Chad Bird is a Scholar in Residence at 1517. He has served as a pastor, professor, and guest lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew. He holds master’s degrees from Concordia Theological Seminary and Hebrew Union College. He has contributed articles to Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, Modern Reformation, The Federalist, Lutheran Forum, and other journals and websites. He is also the author of several books, including his latest, Limping with God: Jacob and the Old Testament Guide to Messy Discipleship. He also cohosts the popular podcast, “40 Minutes in the Old Testament.”
Пікірлер
I believe the baby in Elizabeth did not confess to being a sinner. The Bible states, "...every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," which suggests that the baby's reaction was to the presence of the Lord.
Teaching the doctrines of men as the precepts of God. Clearly the mother of harlots had many daughters Catholicism- Lutheranism
The last one is the best point I’ve personally heard, thank you.
Thank you. Well presented. I, however, remain unconvinced in the efecacy of water baptism prior to believing faith. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mar 16:16 ESV "But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Rom 10:8-9 ESV Even in the case of the ministry of John the Baptist men would confess their sins and then be baptized. This seems to be the pattern. Both of these scriptures require a confession from faith. I confess that I do not completely understand water baptism. But I do believe that salvation is existential. It is real. A real person is really transformed in their spirit by confessing Christ. Every person is a descendant of Adam and inherits his sinful nature. That is the problem. The problem is NOT sins it is sin-corrupted nature. The answer to sin is to be born again, "You must be born again." You must change your existential nature from that of a child of Satan to that of a child of God. Symbolism does not do this. And in infant baptism, there is exactly zero willful participation on the part of the infant. If an infant can reap the benefits of their parent's faith then why could we not do what the Mornmons do and baptise people for the dead? I confess that I am stumped both on your example of circumcission and in another instance where, "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea," - 1Co 10:2 NKJV Presumably the infants that were carried by the children of Israel through the Red Sea were likewise baptized into Moses without their consent or active participation as there is no record of children being baptized into Moses after attaining a certain age. Your attesting that the waters of baptism are the Word of God seems to me to be quite a stretch. It seems to me to be an intellectual accommodation to support a position with insufficient basis. I don't mean this pejoritively, but it seems to me that a religious mythos is being created to make an insufficiently supported doctrine palpable. I appreciate you bringing this up. It is a wonderful topic.
Thanks, Chad. Listen, I disagree. But the older I get, the less I’m willing to get distracted by our differences in these types of issues. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17, and I can’t wait for us all to truly be united in eternity one day.
How can people go to Hell whose s sins have been paid for? I would ask you to respond to Mike Riccardi’s paper on Limited Atonement. ❤
I also have a Luthern background, and was baptized as an infant and it meant absolutly nothing to me. Later on in life when I accepted Jesus, and became a Christian I was baptized as an adult. I knew what I was doing, and it was deeply felt, and meaningful to me. Your explaination of your point of view didn't make any sense, and did not witness in my heart as the truth.
Watch the discussion between John Mac Arthur and RC Sproul❤
Hi Teacher I couldn't understand how God's word get inside of the water baptism? Can you please provide biblical bases referencing for God's liquid word? Thank you.
I was raised Catholic, but left the Catholic Church in my early twenties (I align more with the Baptists since then), so I have a different perspective. You say, "When God baptizes someone, He puts His Word into the Water...". Where in scripture does it explicitly say this? By saying that Baptism is the Liquid Word, you "seem" to be trying to resolve a conflict you are having with who can be saved and how. So when does the "plain" water used in baptism become the Liquid Word? By the prayer of a Priest, a Lutheran minister, or when any Christian decides to baptize someone (or can they)? Since a child has the sin nature from birth, and because they are too young to confess Christ, are you concerned they will go to Hell because they have the original sin still on them? You said "plain" water can't save us, so the assumption would be that you are inferring that the Liquid Word can? If so, you never explicitly said so. I would agree with you if I saw evidence of child baptism in the New Testament and it explicitly mentioned baptism was part of the salvation process, but it does not. You also never did delve into "why" certain churches came to practice infant baptism. Circumcision introduces a male child into the Mosaic Covenant. Water baptism always follows faith in the New Testament. You said, and I quote, "What's happening in baptism is God is taking the word that is preached and he's putting it in water so that instead of the word simply entering into our ears the word is washed onto us....". Where did that come from? Scripture or your mind? So what is it? Is water baptism that you call the Liquid Word essential to saving faith? If so, you never said so. If not, then why did you say it wasn't? If water baptism is essential to salvation, then the thief on the cross is not in paradise. According to the New Testament, Jesus' blood is the only washing that is needed to cleanse our sin.
