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

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

JAN MARKELL AND FRIENDS: WHEN THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE FAILS

 (23) Jan Markell 🔥 SHOCKING PROPHECY 2022 🔥 When Your Church Awakens to Wokeness - YouTube

Above: Jan Markell and Brandon Holthaus discuss how to find a sound church in the wake of wokeness and many other heresies currently overtaking the churches. It appears that finding a good church is a significant problem for Christians today whatever their location. Holthaus maintains that travelling many miles to a sound church is an option that should not be rejected. That is a solution for some perhaps, although it does exclude the sick, the elderly, those without transport and the poor. I also think that families with young children would struggle with this option. In other words, the marginalized people that Jesus particularly cares for are excluded. My own view is that believers should try to meet locally, although I know from personal experience that this can be difficult. (Matthew 18:20).

I am particularly concerned that Jan and her friends are more fixed on the pre-trib rapture than ever. They believe that the pre-trib rapture will happen very soon as we see globalism increasing exponentially. I am cautious, but I agree that it appears that we are not very far from the 70th week of Daniel i.e. the period pre-tribbers refer to as "the tribulation". 

The pre-trib view maintains that believers will be raptured before the onset of the 70th week of Daniel. The markers that identify the beginning of the 70th week are the "strong covenant" the Antichrist makes or confirms with many, and the construction of the third temple in conjunction with the reinstitution of the temple sacrifices. (Daniel 9:27). My hope is that when these things happen, pre-trib believers will prepare themselves for the Antichrist's persecution. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 12:17). I can understand why Jan and others reject the flawed post-trib view i.e. the view that the rapture will occur at the end of the 70th week of Daniel. Teachers like Joe Schimmel (Left Behind or Led Astray) have correctly identified the weaknesses of the pre-trib view, but they have failed to address the flaws in their own post-trib view. {1} It is tragic that Schimmel and others are unwilling to apply the same hermeneutical principles they have employed in opposing pre-trib to themselves. Schimmel's credibility ultimately depends upon his ability to demonstrate the soundness of his own view. (1 John 4:1).

Having studied the prewrath position extensively, I believe that this view comprehensively addresses the problems associated with other views. My prayer is that believers will take the time to give this position serious consideration. I recommend the documentary below produced by Alan Kurschner and produced/directed by Chris White.  

 

The Basics
The Precursor Problem
The Olivet Discourse Problem
The 2nd Thessalonian Problem
The Revelation Problem
The Imminence Problem
The Church and Israel Problem
The Early Church Problem

I have raised my eyebrows at one or two of Jan's guests:

Prophecy teacher Don Stewart (Calvary Chapel) should have been disqualified from the ministry years ago! His adultery was swept under the carpet in 2011 and he has continued in "ministry" ever since!  {2} 

Jack Hibbs shares a platform with Don Stewart and he has endorsed NAR leader Che Ahn. {3} 

These are two teachers that I cannot bring myself to watch. (1 Corinthians 5:6,11).

Jan might be oblivious to the compromise of some of her guests, but we can be sure that God does not overlook these things. (Romans 2:6-10).

1. Articles for Posttribulationism to Consider | ESCHATOS MINISTRIES (alankurschner.com)
2. Scattered Sheep: January 20, 2012 Show: My Perspective on Don Stewart (scatteredsheepreport.blogspot.com)
3. (23) Jack Hibbs Endorses NAR Che Ahn l HR1154 "Conspir@cy The0rists" bill l Temple on earth @ FOT timing - YouTube

JUSTIN PETERS: MORE DOUBLE TALK!

 (21) Is There A Calvinist Conspiracy Against Christmas, Charlie Brown? - YouTube

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:14). 
Footnote: "Some manuscripts peace, good will among men."

Justin Peters gives a comprehensive exposition of the Greek phrase ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία/εὐδοκίας in Luke 2:14. Brian (Faith on Fire) has some very questionable views at times.{1} Even Calvin did not relate this verse to limited atonement. 

