Truth Unites - My Baptism Questions for Trent Horn

Episode Date: March 29, 2022

This video responds to Trent Horn and his rebuttal of my views on baptism and baptismal regeneration. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Trent Horn put out a rebuttal video on baptism, and I wanted to respond briefly with one concern and then six questions. Now, people in the comments were saying, why don't you guys just get together and talk? And the thing is, we're already doing two debates this fall or spring sometime. And I have a full-time job. I'm a pastor, and I have a family, and I've booked deadlines and other things. Next week, I'm doing another debate, I think, if it's still on, and officiating a wedding. and other things. So what I'd say is I'd be willing to hop on a video, a brief, like an hour video or something like that with Trent, if he really wants to. I just did this thing on the

papacy at Can't remember Tuesday's channel, capturing Christianity. I know people are going to respond to that. So my mind is a little more on that, so I don't really necessarily want to do a big thing on baptism right now, but I'd be willing, if people really want us to talk or something, they really feel like talking in person is going to be more valuable. I'd be willing to do that, but we need to wait a few weeks and maybe something a little more casual like a I don't know maybe we could do it on my channel and I'd probably be more listening and asking questions because I'd be curious what he would say to these questions so we can I'm open to that but I really feel like we need to do that right now but I'm open to it maybe down the road a few weeks okay let me articulate one concern and then I'll get to

the six questions and the six questions will be trying to further the conversation not just questions Some of them are more challenges, some of them are more invitations. The concern is there are times where, and I want to say this gently and in a friendly way, kind of like a, hey, let's be careful about this. But there's sometimes where I have a concern about a misrepresentation of the other side in the way Trent frames things. That came up in the purgatory video. It was a three-hour video in the first 60 seconds.

It's framed as though I'm arguing purgatory is rare in the church fathers. and then the next two hours and 59 minutes are proceeding in light of that summary. And then recently I put up on my community post and my community tab on my YouTube channel a post that said, imagine two parties. Party A says there's a Johanin office in the church. Party B says, where's the evidence for that? And party A responds with, well, we don't have evidence for other things you believe, like biblical inerrancy.

And the point of that was to get at the evidential burden needed for, positing a successive office and the way, and particularly that rejoinder that often happens. Trent shared that post and compared it to how atheists argue and summarized it as if I were arguing, quote, if you believe in Petriean primacy, then why not Johannine primacy? And, you know, on the one hand, first of all, I didn't say anything about Johannian primacy. That just completely puts words in my mouth. I just talked about a Johannian office. But the more basic problem is this if Peter, why not John thing, it turns it into a comparison

between Peter and John, which misses the point. The point is that in the absence of evidence for a successive office, whether Johannine, Petrie, or any other apostle, positing a lack of attestation for some other belief does not remove the evidential burden for the original claim in question. So John is just an example to make that point. It's a methodological point about how we might establish a successive office. You can make the same point with any of the apostles like Bartholomew, Andrew, anyone else. So when Trent shared that post, you know, Catholic commenters are flooding on now

and saying things like, well, Peter was greater than John and here's why, and just completely missing the point. It's not a comparison between which office is greater. The point is that for a successive office, there's a burden of proof, and in the absence of that, you can't just pivot to some other thing. We still need to know why should we accept a successive office. So now this video on baptism was a lot better, but there were still a couple of points where I felt as though

he's responding to an argument I didn't actually make or maybe framing things in a way that doesn't get at where we actually differ. For example, I had cited Cyril of Jerusalem's statement about Cornelius. I'll just put it up on the screen, where it seems like Cyril of Jerusalem is saying that Cornelius was born again at faith, but then he still speaks of baptism as also salvific in some way, And so I was drawing attention to how this shows how complicated it is, that when we have language of saving efficacy applied to baptism, we need to understand what does that mean? Does that mean that's when salvation starts?

Is it always the cause? So I was raising questions like that and pointing out that Cyril doesn't seem to think of Cornelius as an exception. In response, Trent provided quotations from John Chrysostom. And he's saying we have to look at John's view of baptism as a whole, basically. and I really did not follow how we got from Cyril to John. I wasn't making an argument from John. So I assume that's probably just a mistake. So no big deal, no problem,

but it's still necessary for me to point that out for people following the discussion. Another worry is that there's still this contrast between the baptismal regeneration on the one side and then the other as baptism is just a sign. So this language came up several times in the video, baptism as a sign to show our science. salvation to others.

Or baptism is to show people you're already a Christian. I targeted one of those at the one hour, three minute, and 36 second mark if people want a documentation for that. So I thought I was pretty clear in my video that I'm trying to push against that. It's not just a sign. And I was saying baptism is a means of grace. I was giving examples of historic Baptists who argued that it's a communication of assurance of salvation, a more copious outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Baptist

and so on and so forth, various other ways. So the contrast of baptism or regeneration, or it's just assigned to others of what that salvation has already happened, I will worry that that's not a helpful way to frame where we differ. I would prefer to frame it like this. We both believe that baptism is a powerful channel of God's grace to the baptism. Where we differ is, I see that the nature of that grace given as not the sort of originating grace that makes you saved or regenerates you or makes you alive to God, I would see it as more what I'd see with the other sacrament. It's a strengthening and nourishing grace for someone who's

already saved. That's why they're getting baptized, because they got saved. And then we have differences about infant baptism. And so talk about that maybe. But so, you know, what's interesting is our views aren't as far off as is sometimes supposed. And so that would be another area where I just would like to clarify, I'm not saying it's just a sign that you're already a Christian. I believe God uses baptism and pours out grace through baptism. And I thought that was clear, but I don't know. So anyways, no big deal. Those are just areas where I would like to continue to advocate for carefulness to not misframe things or argue against a position I'm not actually advocating for.

All right, there's a couple of points where Trent, I didn't think he was meeting the full force of my argument. And so I would like to try to draw that out by reiterating a few points as questions. Some of these questions are like that, kind of a challenge trying to say, well, how do you see this? You know, how do you explain this? But they're all sincere questions. And I, you know, I really will be curious for his answers to these if we talk in person or if he wants to make a response video or, I mean, I don't know. I'm sure we'll talk at some point. I like Trent. So I'm sure we'll, I don't know, gosh, you know, in the years ahead, we'll probably interact a lot about stuff. So, but these are our

sincere questions. And I do, I really am curious kind of how we answer some of them. I think it could clarify the dialogue and help me understand his position better. And in some ways, some of them, like the last one is more just an invitation. Like, can you, can you see where I'm worried about this? Because sometimes being able to see the concerns of the other side is a way to make progress. So here's the six questions. Number one, did baptism save Cornelius? Okay. We have targeted Cornelius in Acts 10 as an exceptional case.

So I think Trent used the language of a boundary case. Now, I don't agree with that, just for the record. I don't think that that's exceptional or a boundary case. You know, I don't think the book of Acts ever says that. But let's assume that that's right. Now, one of the things here, and one of my concerns is I think that that's not the only boundary case or the only, I think there's more exceptions than the norm in the book of Acts. If you'd call it an exception, because I would say the Ephesian Christians in Acts 196, it seems to be when Paul lays hands on them, that they receive the Holy Spirit. And then I would say the Apostle Paul's baptism.

It seems to be, to me, that when Ananias lays hands on him, he receives the Holy Spirit at that point. and then subsequently he gets up and is baptized. Trent is talking about Paul. He brings up Acts 22 where there's the phrase of be baptized, washing away your sins. And Trent also draws attention to Acts 238, where it's baptism for or unto the forgiveness of sins. And my response to that would be that I could use that language on my metonymy view.

That's not determinative of whether there's a causal relationship. You can't assume it's a causal relationship. causal participle. Be baptized washing away your sins. You can't assume that the syntax there is causative. That's the whole thing that needs to be shown. And in Acts 9, it doesn't look like it's causative. I mean, I'm not, you know, at one point Trent was cautioning about using the Book of Acts because, well, we don't have a full baptismal theology in the Book of Acts. We don't have the baptismal formula, for example. Well, fair enough, but Acts is still relevant for some points, actually, narrative can give you more concrete information sometimes. We've all got to wrestle

with the more abstract principles, but when you see it happening, often in the book of Acts, that it just looks like people receive the Holy Spirit at a time other than baptism. There's no reason why we shouldn't give consideration to that. And so what I would say is, but, okay, so here's the question. Whether you agree that there's other exceptional border cases, in Acts or not, we definitely can agree that Cornelius is regenerated at hearing and responding to the Word of God. He's speaking in tongues with his family. They hear the gospel, they receive the gospel, they're regenerated at that point. Okay. So my question is, can we still say that baptism saved Cornelius? Is 1st Peter 321 true with respect to Cornelius? And the reason I'm highlighting

that question, I don't mean that as a trap or something like that. I mean, that's a legitimate question. either on the one hand you can say well first peter three 21 just doesn't apply to cornelius or you can say oh yeah no it is salvific but it's not necessarily the cause and that's my view and envisioning that question might help people understand where i'm coming from and that i'm not just trying to throw smoke some of the people in the comments on trans video were accusing me of dishonesty like i'm just trying to throw complexity at it to muddle the issue um it answering that question might help people understand what is really true in my heart and conscience, that I'm not trying to throw smoke at it.