I was baptized as a child not knowing why. I lived apart from God until age 37 when I started to seek God. Later, on Pentecost, 2011 I was baptized knowing full well what it meant. Prior to that day I felt as if God was pursuing me - even as I looked the other way. Did my infant baptism make a difference? I would say no. God loves me as much now as when I was born. Christ died for me no matter what I say or do; but with that said being baptized as a child held no sway in light of my adult baptism. At least for my limited vision and understanding. All in held so much more weight than clueless. I will review your points further. Blessings!
Thank you for being careful and thorough. One of the beautiful things about confessional Lutheranism is the trust in God's Word without feeling a need to understand how God does it.
I wish you would change your mind on closed communion too…I was baptized, raised, and confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran tradition, but married a Methodist pastor. I’m now 65 and my husband just retired. We are looking for a new church, but not the now apostate UMC. There is a nice MSLChurch in the area, but their closed communion is a stumbling block for both of us (Methodists allow for open communion). I understand the reasoning given for closed communion, but I am a born again believer, Martin Luther is in my ancestry, I lean reformed, but yet I would not be welcomed at the table in this MSLChurch. I worked as a choir director in a MSLChurch and watched many a member come to the table who were, let’s just say, in the bars on Sat. night…yet they were welcomed because they were a member of the church. It makes no sense to me.
Just the opposite. All done through Christ. Accepting Christ. Coming humbly before Christ. Following Christ. How is any of this individual effort? All for Christ, through Christ, and with Christ's aid
You mentioned adult baptism however the bible refers to baptism as believers baptism
Thanks you Chad I have been thinking about this quite a bit being a baptist in the UK I have really only heard the one side of the story I was baptised as a baby into the church of Ireland/England as my mum was of that demonstration I was confirmed there too but I never believed in God or Jesus as a child not until he meet me on my 21st birthday and saved me not that I done anything for my salvation I just took his word by faith that he died for me.
Thank you for a very timely explanation. I am also grappling with the practice of baptism. I was raised Lutheran in the ALC. I was confirmed at 16. In the late 80s I was in Texas in the midst of the liberal encroachment into what would become the ELCA. My family moved to Utah and through circumstances have ended up in a Southern Baptist congregation. Recently I have started studying and looking into the issue to settle my mind on the teachings. Just thank you. Your insights are very helpful.
We must do "all in the name of the Lord." (Colossians 3:17). The things we do must be according to his authority, name, and glory. (Ephesians 5:20). Simply put there is no passage in the New Covenant that mentions, names, or authorizes "infant baptism." People who were immersed had been commanded to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 16:30-31), "repent," (Acts17:30); and to be immersed in order to have their past sins forgiven (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). None of those elements apply to infants. Therefore, "infant baptism" is a man-made religious tradition or theory that does not adhere to God's will. "Infant baptism " is a doctrine or "plant" that God did not plant, and it will be pulled up by the roots. (Matthew 15:13-14).
That was great! Thanks. I am one who disagrees on this particular point, but I greatly respect and am built up by your ministry. I won't get into why I disagree because it is not important. Keep doing what your are doing and I will keep learning and enjoying. Blessings!
Hi Chad, really enjoy and appreciate your ministry. I have a question however that I will start with an opinion. Having different sects of Christian religions divides us because each one has differences in customs and beliefs about the same God. Why not be an “unlabeled”follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings rather than feeling the need to identify as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ect, ect, I refuse to identify as a particular sect for the reasons stated and prefer to just follow Jesus and his word without the particularities of each “we are more right” sect. Why do you identify within a sect (Lutheran). Again, not arguing, asking.
The only 'thing' that saves is His Grace, - what we are called to be is being *immersed* into His Name ... Baptism originated from cleansing protocols of Leviticus, and were later on developed into a ritual practice of Conversion. You had to first know what you are converting into. And also, seriously, read Scripture. Infants are innocent on all accounts. "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.“ Dt 1:39. - - “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.“ Matthew 18:3 I get it, the churches want to be involved in every aspect of life ... But this is a distortion of The Word, and it leads to no good. Leave Salvation to The Lord. He is the perfectly just Judge and He doesn't need our help in figuring out what is or isn't wrong with us.