Calvin: "Which shall be to all the people Though the angel addresses the shepherds alone, yet he plainly states, that the message of salvation which he brings is of wider extent, so that not only they, in their private capacity, may hear it, but that others may also hear. Now let it be understood, that this joy was common to all people, because, it was indiscriminately offered to all. For God had promised Christ, not to one person or to another, but to the whole seed of Abraham. If the Jews were deprived, for the most part, of the joy that was offered to them, it arose from their unbelief; just as, at the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. Although this joy is confined to a few persons, yet, with respect to God, it is said to be common. When the angel says that this joy shall be to all the people, he speaks of the chosen people only; but now that, the middle wall of partition" (Ephesians 2:14) has been thrown down, the same message has reference to the whole human race. [149] For Christ proclaims peace, not only, to them that are nigh, "but to them that are, far off," (Ephesians 2:17,) to "strangers" (Ephesians 2:12) equally with citizens. But as the peculiar covenant with the Jews lasted till the resurrection of Christ, so the angel separates them from the rest of the nations." {2} 

Peters continues to quote John 6:37-39 and he asserts that no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics can deny that God has His elect. At the same time he argues for man's responsibility and accountability in responding to the gospel. Peters does not refer to himself as a Calvinist and yet he does not deny it either.

According to Peters, the teaching that man has no responsibility is only true of hyper-Calvinists. Peters: "Hyper Calvinists are about as rare as bigfoot. I have travelled all over the world and I have met very few, maybe a handful, maybe two or three people that are true hyper-Calvinists.." 

I do not know what planet Peters has been on, but the irrefutable teaching of Calvinism is summed up in the acronym TULIP. Many pastors/teachers promote five-point Calvinism in their churches, including Peters' hero John MacArthur. This aberrant teaching is not limited to "two or three people".

• Total depravity. Human beings are dead in their sins, and they stand justly condemned before God, unable to do anything to save themselves.

• Unconditional election. From eternity, God in his sovereignty chose specific human beings to be saved. That salvation was determined entirely by God, not simply God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to his offer of grace.

• Limited atonement. Also known as “particular redemption,” the doctrine teaches the death of Jesus Christ was intended for the remission of the sins of elect human beings only; in other words, the intention of the atonement and its effects are the same.

• Irresistible grace. Many Calvinists prefer the term “effectual calling” to express this idea—God’s call to salvation will not fail to bring about the repentance and faith of the elect.

• Perseverance of the saints. This doctrine teaches all true believers in Christ will be saved because God grants them faith to persist to the end of life, and God will keep them safe.

Why does Peters think that Calvinism is so very controversial and that it is responsible for causing numerous church splits and pain to countless believers? 

Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” At this, the Jews began to grumble about Jesus because He had said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were asking, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’”“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus replied. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:37-44).

Soteriology 101: "There are two basic ways to interpret this passage and it hinges on the words “draws” and “them.” Let’s look at the two renderings side by side:
Calvinists: 'No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me *drags* him, and I will raise up *him who was dragged* at the last day.'
Traditionalists: 'No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* him, and I will raise up *him who comes* at the last day.'
The Greek sentence structure allows for the author to be referencing 'them' who come, not necessarily all those drawn. For instance if the sentence translated in English were structured in this manner the intention might be more obvious:
'Only those drawn by the Father may come, and I will raise up them (those that come) at the last day..'” {3} 

 

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: BRIAN (FAITH ON FIRE) CAN WE SEPARATE FAITH AND REPENTANCE? (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)
2. Luke 2 Calvin's Commentaries (biblehub.com)
3. JOHN 6:44 – SOTERIOLOGY 101

EMMA STARK'S TOILET EXPERIENCE

 (19) Tour of the Prophetic | Emma Stark & Ivan Roman - YouTube

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

I am reluctant to post anything more about Emma Stark and her deranged stories. Whether she just makes up stuff or whether her alleged encounters with Jesus and angelic beings are demonic I cannot say. In any event, this stupidity is NOT from the Lord. 

In this particular video Emma claims to have been taken up to the throne room of heaven from the toilet. She also claims that Jesus has red shoes. (27:00 mark) I'm sorry but if you really do believe this nonsense then you are seriously deceived. 

The book of Revelation gives a description of Jesus'appearance, and there is no mention of red shoes! 

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. (Revelation 1:12-16).

The comments say it all: