Audio only:
In this episode Trent sits down with Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund to answer his questions about the case for baptismal regeneration.
Welcome to the Council of Trend Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Gavin Ortlund:
Hey, everyone, welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. Truth Unites is a place for theology and apologetics done in an irenic way, which means aiming for peace. I’m really excited to be talking with Trent Horn. We’re going to talk about baptism. Trent is a Catholic apologist and speaker and author of many books. Trent, thanks for doing this. How are you doing today?
Trent Horn:
I’m doing well. It’s really cool to be able to finally dialogue with you in person because I mean, I’ve seen a lot of your work, I’ve engaged some of your work on my channel. You’ve engaged some of my work on your channel, which I think is great, but I’m also a big fan of people just being able to sit down across from one another, even if it’s virtual, to hash out their theological differences. That’s something I always really appreciate about the work that you do because frankly, I have a hard time both with non-Catholic and Catholic speakers who make pretty big theological claims, but then aren’t willing to back them up and dialogue with others, so I’m always appreciative to see people who are willing to do that.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, totally. Yeah. Yeah, dialogue is helpful, especially when it’s done in a spirit where we’re truly trying to understand the other side and not in a triumphalist way, and I know that this conversation will be like that, so I’m really excited for this. Maybe I’ll just share the backlog that brings us to this video in case someone has clicked up upon it and doesn’t have any prior awareness. I had put out a video offering some responses to common arguments for baptismal regeneration, and then you offered a video response to that, I offered a video response to your video, so like you say, it’s good finally, we’re actually connected.
Trent Horn:
Well, yeah, I have a rule, so yeah, you did a response to my response, and it was you offered actually a series of questions.
Gavin Ortlund:
Exactly. There were six questions in there that basically I thought a good frame. Now, I’m fine if we go onto rabbit trails, but I thought a good at least effort or starting point would be just to work through some of those questions. But I also mentioned it might be good to start with definitions. I found that it can save us time later on if we just very clearly explain, what do we mean when we use a word like “regeneration” or a word like “baptism”?
Gavin Ortlund:
I just want to say one quick thing before we dive in and that’s for viewers of my channel, I’m going to be taking the month of May, so we’re recording this toward the end of April 2022, I’m going to be taking the month of May off, completely off from YouTube, so this will be my last video for a month, and then I’ll have a live stream on June 3rd, a Q&A, so just so people know if they don’t see videos, that’s why, and I’ll be back in June. Don’t forget to subscribe to the channel and like the video and share this. That would be helpful for both of us, too. Do you want go first on, maybe just giving a definition of what you mean by with the words “baptism” or “regeneration” or either of those words separately?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Well, I think the general idea here is that baptism… Well, I guess I should start with regeneration because that’s the more fundamental concept. By “regeneration,” I would mean the moment when an individual becomes an adopted son or daughter of God and is given sanctifying grace to cleanse them from original sin and from any personal sins they may have committed. Regeneration is just when you go from spiritual death to spiritual life, from being alienated from God to being spiritually adopted by God, and the stain of original sin is removed, and any punishments related to sin, temporal or eternal, are removed in regeneration. The sacrament that confers that would be baptism, baptism being the use of water and the baptismal formula to do as a church intends to cleanse someone of sin. I guess that’s how I’ll throw it out there, I guess.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. No, that’s helpful. I’ll just share my definitions. Again, I found this helpful because sometimes people assume that I have a lower view of baptism than I do because I’m a Baptist minister, but I would define, and I think my definition here will speak to that. I would define regeneration as the initial act of being made alive to God when one passes from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life. If people would like to define regeneration as a process, then I would simply say that could work, but I would just say, well, this is when the process starts, okay, so this is when you go from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life.
Gavin Ortlund:
For baptism, I actually find article 27 of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church to be a helpful statement, but just to be brief, I’ll just say two things. One is I do understand baptism to be more than just a symbol. Sometimes Baptist views are characterized in this way where it’s, the options are either baptism, or regeneration, or it’s just a sign. I would want to make clear that I understand baptism to give grace. I understand God to be the one working through baptism. I’ve gone on and on about this in other videos, so just to summarize, I’ve used the language of sign and seal, common in the reform tradition, for what God is doing in baptism. What I would say is I just don’t understand it to be the cause of regeneration. I don’t understand it to be what makes someone alive to God.
Gavin Ortlund:
I’ll just say one word about autonomy. This is the word I’ve used to describe, “Well, then how do we understand it when the Scriptures speak of baptism as saving?” I would say, it’s kind of like when we say, “The blood of Jesus saves,” we don’t mean the blood as distinct from the flesh. Similarly, when we say “Baptism saves,” we don’t mean baptism as distinct from those events that lead up to it, but we mean baptism in its symbolic and representative character, kind of like I’ve used the metaphor of a coronation service for a monarch. This is not technically the cause of when they become the monarch, but it’s the formal, visible public expression of that, and can be spoken of as such. All that is just to try to clarify what my view is. The first question we were going to talk-
Trent Horn:
Could I get a quick clarification on your view?
Gavin Ortlund:
… Yeah, please.
Trent Horn:
I know these words mean different things to different people, but under your view, does baptism justify, sanctify, or maybe a combination of both?
Gavin Ortlund:
I understand justification. I use that in a typical Protestant sense to be that initial act of being declared righteous in God’s sight, so I wouldn’t say that baptism justifies. I would say that we can speak of God communicating grace through baptism, which would include forgiveness, so there’s ongoing forgiveness in the Christian life, but I follow typical Protestant language in thinking of the word justification per se, is that initial transfer of status legally before God.