Pretty big stretch there Chad. Your hypothesis does not.measure up to the Word of God. You got magic water confused with the Holy Spirit. I thought faith came by hearing & hearing by the Word of God. I was not aware that John the Baptist was baptized before he baptized Jesus. Why was it necessary to baptize Jesus at 30 years of age? Why does 2nd Cor 3 state that the Bible is shrouded & one cannot even understand it unless he receives the Spirit? Why does Romans state that God created some vessels for righteousness & others for destruction? I was raised at Zion Lutheran School. Luther performed infant baptisms on those children whose parents came forth to present them to God, that He would protect them & guide them through life, & ultimately save them for a new life in heaven after their departure from this earth. But Luther did not regard the baptism as legit until one completed the necessary steps of confirmation. I went through it 1st, 2nd, & 3rd article. Apostles Creed, etc. We were taught that if we did not successfully complete the process of Confirmation, then that water baptism was useless for an infant. It is by the Grace of God that He chose you Chad before the foundation of the world to be in His family. That's what the scriptures teach. He could have chose you to be a vessel of unrighteousness. It has nothing to do with infant baptizing. He chose you before the earth was formed, long before your baptism by the hands of men. Romans has a scripture, goes something like this "For the ancient longing of creation eagerly awaits the revealing of the Sons of God, in order that they may be set free from the captivity that they have been subjected to. NOT by their will, but rather by the will of Him who subjected them to it with the hope of their eventual salvation. God's Will, God's Spirit. I love most of your posts. You have the love of God in you. But if you are going to teach infant baptism, you better go deeper with your research because there are 1000's of infant baptized children out there living for Satan & themselves. They got mans water, but they do not have God's Spirit. The children need to be taught to spend time daily entering into God's Rest, or Presence. Spending time with God. But to many children believe they have a get out of hell free card with the infant baptism. You should enter that Rest yourself & see if I am lying or speaking truth. Love your commitment. In His Love, Brother
Still it is a symbol...
Thank you for sharing Pastor! Same thing for me, former Baptist now Lutheran!
If Adam's sin is enough to condemn me, why isn't Jesus baptism enough to save me?
Is this a serious question? I'm not sure I know of any Christian tradition that teaches Jesus' individual baptism was the act whereby he provided salvation for us. I think you're equating things that don't go together. His individual baptism didn't save you from what you inherited from the fall of Adam. If it had, the Gospel accounts would have been a lot shorter.
@@MBiggens I am much less concerned with Christian tradition than I am with scriptural precedent. I am also not taking the stance that Jesus' baptism does save from sin. However, we believe, and the Bible teaches, that baptism does save from sin. For clarification, I am a credobaptist.
So does infant baptism remove the need of adult baptism?
In the Lutheran church, yes. A baptized infant goes through catechism classes and then is confirmed into the church.
@@61loneviking Is being confirmed into the church the same as God adding the saved to the church? act 2:47
@@James-qo9mt The verse you are referring to is a descriptive verse of what was occurring in the earliest days of the church. Individuals would repent (turn from a life against God); they would believe and confess that belief; and then they were baptized. With infants who have been baptized, they need to be instructed in the faith. However, they are already Christs, sealed by the Holy Spirit and a new creation through the washing of the water and the word. Once instructed in the faith, they are then asked to confess their faith to their home congregation. Then they take their first communion. So, it’s not the same thing as what was happening in Acts.
@@61loneviking Thank you
@@James-qo9mt There is a little book titled ‘The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran church’ , available on Amazon and Kindle that I recommend. It’s only 110 pages, but it lays out nicely the case for baptism in general and the reasons for infant baptism.
Thank you! This is very helpful. I'm working my way through Luther's Catechism at the moment and wrestling with this very issue. Blessings, Rob
I believe it is a good thing to put the Holy Ghost in the children so that there is no room for other spirits. I also think that Acts 2:39 is rather clear on this topic. Aside from that, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us exactly how to perform baptism, which tends to get the pharisee in us, out. :) How many liters of water is needed? Salt or fresh? Full submerging, sprinkle or..? Do we need access to a river? A lake? Do a bathtub do? A Baptismal font? This is not covered by the Bible, and anything outside of scripture is pure speculation. Some argue that since it says "repent and be baptized", we need to repent before the baptism. But Jesus just said "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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." He did not say "make them repent, before you baptize...". The Lord also shows here that teaching can follow the baptism, which will be the case for children. And when do we come to conscious faith? If a 10 year old, or an 8 year old comes to conscious faith, should they wait until they become adult? And when are we regarded as adults? Should we follow the law of today, or do we need to look into how they thought when Jesus was here? These things may be up for debate, and I do not say that I hold "the truth". If you believe something different, that is between you and God. But I find that as soon as we start building a library of rules and regulations, we stray into pharisee land - which we know rather well what Jesus thought of! Baptize the kids. Do not hold anything from them! I let my 7 year old daughter go to communion, and she has confessed her belief in the Lord - she may have a way to go to be fully concious - 1 Cor. 3 comes to mind. And: "Let the children come to me", says the Lord. A parallell note here: Frank Turek says something very important in regard to the many people that looses their faith when they go to college. They are talked out of it (the faith) because they were never talked into it! Let us inform our children from the start about Jesus, so that they are armed. And if we in the process misunderstand what He means, I am sure that His Mercy and Grace will cover it.