I really think it is complicated. The nature of the sacraments, how we understand the language in relation to them, it is complicated. So that's the question. Did baptism save Cornelius? I think hearing an answer to that will help me understand Trans Point of View and maybe create a little space for people to sympathize with why this is complicated. Second question is related to that. Why not read Romans 229 the same way?

you read 1st Peter 321. In other words, why not take the same realist interpretation of the sacrament for the Old Testament sacrament of initiation circumcision as for the New Testament sacrament of initiation baptism? So Romans 229 says that circumcision is of the heart by the spirit. And I had pointed this out in my previous video, and Trent responded by saying that, well, Paul didn't think circumcision was necessary. Well, of course, but that really misses the spirit. the point. I'm arguing that while not believing in circumcissional regeneration, Paul still can use

language like this. He can say, circumcision is of the heart by the spirit. I'll put those words up here. In the Greek, there's no adjective like real circumcision or something like that. He's actually clarifying and defining what circumcision, what physical circumcision is. Paul does not say circumcision of the flesh is just a symbol of circumcision of the heart. There is linguistic overlap between sign and things signified, between circumcision of the flesh, circumcision of the heart. And throughout the Old Testament, you have God commanding his people in Deuteronomy 10 and Jeremiah 4 circumcise your hearts. And it's assumed that if you're physically circumcised, you should have a circumcised heart, i.e. a regenerate heart. In Jeremiah 9, God says, I will punish those who are circumcised only in the

flesh. In other words, those two things should go together. Circumcision of the heart, circumcision of the flesh. The sign and the thing signified should go together. That's part of what physical circumcision is and symbolizes. So why not read that text like the baptism texts? And people wrestling with that question might gain a little sympathy for why some of us are looking at 1st Peter 321 and saying it's not obvious that that means like baptism is the cause. Like you're not saved until you get baptized, with when you get in the water that you get regenerated. All right. Third question, how is baptism part of the perseverance in Hebrews 1022?

I quoted in my video Hebrews 1022, which says, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. In my video, I had argued that there's much language of cleansing water in Holy Scripture. that isn't directly referring to baptism. And Trent argued that this passage is talking about baptism, and he drew attention to the erronic priesthood in the background here, but I really didn't sense a response to the point.

If this is baptism, why is it given to people who are already Christians? Why is it being commanded of people in the context of perseverance? How would this make sense? He's saying these people are being persecuted, so the author of Hebrews is saying to them, basically, hang in there, you know, maintain your Christian confession, keep going to church, persevere, and then, you know, keep drawing near to God, having your body washed in pure water. That fits with my view,

namely that much of the language about spiritual cleansing is talking about a spiritual reality that baptism points to. If you take this as baptism, hell, I didn't catch a response to this. Why would baptism be an appropriate part of Christian perseverance? These people have already been initiated as Christians. They've already received, as Trent quoted from Hebrew 6, the basic instruction of the Christian faith. And this is given, the counsel given to the church as a whole. It's one of those passages where it's like, I just don't know how you take all this language as referring to baptism directly. Ephesians 526 was the other one. Fourth question, can Trent point to anyone between Augustine and the Reformation who affirms

the salvation of unbaptized babies? I had brought up this point as a way to highlight my concern that appeals to universality are often selective. It's often like, oh, all the fathers affirm baptism of regeneration. And then a claim is leveraged from that. But it's the inconvenient fact that pretty much everybody after Augustine, at least in the West, I've not traced down every one in the East, but at least in the West, I mean, I've looked into this. I don't find anybody advocating for the salvation of unbaptized babies. You can argue about when limbo comes in and that kind of stuff.

Limbo is not salvation, though. So Trent had talked about, well, this isn't part of the deposit of faith. Fine. I'm not talking about the deposit of faith. I'm responding to the appeal to universality. And he quoted Ambrose and talked about Limbo. Ambrose is a little older than Augustine, and Limbo is not the point here. My question, I think, is still on the table of,

if you can't find any examples of an alternative view on that question, then you've got it over a millennium where the church teaches something about baptism that's pretty much everywhere. And yet, most Christians today don't hold to that. I think Trent and I would agree on our view of this question. I think the contemporary Catholic Church's view is pretty similar to my own, namely, we can't be absolutely dogmatic about it, but we have reason to hope for the salvation of those who die in infancy without being baptized. But my concern here is about selectivity in the way we wield historical claims, because I feel that this is something that's often just overlooked.

And it's kind of like, hey, maybe a little less triumphalism about all the church father's claims. If you recognize, well, there's actually some longstanding post-Augustinian universal views that we also actually change from as well. fourth question or no the fifth question almost done here what is happening to those who seem to get regenerated at faith why shouldn't i understand them as similar to what happens with cornelius trent pointed out in his video that you know evidence of regeneration is not fallproof well okay that's fair enough i mean i don't know for sure but tell me what you think is happening because i don't really i don't think that response is very forceful at the end of the day i'm still having a lot of people where I will share Christ with them, they will repent of their sins and place

their faith in Jesus Christ. When they do that, it seems to me that there's this dramatic change in their life. They are often filled with love for the church, love for other Christians, love for God, an infusion of peace and other fruits of the Holy Spirit like joy and gentleness, a love for scripture, ravenous desire. I mean, we all know that zeal of a new convert. You know, when someone first comes to Christ, it's one of those wonderful things. So given the fact that I see that so much,

tell me what you think that is. I hear different answers to that among those who affirm baptism of regeneration. And, I mean, I guess it's just like, it feels like, yeah, okay, I don't know infallibly that they're regenerate. And I acknowledge that. It's a judgment call that you make.