Trent Horn:
So, maybe it will fall under what we might call, because you talk about it communicating grace being more than a symbol, would that be more like sanctifying?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yes, it would be in that bucket. I think I mentioned article 27. It talks about grace is increased through prayer unto God. I want to clarify, too, I don’t think that’s automatic. I don’t think that this just, anytime you baptize someone automatically, it’s like this spiritual boost. I think that does depend upon receiving the sacrament worthily, which I would understand as by faith.
Trent Horn:
So, that would mean your view would preclude infant or paedobaptism?
Gavin Ortlund:
I don’t believe in paedobaptism. That’s really on other grounds. It’s not like because of my view of the meaning of baptism, therefore I reject infant baptism, but it is true theologically that basically for ecclesiological reasons or reasons having to do with the doctrine of the church, I don’t think the infant children of one or more Christian parents are to be considered members of the church from birth. I just don’t see that ecclesiology, so yes, I mean, that would be… That actually is an interesting thing that I don’t know if we’ll get into is that the relation of these two differences, the question of meaning, which gets into baptismal regeneration and the question of the subjects, which gets into credobaptism versus paedobaptism because those are separate, but they affect one another, so it’s kind of interesting.
Trent Horn:
I find often what, in many cases, because really, there are, I see kind of three views. One would be… Well, I would say I don’t know anyone who believes in baptismal regeneration who doesn’t also believe in paedobaptism. Well, let me try to refocus. I don’t know because I think most traditional proponents of baptismal regeneration see this as the cause of salvation and so they would also apply that to infants. Then among those who do not believe in baptismal regeneration, some would be credobaptists, others would be paedobaptists in seeing, well, while baptism does not regenerate you, it’s a fitting thing to do to make someone a member of the people of God, or there’s other reasons that are given, so I don’t know if this makes sense to you, but I kind of see three views, baptismal regeneration, usually tied to paedobaptism, those who don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, but are divided over paedobaptism versus credobaptism, if that makes sense.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, it makes sense. I see four views. If you do two lines like this, you do have the churches of Christ. Now, some of them will not like, so they’d be a credobaptist plus baptismal regeneration, so they’d be a fourth example?
Trent Horn:
I guess they’d be the fourth. Yeah, that’s right.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. Okay, [inaudible 00:10:04].
Trent Horn:
Then it all works. You fill out the whole square.
Gavin Ortlund:
Right, yeah, and so it’s interesting because you can be in all different, but I think you’re right, usually, it tends to be baptismal regeneration plus infant baptism. That’s more common. Then among the credobaptists, it’s more common not to affirm. Maybe we can get into that here. I’ll try not to talk too much, I promise. I’ll try to give you the last word on most of these things because I’ve already put up these questions on my video.
Gavin Ortlund:
But the first question I put up was, “Does baptism save Cornelius?” I’ll just explain it in that we were talking about Acts 10 and how it looks like Cornelius is regenerated and speaking in tongues prior to his baptism, so then the question comes up, is this an exception? Or is this more of the pattern, and those kinds of things? Now, either way, whether it’s an exception or more of the norm, we need to understand does 1 Peter 3:21 apply in such a circumstance, even if it’s in a very rare exception, can we say the baptism saves Cornelius? I’m just curious for your thoughts about that.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, so in that case, I would say that this is an exception. I would say that Cornelius was spiritually regenerated prior to receiving baptism. There was an important point in that happening. I think the language I use to my reply to you is I called it a “boundary case.” I think that’s actually fitting because the dispute here was about the boundary of the kingdom of God, like does one have to become a Jew first in order to become a Christian? This was to break into the kingdom of God to say, “No, the Gentiles do not have to become Jews first,” and to make that really clear, Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit and is spiritually regenerated prior to baptism.
Trent Horn:
But how I fit it in the big picture, and we can back and forth on this, is I would say baptism did not save Cornelius just as faith in the risen Divine Christ did not save Dismas, AKA the good thief on the cross, which tradition Catholic theology, traditionally, his name is Saint Dismas. I think that in any view, when you have a normative view about what is it that saves us, baptism, faith, whatever it may be, you’re going to have exceptions that you have to wrestle with, so Cornelius would be an exception to the rule for baptism.
Trent Horn:
I’d also say that Dismas is an exception for the rule of salvation by faith because here it’s very clear, Jesus says, “Today you’ll be with me in paradise, “but I find very little or no evidence that Dismas believed that Jesus was divine. He certainly hadn’t risen from the dead yet, yet He was saved, but I don’t think that would nullify the general requirement of faith to be saved, similar with Cornelius. Yeah, so the way I look at it is that Cornelius is the only example I’ve seen in Acts where the Holy Spirit is received before baptism, and the reason here as Peter argues in Acts 11 is that this shows that the Gentiles are fitting recipients of baptism. I guess that’s how I would look at it. I would say baptism did not save Cornelius, but that doesn’t nullify the general rule. I guess that’s my thought.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, and that makes sense. I think that’s a fine position to take in terms of that’s just what I’m interested in is if we see it as an exception because I know we differ on whether it’s an exception or a borderline case or not. I think I pointed out that I see this is actually kind of consistent with how baptism is functioning in Acts where it just doesn’t look like you ever have the spirit poured out or any fruits of regeneration at the time of baptism. But either way, we’ve got to find a way to say because the reason this is interesting to me is could say, well, I think baptism can be spoken of as salvific, even if it’s not the cause of salvation, because I would be fine with saying baptism saved Cornelius, and I would just mean that in the way that I think that I understand baptism more generally. But it sounds like you’re saying, “Okay, it’s just an exception,” and that makes sense in that I can see that.