Thank you. I do have a question- what about Muslims who find Jesus and want to be immediately baptized but do not have access to water and choose other ways to get baptized e.g. being buried in sand, then coming up from the sand, etc same concept because of their faith? Thanks again, and I'm very much enjoying "Hitchhiking with Prophets"
Thank you Chad for clarifying that and sharing it. Blessings.
With God all things are possible… some things are ok to use out of context. I think it depends on which context you put them in to
That was sound teaching as always! TY Pastor! ❤️ Context matters 😊
Thank you for the context...i never picked up on that 🙂
Excellent!
Thanks Chad! I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to share it with us!
I would also not say, that we Christians have a bad habit to quote out of context. We have the wonderful habit to try to live by the book and Gods word and while we are transformed from glory to glory and grow in His word, we might make mistake.
Great thought
Chad, this is indeed the wrong example to talk about "out of context". Mat 18:20 is generally true. If 2 or more come together in His name, which means as a community in Christ, then Christ is with them and that statement is made in verse 20 because it is true without any further context, but also applies here You can see that also when reading Mat 28:20. It is just mentioned as a reminder. The context does not matter at all and every believer is totally right to quote Mat18:20 when you come together in His name, especially because it is true without further definition of the context. It might be prayer, eating, breaking of bread, bible study, helping others in Christ name, you name it.
Exactly. Jesus is with us when we gather. It does not matter if we are dealing with a problematic brother, or just having Bible study fellowship. To make this distinction does not make sense. As you said, no further context is needed. Jesus is with His people.
Do you remember the words saying "2 or more"? I am heavily affected by what is known as "The Mandela Effect" and I have seen elements of reality change in an instant ... (e.g. famous logos, the Thinker statue etc). I know the world is not as it seems and I believe the most significant changes are in the Bible. Mat 18:20 is one of these changes as the text used to say 2 or more but now says 2 or 3. Isaiah 11:6 used to say "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" but now it is "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb". I do not wish to cause any problems and I am genuinely curious as to your specific memory in this regard as so few people seem to be able to see the changes. (My personal observations of these changes has led me to an unshakable faith in Jesus Christ in spite of - or indeed because of - these changes in my reality).
Did I sense a little scoffing here at the sparrow miracle, seemingly presented as clear indication that some curious people just "made stuff up"? Should we then believe only and all of what a bunch of guys decided was fit for the canon? Objectively, is the sparrow story any less bizarre than that of a walking-talking snake, or a talking donkey who tells off its brutal owner, or Jesus petulantly cursing a fig tree for not producing figs when it wasn't fig season?
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”” Matthew 18:20 ESV This pasaje says it all, and the context doesn’t alter nor condition its meaning. As you say in the beginning: It is true what Christian’s confess , but you missed a key detail “gathered in Jesus name, which is above all names.
Pay attention
Thanks for elucidating on tattoos. Yes, God was just setting his people apart...and context is crucial. God was also setting his people apart when instructing them to commit genocide (although keep the maidens for themselves), kill those who sacrifice to another god, kill rebelliousness children, kill those who work on the Sabbath, kill those have premarital sexual intercourse, etc. God himself killed 70,000 Israelites because King David took a census. Please let me know if (or when) you do videos on those. (I'll check now.)
You bet! We have addressed all those texts in our podcast, “40 Minutes in the Old Testament.” Give it a listen. I pray it is helpful to you, no matter what your motivation in listening might be.
Well said and well done.
I remember hearing a story of a skeptic thinking he could shake the faith of a little girl. He asked her, "Where is heaven?", thinking she would point to the sky, and then he would drop the hammer on her with 'science'. She had the last word. She innocently replied, "Heaven is where Jesus is!". Whether you call it heaven, or Paradise, or whatever, we will be WITH HIM! That's good enough for me!
MS13 Works for Q clearance , Area 51. Democrats, self proclaimed Cannibals. US Navy only fights for Cannibals, told XI , Russians to use nukes to kill The US Cannibal NAVY. MS13 in The 1960-'70s were already multi generational Americans as Children and today MS13 run Hollywood, Police, First Responders, 100s of Millions of cannibal gangstalkers . Liberals are One Dimensionality souls as one purpose to suck psychic energy off Rightwing ( ch. 17 , Q posts are based on ) Q claim : Liberals in America are The Democrat Party and their diet are Eating The Saints ( Rightwing). Ch. Revelations claim is the same as The Q 's Claim July 1 , 1:11 PM , 2024 2:40 PM updated
Thank you for sharing that!
But we are a royal priesthood. For he has made us a nation of kings and priests to our God.
You explained it very well really enjoyed
Very well said I rewally enjoyed this.
Just gold! Thank you brother ! God bless you !
Grace brother! New and wellness 🙏👼💐🌈☁️✨
It “sounds” accurate that moral laws (rather than ceremonial and dietary laws) were in force BEFORE the Sinai covenant, but is that in scripture? How can I biblically make that claim….thank you Chad!