baptismal regeneration, consubstantiation (a variant of transubstantiation), and absolution, all of which are deviant doctrines inherited from Roman Catholicism. It is critical to bear in mind that Satan's objective is to somehow displace believers from their pure devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:2). Not only does Satan employ obvious deception as demonstrated by the rotten fruit of the NAR; he also employs more subtle means, such as the sacraments, as demonstrated by Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. 

Creeds: Lutheran churches use the three Christian creeds: the Apostles' Creed (second century). the Nicene Creed (fourth century), and the Athanasian Creed (sixth century). These ancient professions of faith summarize basic Lutheran doctrine. The above creeds agree with the scriptures and are useful in that they add structure and substance to a church service. However, liturgy does not have the authority of the scriptures and it can be problematic when it becomes an end in itself. The veneration of liturgy above the scriptures undermines the believer's personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Chris Rosebrough (Fighting For The Faith): "We come to church and our sack is empty.. we hear that we are forgiven, and that is thrown into the sack, and then we have the absolution spoken over you, that's put into the sack, and then you are hearing the gospel that Christ forgave you through the Word, and that's put in the sack, and then you go and you partake of the sacrament and that's put into the sack, and then you hear the benediction spoken over you and that's put into the sack, and so you have got your sack full when you leave church.. that sack throughout the week starts to empty and you have to go back and do it again." 2

The difference between proclamation and absolution

Regarding the Lutheran throwback to the Roman Catholic deviant practice of absolution ~ Kozar: "Did you ever read what is says is John chapter 20.."  (1:21:00 mark)

Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven (ἀφέωνται); if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” (John 20:21-23).

The NASB reflects the passive voice of "forgiven" and "retained" in the Greek. The recipients' sins will have already been forgiven or retained by God before the apostles’ recognition of the fact. NASB Lexicon: ἀφέωνται (apheōntai) [their sins] have been forgiven. 1 

The issue of forgiveness and retention of sins is related to binding and loosing in Matthew 16:18, 18:18. 

Bible Exposition Commentary: "The Roman Catholic church built its doctrine on the special priesthoods’ right of absolution of sin. This is done through the confessional. Although the church
acknowledges that God ultimately forgives sin, it nevertheless asserts that God does this through the action of the priest.
The Roman church then believes that the priest absolves but God forgives. God allows sins and judgment to remain. This is backward. God first forgives and then, on that foundation, people can proclaim forgiveness. There is a difference between absolution and proclamation. We have the right to preach forgiveness but do not have the right to absolve others of their sin.." 3

Chris Rosebrough's Influence

One of Steve Kozar's mentors is Chris Rosebrough. Rosebrough has some pretty good teaching in certain areas. However, he is compromised to a significant degree by Lutheran departures from the scriptures, not only the sacraments as mentioned above, but by flawed amillennial eschatology. 

Kozar's attitude regarding differences between Lutherans and Calvinists: "I don't get into the weeds about the differences very much.. I just don't want to be so mean about everybody.."  (20:00 mark)  We are not called to be people-pleasers! ..you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4 cf. Acts 4:19-20; Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4). Kozar's idea is to contrast early Protestant beliefs from the first hundred or so years of the Reformation with the world of pop evangelicalism. My personal conviction is to go back to the scriptures themselves rather than rely on the flawed ideas of men like Luther and Calvin.

Paul advised Timothy: Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. (1 Timothy 4:16). Paul refers to all doctrine, not just the low-hanging fruit of deviant groups like the NAR. It appears that Kozar has settled for Lutheranism as a remedy for his bad experiences within evangelicalism. Very sadly he has compromised and has settled for partial reform i.e. he has settled for a system that in his view has a more acceptable level of truth! A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6; Ephesians 5:27). 

On many occasions, the nation of Israel was guilty of the particular sin of partial reform. The charge to Israel to completely (not partially) destroy God's enemies transfers into the New Testament teaching regarding doctrinal compromise. (Ephesians 5:11).  

In the second year of Joash the son of Joahaz, king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not like David his father. He did in all things as Joash his father had done. But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. (2 Kings 14:1-4 cf. 2 Kings 12:3).  

In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD his God, as his father David had done, but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even burned his son as an offering, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. And he sacrificed and made offerings on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree. (2 Kings 16:1-4).