Gavin Ortlund:
Now, I do want to say on the thief, I don’t think the thief is an exception to salvation by faith. I think he has faith. He may not have faith in the divinity of Christ, though I don’t think we could actually know that. I mean, he seems to. The very fact that he’s asking Him for salvation, he says, “This man has done nothing wrong,” he has some awareness of who Christ is, but I would say salvation by faith doesn’t necessarily mean faith in the divinity of Christ, right? I mean, I’d say Abraham had faith, but he lived way before the incarnation, so I don’t see that as an exception. But I would grant, there are other cases that are exceptions, so I would grant that God can save infants, for example. That’s something we might get into as well.
Trent Horn:
But I think you would say that within the new covenant economy that we have now, when you say “salvation by faith,” I think you would say that would include belief in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection. For example, I don’t think you would consider the faith that Jehovah’s Witnesses have in Jesus to be the sufficient kind or the kind of faith you’re talking about.
Gavin Ortlund:
Correct.
Trent Horn:
Right, so what I’m saying is then when I look at Dismas, I mean, it’s possible his faith, even if it was even if Jesus was more than just a prophet, it might be at the level of what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about Jesus, like Dismas saw that Jesus was this highest creation of God sent to us to have faith in. I don’t think we’re going to find Chalcedonian Christology there, but that’s okay because that was under the old, the old covenant economy before the resurrection. Once again, I think both sides will have exceptions they have to deal with.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. I worry about it. We’ve talked a lot about arguments from silence. I worry about an argument from silence in the conclusion that the thief didn’t understand the divinity of Christ because I just don’t know how we could know that. I mean, everything that we know about him comes in like four verses. He does say right before then, people are saying, “Isn’t this man the Messiah?” So, that’s right out in there, “Is Jesus the Messiah?” Then he also says, “When you come in your kingdom.” Now, I think it’s totally plausible that could indicate a kind of Daniel 7 awareness, of course, maybe not fully fleshed out, so I don’t know whether his views on the divinity of, I don’t think I can speak to that, but I’m happy to just acknowledge the more general point, that whatever we think is the cause of salvation, I think both of us could say there are exceptions to that.
Trent Horn:
Sure, yeah. But I think it’s also important, and I think you brought this up in your reply a little bit, that I do believe Cornelius is a true, genuine exception because while there are other cases where in Acts the Holy Spirit is received, there is a description of the Holy Spirit being received apart from baptism, like in Acts 19 or Acts 8, like Philip baptizes, Philip being a deacon, but then who is it, John and Peter maybe going and laying on hands for the Holy Spirit to fall on people who had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, I would say those passages, they do not say the Holy Spirit was not given in baptism, but in Catholic theology, we would say the Holy Spirit is given. There are three sacraments of initiation, baptism, confirmation, and communion. There, we would see the tradition of the laying on of hands, or confirmation as bringing the fullness of initiation. But it’s only the case of Cornelius where we have a description of the Holy Spirit beef temporarily prior to baptism. Everywhere else, it’s always after.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay, and that gets to my where I define regeneration is if you have some kind of process, what I mean to oppose my view to is the start. This is where, in other words, what I’m intending to say I don’t think this is correct is that baptism is when one comes spiritually alive to God. We can maybe work through some of these cases and kick it around, but let me ask you this because if we’re saying there’s exceptions… I mean, let me start with a real practical question.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
This is another question I asked is what do you think I should interpret from-
Trent Horn:
Jumping ahead. I was excited about this question. Now, we’re getting to it.
Gavin Ortlund:
… Yeah. Well, yeah, me too, because it’s so practical. I see a lot of Corneliuses in my ministry and just in my life and I see a lot that, as an example, someone is into witchcraft, okay, they hear the gospel, God quickens their heart, awakens their heart, they are thoroughly convicted by the Holy Spirit. They realize this is wrong, they exercise faith in Christ, they turn away from that. They get rid of that completely, their life is completely transformed. Now, they’re in a catechetical process, let’s say it’s six months long, they give all the fruits of regeneration in the catechetical process. Of course, it’s not an infallible judgment. I don’t know their heart for sure. But how many times do I have to see this before I start to conclude it doesn’t look like the baptism is the cause of regeneration? It just looks like that starts at faith and is sort of sealed and publicly expressed at baptism, so what are your thoughts about that comment/observation?
Trent Horn:
Yeah, so I have a few thoughts on this. First, I agree with you that, especially in the case of adults, faith will proceed baptism. Even in infant baptism, faith proceeds in the sense that the parents seek faith for the child because they have faith, so I agree with you that there’s a process and the Holy Spirit is in work in people. In Catholic theology, we distinguish between two kinds of grace, actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace would be God moving the person towards seeking His sanctifying grace. This might be the case like when I was 17 years old, God moving me to seriously consider that Jesus is Lord and seeking to be baptized in the Catholic faith. I didn’t do that on my own while I was spiritually dead, but God moved me towards that, so it’s kind of like a spiritual kick in the pants. That’s a good way to… I think Carl Keating, the founder Catholic Answers, called it that. It doesn’t regenerate you, but it’s a spiritual kick in the pants.
Trent Horn:
The similar thing in Catholics, we believe that if you’ve lost the grace of justification through mortal sin, God may give you a spiritual kick in the pants, actual grace to return to Him through the sacrament of reconciliation, to seek forgiveness from God. I do believe that there’s a work of grace there, but it’s not necessarily regeneration. I’m skeptical that we would always be able to have a correspondence between spiritual regeneration and visible behavior. I think that what’s going on here is that it’s complicated, like there’s a lot of different explanations, and I think we have to allow those because they also explain a lot of other things.
Trent Horn:
One would be the actual grace working in the person’s life. The other thing may be a natural or a psychological explanation, that the person through their natural means apprehends a great good, the gospel, and so they experience a change in their behavior, the virtues of temperance, prudence, just fortitude, the natural virtues, even faith, open love are better carried out, that you recognize this, and so it causes a natural change in your own virtues. I think that these explanations are, we need to really include them because they help account for a lot of other things.