I think we're on good grounds to sort of make that basic judgment. Jesus seems to assume we're going to discern things by means of their spiritual fruit, Matthew 7, Matthew 12. But to just say, well, yeah, we don't know for sure. It's like, okay, fine. Tell me what you think is happening there. What is happening? Why does that happen so much?

How many Cornelius do we need before we start to say, gosh, maybe it's actually not baptism that causes it. Maybe baptism is a part of the package, but it's not actually where you get made alive to God. And that'd be like my own testimony. You know, I was baptized as an infant, but I don't think I was regenerated. I don't recall having any love for God or anything. I only related to God with fear and dread until I was 10 years old when I received Christ by faith, and then my life changed at that point. And I just see that happens a lot, you know? It just seems like a lot of people don't change when they're baptized or change when they're not baptized. And so saying that, well, that's not determinative or conclusive or certain is fine.

It doesn't feel to me like a very forceful point. Give me an alternative explanation. What is going on in those circumstances? All right. My last question is not so much a challenge, but an invitation. And that's, can you understand, here's my, let me put my cards on the table in terms of my pastoral concern. So the question is, can you understand my concern of a formalism that leads to presumption?

I understand the desire to put the focus on baptism as regeneration as kind of a more objective marking point. Actually, and Trent pointed this out, sometimes when you have a case of a invalid baptism or something that's almost invalid, like the I versus we using that in the formula, there's still questions that can arise on that view. But I understand that there's desire to have like a really clear demarcation point. But my concern is that, though this, it need not play out this way over and over and over at the street level, what happens is people put the focus on the right, not on the promise of

God that I think the right is intended to convey. So my sincere theological conviction before God in my conscience is that the whole point of baptism is to point us to the gospel. It's a visible sermon. We're supposed to look at baptism and say, wow, that's what God does to the soul. Just like the water cleanses the body, that's what the gospel does to our souls. It washes away our sins. Just like the person rises up from the darkness of submersion under the water into the light of coming out of the water. So we are united to Christ. We've died to sin. We've risen up into new life with Christ. And through that activity, through baptism, God is communicating that grace to us.

But I just believe that the person receiving baptism needs faith. I think it is meant to work with their willingness and their awareness of what is happening. I don't think it's automatic. And I know that the baptism or regeneration traditions will often find ways to qualify it so it's not automatic. They're not saying it's this magical thing. But at the practical level, my concern is that it leads to a presumption, at least to people saying, well, I've been baptized, so I'm good. And while that's not a mature theology,

I just see that a lot. And so I'm curious if you can understand the concern on my side and how common that is. I don't know. Sometimes it helps to at least be able to envision why the other side is animated and where they're coming from. Let me say, so those are some questions to put out. Let me say one final comment. One of the things I've noticed is that this is less on Trent. Again, I like Trent. To be honest, I kind of imagine maybe in years ahead, Trent and I will be like common sparring partners, and I'll enjoy that. That'll be great. But off of Trent and more on the comments and general reactions, one of the things I've noticed in these conversations is that I feel, if I can just be really blunt, I feel like people find their identity too much in their particular

tradition so that they feel this overly aggressive response like they need to demolish the other side. If there's a threat to the system, if someone's making an argument, we need to sick Trent Horn on them or some other Catholic apologist on them. We need to destroy their arguments. We need to tear them up from the roots and this kind of way, this kind of ethos. And for anyone who does feel that, I would like to make the appeal that we can peacefully coexist. We can simply say, look, I'm going to argue fervently for my view. But at the end of the day, I'm going to recognize some people just aren't going to be convinced and they're going to disagree. And I can't control that.

So then we just peacefully coexist. We dialogue and we debate. We work on it. But we don't need to feel like I need to destroy. story the other side. I get that feeling a lot in the reactions. It's kind of like, I don't know, people feel like they need to like, you know, rip me to shreds in the arguments and stuff. And I don't really understand that. The way I approach it is, hey, these are complicated differences with smart people on both sides. We're probably not going to be able to, like, debunk everything that the other side might say. We can peacefully coexist. So anyway, I hope that's helpful for furthering dialogue on this tradition. Maybe Trent and I'll talk more about this, but

Those are just a few initial thoughts based on his video. Thanks for watching everybody. God bless you.