All this stands in stark contrast to King Josiah's sweeping reforms in 2 Kings 23.

So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 18:30).  

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55).

If those who claim to be teachers are doctrinally unsound themselves, then how are they qualified to correct others and to be credible witnesses? Lutheranism is the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room which unfortunately blights the efforts of Chris Rosebrough, Steve Kozar and Daniel Long to expose error. (Matthew 7:5). Steve Kozar is neither qualified nor gifted to be a teacher! (John 3:1).

1. John 20:23 Lexicon: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (biblehub.com)
2. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE WARTBURG CASTLE: DANIEL LONG / STEVEN LONG'S JOURNEY INTO LUTHERANISM (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)
3. John 20:23 | Bible Exposition Commentary (versebyversecommentary.com)

STEVE KOZAR + DANIEL LONG: ILLEGITIMATE BAPTISM

 (7) My Response to Sean Christie of Revealing Truth on the Topic of Baptism - YouTube 

Daniel Long and Steve Kozar's exposés of the Azusa Street "revival", John G Lake, Charles Parham, William Branham etc. are well-researched and accurate. Ironically, it is very remiss of these men not to have dug up the dirt on their own cult leader Martin Luther, and there is plenty of dirt to be had! Arguably Martin Luther's wickedness exceeds that of all the false teachers Kozar and Long have exposed!

Daniel Long on the validity of infant baptism

Long: "If you are going to say that somebody who was baptized in the Catholic Church did not have a valid baptism, then you have to say that Martin Luther didn't have a valid baptism, Calvin, any/all of the reformers, and the early church fathers were all baptized as infants. Are you saying that their baptism was an illegitimate baptism and that they all should have been rebaptised?"  YES, that it precisely what I am saying.. although I do not acknowledge the claim that Luther and Calvin were true believers. (Matthew 7:16).

The argument that believers do not need to undergo believers baptism if they have undergone infant baptism is extremely weak and is not validated by the scriptures. Luther went to extreme lengths to validate the doctrine of infant baptism. However, his arguments depend upon tradition and his appeals to the scriptures regarding the faith of infants are dubious: “Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments.” {1} 

Thousands of believers have been denied valid baptism as a result of this demonic teaching. (1 Timothy 4:1). Baptism is the very first commandment required of those who have repented and believed the gospel. To prohibit baptism to genuine converts is a very weighty matter indeed! These teachers will have to give an account to the Lord for this wicked teaching when the time comes. (Hebrews 4:13).   

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).

Luther - A drunkard and glutton

The widespread belief that Luther lived in poverty is easily debunked. Luther was massively obese and weighed a hefty 150kg (23st 8lb) at his death in 1546 at the age of 63. {2} Luther was a glutton and a drunkard, and by his own admission he indulged himself to excess. Apparently, he drank up to two litres of fortified wine with every meal in addition to large quantities of beer.

Luther: "What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me." {3} 

"By his own admission, Luther put on a few extra pounds in his later years. During a business trip (of sorts) to Eisleben (his place of birth) several days before his death, he joked to friends that he would shortly return to Wittenberg and "give the worms a fat doctor to feast on." In actual fact he never made it back to Wittenberg. He passed away in Eisleben early in the morning on 18 February 1546." {4} 

Luther - As He Was

(Death Mask by Lucas Fortnagel - Leipzig, University Library)

Luther and the scriptures!

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". {5} 

Luther and the Peasants Revolt   

Beginning in 1524 and ending in its suppression in 1525, the Peasants' Revolt began as a result of abuses cited by the peasants by the government and the church. Luther is often credited with the role of encouraging the Peasants' Revolt. However, he maintained allegiance to the German Princes against the violence of the rebels. Luther openly condemned the peasants and called for their brutal suppression, arguably inciting the demise of more than 100,000 peasants and facilitating further oppression of the lower classes."(German: Wider die Mordischen und Reubischen Rotten der Bawren) Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants typifies Luther's reaction to the Peasants' War, and alludes to Luther's concern that he might be seen to be responsible for their rebellion." {6} 

Quotes from Luther:

Tract Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants, published in May 1525: "Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you".

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog! – If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24"

"I have killed all the farmers in their rebellion; all their blood is on my neck.."

Luther's condemnation of the Anabaptists

The most distinctive belief of the Anabaptists was believer's baptism. The Anabaptists repudiated infant baptism as a blasphemous formality. They maintained that infants and young children are not accountable for sin until they become aware of good and evil and can exercise their own free will, repent, and accept baptism. The Anabaptists were mercilessly persecuted by the Reformers and most of the early Anabaptist leaders died in prison or were executed. Protestants were especially fond of “baptizing” Anabaptist heretics by drowning them in rivers.

Ken Rathbun: "Writing against the Anabaptists regarding the matter of faith and baptism, Luther strenuously denied that faith needed to be present in order to baptize. He even turned the argument around and stated that the 'rebaptizers' could never know for sure if anyone really had faith. Luther left open the question of whether infants could have faith in some mysterious way: 'There are Scripture passages that tell us that children may and can believe, though they do not speak or understand. . . . I grant that we do not understand how they do believe, or how faith is created. But that is not the point here.' {7}

"August 7th, 1536, a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists. Not one voice among all the delegates was raised in favor of the Anabaptists. Even Melancthon voted to put all those to death who should remain, obstinate in their errors. The ministers of Ulm demanded that heresy should be extinguished by fire and sword. Those of Augsburg said: “If we have not yet sent any Anabaptists to the gibbet, we have at least branded their cheeks with red iron!? {8} 

Luther and the Jews

Luther's hate-filled vitriol against the Jews is legendary. He wrote at least five treatises on the subject of the Jews, including The Jews and Their Lies in 1543. 

Luther's seven recommendations to church and state authorities for actions concerning the Jews: 

Their synagogues and schools should be burned to the ground, their houses should be “razed and destroyed”; their “prayer books and Talmudic writings” should be confiscated; their rabbis should be “forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb”; they should be denied safe-conduct on the highways; usury should be prohibited to them and their gold, silver, and cash should be taken from them; finally, they should be subjected to harsh labor.

Luther can also take responsibility for influencing Hitler and the Holocaust.

For Daniel Long to read aloud swathes of Luther's large catechism is scandalous. Luther was a gluttonous monster whose understanding of the scriptures was deeply flawed. We should mark and avoid those who promote the aberrant teachings of this imposter. (Romans 16:17).

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7).

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 cf. Proverbs 23:20).

 

1. The Reformers' Defense of Infant Baptism - Faith Baptist Bible College
2. Researchers dig up the dirt on father of Protestantism | Religion | The Guardian
3. To Spite the Devil | Lapham’s Quarterly (laphamsquarterly.org)
4. Martin Luther: Fat Reformer? - Reformation 21
5. Luther's canon - Wikipedia
6. Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants - Wikipedia
7. The Reformers' Defense of Infant Baptism - Faith Baptist Bible College
8. The reformers and their uncivilized behavior against the anabaptists | Bjorkbloggen

DANIEL LONG'S DUBIOUS CASE FOR BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (9) My Response to Sean Christie of Revealing Truth on the Topic of Baptism - YouTube

Above, Daniel Long (LongforTruth) continues to defend the dubious Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

Long: "We do not believe that if a person has not been baptized, they are not saved."  Nevertheless, Long does link baptism and salvation. Long: "We do believe that baptism saves.. Baptism is a means of grace.. it is a way that God delivers His grace to us." There is a great deal of obfuscation involved in the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Essentially, the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration recognizes two ways of salvation. Most Christians adhere to the orthodox belief that salvation occurs by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8). However, Lutherans hold the illogical belief that salvation also, but not exclusively, occurs through baptism. This perplexing assertion compromises the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) and, as such, it is a primary issue. 

Long refers to passages (plural) that link baptism and salvation. Actually, there is only ONE passage that definitively links regeneration and baptism. Lutheran teachers make the error of taking Acts 2:38 in isolation as their proof text for baptismal regeneration at the expense of the sum of God's word. (Psalm 119:160). The passage in question (below) identifies those who received Peter's word and were subsequently baptized.

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (εἰς) 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.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added about three thousand souls that day. (Acts:2:36-41).