Trent Horn:
I guess here would be a few examples. One would be people might say to both of us, “Hey, Gavin and Trent, my friend got baptized in the Mormon Church and look at him. He’s so nice.” Mormons are super duper nice people, but you and I both agree that they’re not Christians, so it’s like they could say to us, “Well, Gavin, how do you explain when I see all these people getting baptized and just the amazing change in their dispositions and their faith and their charity?” I think there’s a lot of natural, psychological explanations that are going on there.
Trent Horn:
Another example might be, and I guess this will relate to whether someone believes their salvation can be lost because I don’t know your exact position on this, or Calvinism, which I do want to ask you about, I was reading an article from Pew Research last year saying that 20%, so it’s not just… I know you said, “Well, it may not be infallible.”
PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:23:04]
Trent Horn:
Not just… I know you said, “Well, it may not be infallible.” I’m not even sure it’s a reliable judgment of spiritual regeneration, because I think [Pius 00:23:10] said that 20% of Americans are former Christians. How many of those were legitimate Christians for the first place? I don’t know. But I’m sure a fair number. So it seems like there’s all these privileges. There seams like there is a lot of people who manifest these fruits, but then maybe fall away again. So I don’t know. I threw out a lot out there. You can throw a lot back at me but that’s kind of what I think of when I hear this practical concern.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah okay, that’s helpful. So let me give a name to the person in the scenario I mentioned about, being drawn out of witchcraft, just for convenience. So let’s call that person John, just hypothetically for discussion purposes. So if we’ve got John and Cornelius. If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying, “Cornelius it wasn’t just a spiritual kick in the pants, it was a true regeneration. But with John, it’s not necessarily regeneration, it’s more of a kick in the pants, it’s more of God’s working in some way, or it could be natural psychological things.” So if I’m understanding these are different scenarios for you?
Trent Horn:
Yes, I would say so, because in the scripture we get an explicit description of what happened. We have the word of God saying that the holy spirit fell upon people like it did at Pentecost. We also have Cornelius speaking in tongues, for example. And I think you would agree that speaking in tongues is not necessary to show you’ve been regenerated. But it was the example in the Cornelius case.
Gavin Ortlund:
Right, okay. Well, I would just give two quick thoughts and then I’ll let you speak to this any further, if you want to and we can keep moving. One is that when I mean, spiritual fruit, I am not meaning… And this came up in my debate with Fr. Patrick Ramsey, a little bit. I’m meaning that word as I understand it in the new Testament, and that would be, “Spiritual life and virtue in response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.” So, this is not… We were talking there about Buddhist positive experiences and you’ve mentioned moments having changed-
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
… That would in classify what I mean by spiritual fruit. I’m thinking of people who in response to the Triune God, through faith in Jesus Christ, their life is morally renovated. And, I have seen people where they’re speaking in tongues. I don’t require that. But that does happen where at faith, rather than at baptism, they are fully engaged with the holy spirit such that a kick in the pants… I mean, I really can’t accept that. I don’t think these people I know in the catechetical process, leading up to their baptism are merely, sort of the spirits working in them but they’re not regenerated yet. And that’s why I defined regeneration as that initial being made alive to God.
Gavin Ortlund:
And one final thing is on Matthew 7, I think Jesus does actually command us to make judgements from the spiritual fruits, spiritual tree. He says, “By their fruits you will recognize them,” with reference to false prophets. And he says, “The good tree cannot produce bad fruit, the bad tree cannot produce good fruit.” It seems to me that his intention in teaching us to do that is that, “While the judgements are not infallible, we can make reasonable judgements that the positive spiritual fruit indicates a positive spiritual tree, so to speak.” So I’ll let you have any final thoughts on this.
Trent Horn:
Well yeah, I want to slow down just a tiny bit more. So when I hear fruit, we have to be careful what we’re saying, so we’re not ambiguous. Traditionally, in Galatians the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control. You admit that we can see those things counter in false gospels. Those purely natural virtues we see them in Buddhism, Mormonism. So let me… I’m trying to understand, are you saying it’s those behaviors in response to the authentic gospel not just those behaviors in response to something else?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yes, that’s right. I’m happy to clarify… Yeah, in other words, I think that non-Christians can be loving and can be patient in a generic sense because of common grace. But when I talk about spiritual fruit, I’m envisioning these virtues truly cultivated by the holy spirit. That’s just how I’m using that language.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, and I guess for me that if I can see both… The question, so we have virtues love, joy, peace, patience… The fruits. And also certain beliefs. For example, a Mormon will not believe in the Trinity, but someone you baptize believes in the Trinity and has these particular fruits. So I would say that the behaviors… The natural psychological will go in both cases. I just worry that this is almost like begging the question or assuming the saying, “Well, I’m talking about how do we explain these fruits in response to this particular gospel that is presented?” I would say, well of course, they’re going to have a more fervent belief in something that they’ve already started believing in a conversion experience. But the other concern I have is, now I’m curious to get your… Because I looked online, it’s always weird to trace new path someone’s theological beliefs online. What is your view of Calvinism exactly? Are you a Calvinist or not Five Points or you don’t want to say or-
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah no, I’m Calvinist and I have addressed that in some of my videos but not many. I’m happy to talk about that. Although I worry, it might pause a little bit off of baptism-
Trent Horn:
… I’ll try to keep … I promise your honor that the line of questioning is relevant. Yeah, because I saw you did a post once you were asking about limited [inaudible 00:28:54], I didn’t know if that meant you didn’t believe in it or not.
Gavin Ortlund:
No, I firm all five points so-
Trent Horn:
I see.
Gavin Ortlund:
… I’m trying to think of what that would’ve been. I might have just been posing a question about it or something.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, okay I see. Because it was phrased almost as if you were asking others. Yeah, well this is very interesting. This will be helpful. So because then there is a concern, I don’t think it’s as rare as one may make it out to be, to see someone really flourish an adult after conversion. They receive the faith or baptized see the face, look at this person with spiritual fruit. And then, either they are in apostate or… I guess the other concern I would have is what do we do as someone who becomes kind of a mediocre Christian? They remain spiritually regenerated but they live just kind of a mediocre life. People hardly know their Christian, but they’re not apostates, Right?
Trent Horn:
I think that’s a very common individual, which is going about your day christian. Does that make sense? They’re just kind of… They’re not really on fire but they’re mediocre Christians. So they’re regenerate but they don’t have those fruits anymore but they still regenerate. So that’s why I have a hard time seeing that there’s always going to be a one-to-one correspondence. To me the sign of regeneration is just going to be what I would say, “God has told us the sign will be.” And that will be the sacrament baptism. But do you see how that factors in with the concern that if we have a decent number of people who seem to be regenerate but then fall away, it’s not a really that one off?
Gavin Ortlund:
I see. Yeah, I think I’m tracking with what you’re saying. And I would agree with you that this is a general sort of concern and question and the kind of the way salvation plays out, it is messy. So you use the language of one for one correspondence. I wouldn’t say that. I don’t know. It’s tough to say about any specific person infallibly. But I think what I would come back to is when you see someone, a 180 okay, they go from the witchcraft to the speaking in tongues. Why not see them like Cornelius? If God can do an exception there, and I think there’s other exceptions in the book of Acts too. In fact, I don’t ever see it’s at baptism that someone comes alive to God. But just from that one alone why not see these as exceptions?
Trent Horn:
I would just say I don’t have enough data, that only God would have that data. Because what if I do that and then in five years, she’s back in the witches’ covent? And that it becomes… And I agree with you that I think many people do stay, but to me it’s not like, “Oh, its infallible.” I question whether this approach to gauging spiritual regeneration is even reliable. But while we were on the Calvinism thing I want to ask you-
Gavin Ortlund:
Hold on.
Trent Horn:
…Sorry, go ahead
Gavin Ortlund:
Just on that real quick, I really think Calvinism is kind of a bigger animal to [crosstalk 00:32:13]-
Trent Horn:
I agree? It was on your thing about metonymy.
Gavin Ortlund:
… I was just going to say my one quick observation is-
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
… It seems like Peter does make the judgment in Acts 10, that these people have received a holy spirit. I would think that Peter’s inference like the Matthew 7 spiritual fruit spiritual tree, the inference from speaking in tongues to they’ve received the holy spirit, is the kind of inference that seems reasonable. Not infallible but reasonable. So just a thought there. I don’t… I’m sorry to interrupt you.
Trent Horn:
No, you’re fine because what you were saying about metonymy. And I guess this would play more since you are a Five Point Calvinist, this would play more into your position. Because I think there’s many other Protestants who might agree with you that, baptism is not what regenerates us. But not hold the view of regeneration that I find common in Calvinism because my understanding for many Calvinists is that regeneration occurs the moment before a person makes an active faith. That a person… Well, okay. I mean, you can correct me wrong here. My understanding is that regeneration is something that God does. He unconditionally elects certain individuals regenerates them and that act then causes them to make an act of faith. And so the metonymy argument, it sounds like one could say, “Does faith save us?” And a Calvinist could say, “Well, faith saves us but really it’s God that saves us. Faith isn’t the cause of our salvation. It flows from the fact that God has chosen us and regenerated us.” That’s been my understanding. You can correct me if I’m wrong or if it doesn’t apply to your theology.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, this is where… So Calvinism might do feel is often misunderstood because… And trying to get into this might again… So I’ll speak to it briefly-
Trent Horn:
Yeah, I won’t try to go down this road too much but the metonymy objection you’re making it seemed like it could go in that direction also.
Gavin Ortlund:
… Yeah, I okay. That’s interesting. Yeah, I think the Calvinist doesn’t necessarily say that regeneration is temporarily prior to faith. The most of the time it’s going to be kind of a logical priority-
Trent Horn:
Sure. Especially if God’s timeless, yeah.
Gavin Ortlund:
… Yeah so my big concern with Calvinism is people misunderstand it as though we’re saying God’s sovereignty rather than human responsibility, I.e In this case, faith. And we’re just trying to say, it’s a both end. We’re just trying to say, “In this mysterious way, all of this at the plain of human responsibility, the necessity of faith is true and valid. But just as we see in other aspects of the world, God sovereignty is mysteriously at work alongside other causes.” And so that’s… You haven’t done this, but just for people watching, I just hear these descriptions of Calvinism. So as though we think God just arbitrarily damns people or that you’re not saved by faith. It’s just up to God and things like this. And so I’m always trying to clarify those things, but-
Trent Horn:
Sure. Would you… Because it sounds like you would affirm this statement, “Baptism saves us, but it is not the cause of our salvation?” Have I understood that phrase correctly for you?
Gavin Ortlund:
… Yeah, Exactly. And then if someone says, “What do you mean baptism saves us and all. That’s not the cause, how does it do it?” And that’s where I’d look to where it’s put in 1st Peter 3:21 it’s as an appeal to God. So it’s not baptism. It’s not the act, it’s not your sins aren’t forgiven and you’re not yet regenerated until you get in the water. It’s baptism as the visible expression of this larger reality.
Trent Horn:
Would you be willing to make this same proposition? “Faith saves us but faith is not the cause of our salvation.”
Gavin Ortlund:
It would just depend upon what kind of causation we’re talking about.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
Because I actually would say faith is the cause of salvation for most people. But as I say, I think God can save someone apart from faith as in the case of infants, for example.
Trent Horn:
Okay, yeah. That’s interesting here because when I’ve read up on… And I promise I’ll to go on the rabbit trail too far. Calvinism and other issues here. Other Calvinists have tried to make a big deal that the theological view they have is Monergism. “That it is God alone who saves and anything else that impacts to human beings being a part of salvation is some kind of invalid synergistic system of salvation.” I don’t know if you’ve heard those two? How those are used. You seem to have said before, “No man is involved as a cause in some way, maybe a secondary cause. And it’s kind of mysterious how that happens.”
Gavin Ortlund:
Oh, certainly yes. And that’s my understanding of kind of mainstream. I mean, that you do find more kind of hyper Calvinistic trajectories within the reform tradition, but I mean that’s classic Charles Spurgeon and others who are saying, “It’s a both end, it’s not God’s sovereignty rather than human choice.” Just like in the book of Proverbs it says, “The dice is cast that’s every decision is from the Lord.” And we would say, “Well, that doesn’t mean that you can’t talk about the physical causes. That doesn’t mean that it’s gravity, isn’t a cause also. It’s about the end.” So yeah. Anyway, we’ll-
Trent Horn:
Yeah, we’ll have to leave that aside. But to me it does go down this road when the crux of our disagreement is over the cause of salvation and the word cause can be passed in so many ways. Sometimes it’s helpful to compare that in other elements to see what I mean. But I do believe that it is a primary cause. The only place where I’m willing to allow that there could be exceptions in cases where we have baptism of desire. Where someone… Perhaps it’s the case that God and his foreknowledge recognizes some people who desire salvation, that grace is communicated to them because God and his foreknowledge knows they will perish before they receive baptism. That might be another exception explained. Those might be only cases where I would see it happening. Because the church recognizes the validity of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Like the early Christian martyrs who weren’t baptized.
Trent Horn:
But otherwise I would say that the traditional view would be that it is a primary cause. Though, I will say faith has to be associated with it. If you are baptized against your will as an adult or without your will, it’s not salvific. So faith is involved in it but baptism is still a primary cause.
Gavin Ortlund:
Right, yeah. And, okay, well it’s helpful to talk this through. I mean, I think at the end of the day, what I find myself getting to is I just wouldn’t know how. On any issue, I always try to circle back to it, humble myself before and say, “Am I willing to change my mind if I can see the other side?” And I also try to imagine if I believe this other view, how would I defend it? And that helps me sympathetically understand it as best as I can. So I have times where I try to do that with baptism regeneration. The sticking point for me is both in the Book of Acts and in my just common Christian experience. And this is just one of my concerns. It’s not my main argument actually but is I just don’t wouldn’t know what to do.
Gavin Ortlund:
I mean, I can’t say to these people in the catechetical process, I can’t say to John, “You’re not yet regenerated. Just because, maybe the holy Spirit’s working at you in some way, but you’re not yet made alive to God.” That would just go against everything that I understand in terms of what the holy spirits work in drawing people to salvation is. And I don’t see it as that crazy of an idea to just think, “Well look, we’ve got two [inaudible 00:40:05].” Because I mean, faith and baptism are both spoken of as causative for salvation. So we’ve got two causes here with one effect. And because of what baptism is as a symbolical and representative event, and I’m not saying that’s just a symbol but as that, it just doesn’t seem at all strange to me to say, “Yeah, you’re saved a baptism at faith. And that leads up to baptism where it is kind of formally expressed.” So I guess I’m just… I said, I wouldn’t talk too much here, so I’ll be quiet-
Trent Horn:
No, you’re fine.
Gavin Ortlund:
… That’s just my sort of summative kind, I wouldn’t know what to do with that view, if that makes sense.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, and I think the position that I would take is Isaiah 55:8-9, “As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are your ways above mine.” I am very hesitant to want to include empirical observations of behavior and correlation to behavior to inform my theology. I’d rather have it the other way around my theology is the framework to interpret the different behaviors that I see. And so seeing that, I would say that the act of spiritual regeneration is something so foreign to me as a redeemed sinner. This is an invisible work of the spirit and the heart of man. That my primary source of knowledge for how that happens must come from divine revelation. And I’m very convinced that scripture and tradition of the magisterium all affirm that it’s baptism.
Trent Horn:
What’s interesting, it’s kind of funny I was reading some of the comments… And by the way, for people listening on my channel, you all be nice to [Gavin 00:41:47]. He’s a good guy. I already had my… I did a little announcement when I did a video on [inaudible 00:41:52]. Telling my commentors, you got to relax a little bit. These people, get like that. But it was funny I would say… But it goes both ways sometimes on your channel, I’ll see people saying things like “Well Gavin, [Trent 00:42:02] won’t listen to you because he’s committed to defending Catholicism at all costs.” And it’s like, “Well actually even if I weren’t Catholic, I would still believe in baptism regeneration.” It’s kind of funny, we should play a game with people. What’s your fallback denomination. If you weren’t X what’s the next one you would pick.
Trent Horn:
Like for me it would be Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, then maybe Lutheranism is what… So that’d be fun if you do with your people and with others. What’s your fallback denomination if yours turns out to be false? And so for me, a common thread in all of those is that they believe in baptism regeneration. So for me, that’s how I would look at it when I’m … Because it’s such a foreign thing the work of God here, I’m hardly convinced that it’s a part of divine revelation that it’s baptism, that saves. So I guess that’s how I would put it.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, that’s fair enough. Well, let’s go to another question. One of the ones I put out there was about unbaptized babies who die and what is their state and the historical record on that? And I think I had articulated a concern about selectivity here where there’s an appeal to tradition and an appeal to the consensus of the fathers and so forth. But on this question, it seems to me that all of us today depart from not universal but longstanding tradition. And to summarize that, I would say it looks to me from Augustine on you’ve got limbo… Okay, so you’ve got various ideas. People are trying to mitigate the suffering in various ways, but I don’t see anyone affirming that infants who die apart from baptism get the beatific vision, they get full salvation. I don’t see anyone. And that’s consistent with… There was a commission in the early 2000s that-
Trent Horn:
Yeah, [ATC 00:43:52].