The preposition εἰς (eis) has been translated for in verse 38 which gives the slightly confusing meaning that baptism facilitates the forgiveness of sins. εἰς is translated elsewhere as to or into, of place, time, or purpose; also in adverbial phrases. {1} The Amplified Bible gives a clearer interpretation: because of the forgiveness of your sins.

Peter instructed the Jews to repent and to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. At that point in time they were deeply convicted of their sin and were asking Peter "What shall we do?". The practice of the early church was that believers repented and were baptized within a very short period of time, repentance being the necessary requirement for baptism. The norm for the early church consisted of repentance and baptism in close proximity to one another. In our time, Christians are often baptized weeks, months, or even years following conversion. The assertion that unbaptized believers have not received the Holy Spirit in the intervening period prior to baptism is false. The critical question is: When do believers receive the Holy Spirit?  The Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism:

>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).

Long proposes that the aorist imperative passive βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō) (be baptized) demonstrates that the person being baptized is a passive recipient of God's grace. In this instance, the passive voice indicates nothing more than the fact that baptism is administered by another person. In the very early church, baptism appears to have been administered by apostles or elders. Paul was thankful that he baptized only Crispus and Gauius and the household of Stephanas. (1 Corinthians 1:13-17). 

> That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:26).

Many commentators refer to water baptism as a sign, a representation, a symbol etc. rather than a literal cleansing. I have listed a few examples below. {2} 

Benson: "Ephesians 5:26-27. That he might sanctify and cleanse it — Might remove the guilt, power, and pollution of sin; with the washing of water — In baptism, as the sign of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which can only renew, sanctify, and cleanse the soul. See 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2; Titus 3:5. By the word — The ordinary channel by which justifying, regenerating, and sanctifying grace is communicated; (John 15:3; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; John 17:17;).." 

Matthew Henry: "..baptismal water was the outward sign."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "..He speaks of baptism according to its high ideal and design, as if the inward grace accompanied the outward rite; hence he asserts of outward baptism whatever is involved in a believing appropriation of the divine truths it symbolizes, and says that Christ, by baptism, has purified the Church [Neander] (1Pe 3:21)."

Matthew Poole: "With the washing of water, viz. in baptism, in which the external washing represents seals, and exhibits the internal cleansing from both the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:14 Revelation 1:5."

>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).

The context of the above is passage adds baptism to "the circumcision without hands" i.e. baptism is performed subsequent to faith. Paul is contrasting circumcision and baptism in this passage. 

> 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). 

Long: "You died to sin in your baptism.. The old you was killed in baptism, and the new you arose.. Paul very specifically tells us how we were placed in Christ. Paul says in Romans chapter 6 it was through our baptism." (29:00 mark)

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." {3}

> 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 (τέκνον) and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39).  

τέκνον is the Greek word for child, descendent, inhabitant. {4} Many commentators agree that the broader sense of τέκνον i.e. descendents or posterity is indicated in this verse rather than the specific children of Peter's audience. Previously these very same men had imprecated Jesus' blood upon themselves and upon their children i.e. their posterity (τέκνα): “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25).

"..in a broader sense (like the Hebrew בָּנִים), posterity: Matthew 2:18; Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; Acts 2:39; Acts 13:33(32). with emphasis: genuine posterity, true offspring, John 8:39; (of women) to be regarded as children, 1 Peter 3:6. β. specifically, a male child, a son: Matthew 21:28; Acts 21:21; Revelation 12:5; in the vocative, in kindly address, Matthew 21:28; Luke 2:48; Luke 15:31.

Cambridge Bible: "39. the promise is unto you, and to your children] Just as “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” {5}

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." {6} 

Long's alleged evidence that infants can have faith  (1:00 mark)

> ..and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15).

The exceptional events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist were unique. John's birth was in fact miraculous (not in the same sense as Jesus' birth). John was an answer to prayer; Elizabeth was past the age of childbearing and the news was delivered to Zechariah via angelic agency (Gabriel). I am very doubtful whether this passage proves that infants in general below a certain age can have faith. (Luke 1:8-25).

Further alleged evidence

> Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust (מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י) you at my mother’s breasts. (Psalm 22:9-10)

I am not a Hebrew expert, but in this instance, the Berean Standard Bible appears to render the best interpretation. 

Berean Standard Bible: Yet You brought me forth from the womb; You made me secure (מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י ) at my mother’s breast.

מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י (batach) be bold confident, secure, sure, careless one, put confidence, make to hope, put,  {7}

> Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. (Psalm 71:6) .

David did not consciously rely upon God from before his birth, rather he was sustained by God.

NASB Lexicon: "By You I have been sustained נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי (nis·mach·ti) 5564: to lean, lay, rest, support a prim. root" {8}

Barnes: "By thee have I been holden up from the womb - From the beginning of my existence. The 'idea' in all this is, that, since God had sustained him from his earliest years - since he had shown his power in keeping him, and manifested his care for him, there was ground to pray that God would keep him still, and that he would guard him as old age came on. The sentiment in this verse is substantially the same as in Psalm 22:9-10." {9}

>..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). 

Barnes: "..baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us.." {10}

>So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:24-27). We symbolically put on Christ in our baptism ~ the outward act confirms the inward change.

Long's insistence that infant baptism in the Roman Catholic Church is valid is indefensible. (55:00 mark). The Roman Catholic Church is a false church and is an abomination to the Lord! Anyone who has undergone baptism in that wicked cult has undergone a false baptism and needs to be legitimately baptized. 

Chris Rosebrough's Research

Rosebrough's quotations from various Church Fathers do not match the writings of the Church Fathers that I have located. (?)

Barnabus (?): “Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]."

Rosebrough: "Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is,‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.' Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls” {11} 

Barnabus: "Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves.. Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross have gone down into the water;" {12} 

Notice that Barnabus prioritizes those who place their trust in the cross and their subsequent act of baptism. Nowhere does Barnabus imply that baptism removes sins

Hermas (?): "I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is."

The only comparable passage I could find in Hermas is as follows:

Hermas: "Explain to me a little further, sir, I said. What is it that you desire? he asked. Why, sir, I said, did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits? They were obliged, he answered, to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For, he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God." {13} 

I find this passage so obscure that I cannot count it as being doctrinally sound or evidential to the cause of baptismal regeneration. 

Wikipedia: "For Hermas baptism is necessary to be saved and warns those who undergo baptism by the danger of postbaptismal sins. Shepherd of Hermas possibly supports delaying baptism for practical reasons which is because of the fear of post-baptismal sins. According to Hermas, those who fall into sin after baptism, have only one chance of penance" {14}

I have not researched Rosebrough's further examples of the Church Fathers, though I may do so at a later date. Anything written by the later Church Fathers such as Augustine, would, in my view, be invalid.  

Long ends his video with a fairly long quote from the Large Catechism of Martin Luther which is one the most blasphemous documents I have ever read. {15}

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

..whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:25 cf. Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 1:5).

Luther followed the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions by removing the prohibition against graven images from the ten commandments. {16} He also rejected various books of the bible; he perpetuated replacement theology and his writings had a huge influence on Hitler. It is incomprehensible that the writings of Luther should be venerated and viewed as compatible with the scriptures.

1. Acts 2:38 Lexicon: Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (biblehub.com)
2. Ephesians 5:26 Commentaries: so that He might sanctify herchaving cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (biblehub.com)
3. Romans 6 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)
4. Strong's Greek: 5043. τέκνον (teknon) -- a child (of either sex) (biblehub.com)
5. (Galatians 3:16),
6. 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)
7. Strong's Hebrew: 982. בָּטַח (batach) -- to trust (biblehub.com)
8. Psalm 71:6 Lexicon: By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You. (biblehub.com)
9. Psalm 71:6 Commentaries: By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You. (biblehub.com)
10. 1 Peter 3:21 Commentaries: Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (biblehub.com)
11. Baptism Texts the Earliest Christians.pdf (dropbox.com)
12. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle of Barnabas (newadvent.org)
13. CHURCH FATHERS: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III (newadvent.org)
14. The Shepherd of Hermas - Wikipedia
15. The Large Catechism (Infant Baptism) - Martin Luther (projectwittenberg.org)
16. Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther (cph.org)

FURTHER LINKS

44) FALSE TEACHER CHRIS ROSEBROUGH-LUTHERANISM-FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
(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
Martin Luther On Baptism-Heresy Exposed! SermonAudio - Media Player
Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism - The Gospel Coalition

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