Gavin Ortlund:
… That addressed this. And that’s kind of consistent with their historical summary as well. I don’t think I’m way off on that. Here’s the thing I love the church fathers. I don’t think it’s fair when people accuse me as being a radical individualist who is just kind of making judgements on their own or something like that. I understand from a Catholic perspective, the concern about if you don’t have an authoritative magisterium, you’re just functioning on your own and that kind of thing. But on a question like this… I just believe that there are times where errors come into the tradition. And I’m curious, how do you think about this in terms of, it seems like there’s a pretty long standing tradition here that all of our churches tend to depart from today. I know there’s not just one view on this within Catholicism.
Trent Horn:
Yes, and when you brought this up in your reply… I’m actually quite sympathetic towards this concern that you have. Yeah, I appreciate it in your original reply. And I tried to speak to this that it’s not wise to just triumphantly throw out your little statement and think that resolves the issue, [inaudible 00:45:06] issues are quite deep and complex. Whether it’s what scripture means on baptism or the historical record. I do think that… So I agree with you and the international theological commission that at least from Augustine up until a time of the reformation in the West, there was the common doctrine of the church is not an infallible teaching, but a common doctrine held by every theologian was that infants are denied the Beatific vision. What happens to them, there’s disagreement about that. But that they don’t have the same Beatific vision place in heaven that we do seems pretty common. So let me see if I can process this all through so I’m not warbling around here.
Trent Horn:
I could see your concern saying Catholics will say to you and other baptism regeneralist, “Gavin look, all the church fathers uniformly agree on this. How can you say no?” And your correct response is to say, “Yes but what about other cases where the fathers agree, and we don’t agree with them?”
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [00:46:04]
Trent Horn:
What about other cases where the Fathers agree, and we don’t agree with them? Now, for me, I think that does point towards the need for a magisterium to help us understand scripture and help us to understand what sacred traditions are witnessed in the Fathers and what are not.
Trent Horn:
To give you another example, prior to the 11th century, I think every church father said that lending money at interest was immoral, every single one. And that doesn’t start to change among medieval theologians till the 11th or 12th centuries. And yet our understanding of the sin of… They all condemn the sin of usury. And then they identified that with lending at any interest whatsoever.
Trent Horn:
Whereas the church’s understanding of what constitutes the sin of usury has certainly developed since that time. So it wouldn’t be the case just because the Fathers condemned something, that does not ipso facto mean it’s a part of the deposit of faith.
Trent Horn:
So I think that’s a fair point that you raise. It’s not a slam dunk, but I think it’s a big, giant red flag waving at us to seriously consider and then to help us see what is a part of tradition and what isn’t. And I think to understand what is affirmed in scripture, there’s a need for a magisterium. That’s also the case with tradition as well.
Trent Horn:
So as I said, I’m sympathetic to it, but I still think, though, that this uniform tradition in the early church… Because even with usury, there’s qualification in there, in the Fathers and things like that. To me, its universal status is something at least to be reckoned with. I guess, do you have this position? Is there any Father, and we’ll just cut them off at Isadora Seville. Whatever, the church Fathers, that you would say… Because there could be some where it’s ambiguous, some that deny baptismal regeneration and say, “Here is this view, but it’s not the case.” What are your thoughts on the historical record?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, I’ve addressed this a little bit and I’ll just summarize, but basically I think the challenge here is as the same with scripture, where it’s very difficult, so you’ve got the sign and you’ve got the thing signified. And as with circumcision, one can often stand in for the other. So a lot of times it’s very difficult to tell what the language means. And when I find language like I’ve located in Justin and Cyril, these are the two examples I give, where they all say… I mean, they’ll say you’re regenerated in the baptism, but I think they make it pretty clear that the person that said of was already regenerated. So they’re already, they’ve been made “new,” that’s Justin’s term. Cyril says, he’s talking about Cornelius as an example for the necessity of baptism, actually. So he has a very high view of baptism, but he’ll say he was born again at faith.
Gavin Ortlund:
So my answer would be, yeah, I do think that you can see in the Father’s this complexity here. And this is why I do feel that it’s unhelpful, not from you, but when in comments there’s this triumphant spirit of all the church Fathers, because as soon as you ask, “Well, what do you mean by baptism regeneration?” This “all the church Fathers” thing starts to get a lot more opaque because I don’t think that Justin and Cyril are thinking of the catechumen as just having gotten a kick in the pants. They look like they’re thinking of them as, no, they’ve been made new. They’ve been regenerated.
Trent Horn:
So it sounds like your position as well. With some of these Fathers, we may not have an explicit rejection of baptismal regeneration, but we’ve got views that seem at least contradictory to that notion where it might seem like they’re affirming it one place, but affirming the opposite or something that might contradict it in another place.
Trent Horn:
I guess another question I would have… Look at me, I’m the one asking questions now. Would you agree, though, it seems to me that most church historians, when I read their surveys of early doctrinal history in the early church -J.N.D. Kelly, Everett Ferguson has a great book on baptism in the first five centuries- they all seem to talk about baptism, regeneration. They describe it as universal or most church histories seem to find that doctrine. Is that what you see, at least when you’re looking at other church history scholars or how people sort out… It’s agreed, there’s division in the early church on some things: millennialism, things like that. Lot of church history scholars don’t see division here. would you agree with that assessment of them?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yes, but I would just put in the qualification of, again, when they talk about baptism or regeneration there, I’m not actually sure that they’re targeting baptism as the cause of salvation, where you and I would actually differ, because… David Wright is another one. When I did my Dialogues with Jordan Cooper, I read through Wright Ferguson, oh gosh, a few others, some of the other Anglicans. And this is one of the things they’re drawing attention to is so much of this comes down to the linguistics of it. And that’s why I’m trying to say we should be patient for the complexity of this, is what does baptismal regeneration mean?
Gavin Ortlund:
If it means that the catechumen is not yet made new and not yet regenerated until they get in the water, now they’re in the water, the Holy Spirit regenerates them. They’re out of the water. They’re getting dry. Now they’re regenerate. That’s the time at which it happens. Yeah, that just seemed…
Gavin Ortlund:
So I think what the scholars are summarizing is a more general high realist view of baptism where God is communicating grace. It’s not necessarily saying that’s the cause of regeneration, that’s where it starts.
Gavin Ortlund:
I’m thinking of Wright, for example, the way… Ooh, George Beasley-Murray was the other one, he’s an-
Trent Horn:
Oh yeah, that’s great.
Gavin Ortlund:
… Anabaptist who gets into this and he ends up having a very high view of baptism, but I don’t think it would be where you and I would differ on those questions.
Trent Horn:
I don’t know Beasley. I almost have to just… Let me just… Hold on right here.
Gavin Ortlund:
Mm-hmm.
Trent Horn:
This is… Yeah, I’ve got it. Got it right here, actually. Yeah, but he has a view that he admits himself runs extremely contrary to his own denomination when he says in the book that he’s really a lone figure about what it does.
Trent Horn:
But when I read others, like I think Ferguson and others, in the summaries, not just using the term “regeneration,” but they’ll say, “The Fathers associated baptism with forgiveness or remission of sins.” And they’re talking about baptism itself as that moment of forgiveness.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. But I see what you’re saying, though, about qualifying the language involved. But in any case, go ahead.
Gavin Ortlund:
And one thing I could acknowledge on my side is you mentioned Beasley-Murray’s views at odds with his denomination. Well, I want to acknowledge that a lot of contemporary Baptists, one of the many ways we can be enriched by dialogue with other traditions is we have too low a view of baptism. It’s ironic because we’re called Baptists.
Trent Horn:
Called Baptists.
Gavin Ortlund:
But many modern day Baptists have fallen away even from historic Baptist views. Another interesting book for people to read is Stan Fowler’s book More Than a Symbol. He’s canvassing historic Baptist views and is showing it wasn’t just a symbol for the historic Baptist. There’s all kinds of things that Baptist believe God is doing through baptism.
Gavin Ortlund:
So, Baptists need to rediscover our own history as well because 300 years ago, Beasley-Murray’s view wouldn’t have been as much at odds with the common street-level Baptist practices today. So I always trying to be quick to acknowledge, especially low church, Evangelical Protestant churches have blind spots and weak areas and we can be tremendously helped by talking with those of other traditions such as yourself.
Trent Horn:
Who would you say then is the first Christian author? Maybe it was Reformation, maybe it was somewhat pre-Reformation, that you would point to to say that, “Yeah, this person is affirming my view on baptism in their theological writings. It’s pretty unambiguous.”
Gavin Ortlund:
Well, I’ve pointed to Justin Martyr and his language because he’s basically saying baptism is regenerative, but by the way, you’re already regenerated before you get in the water. And that’s basically what I’m trying to say is, yeah, baptism does save, but it’s not like that’s when it happens or that you’re not regenerated until that time. Rather, it’s baptism in its… That’s the official public expression.
Trent Horn:
Alrighty. Well, actually you were going to ask me questions, so that’s fine. But I think we covered that well about the question is what do we do when we have a lot of the Fathers agreeing on something? And I think it’s important for Catholics to understand we’re not… Some Catholics can do this. They can create doctrine or their own making by their own reading of the Fathers. They need to be careful with that. That’s why the magisterium… The catechism says that sacred tradition is witnessed in the Fathers. The writings of the fathers are not identical to sacred tradition, obviously, but they are a witness to it. So the magisterium helps us to determine when they are witnesses of it.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. Let me ask this question. This is another one I put out. This is a more specific exegetical question about Hebrews 10:22.
Trent Horn:
Yes.
Gavin Ortlund:
This came up, the verse says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith with our heart sprinkled clean for an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Now, the argument I was making is that the Old Testament has language of water, which refers to a spiritual cleansing in Ezekiel, for example, and the New Testament picks this up and baptism recalls this language, points to this language, but the language doesn’t always strictly refer to the act of baptism. And I was saying that looks like that here because this is in the context of perseverance. These are people who are already Christians. So I wanted to give you a chance if you wanted to interact with that first at all.
Trent Horn:
What I would say here is that this is also a reference to baptism. James Brownson, in a 2007 book from Eerdmans, I think the book is called The Gift of Baptism. He references and compares it to Ephesians 5:25 and Acts 22:16, talking about baptism having this cleansing element.
Trent Horn:
So, how I would look at it is that the author of Hebrews is encouraging people to persevere in the faith and drawing on different elements past and present in the life of a believer to spur on that perseverance. So starting Hebrews 10:19, we have, “Therefore brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,” so by the crucifixion happened in the past, “the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, through his flesh…” So we have confidence because of the crucifixion that has happened before. “Let us draw near with a true heart and full assurance of faith with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
Trent Horn:
The verbs there are perfect participles so they are verbs that are functioning as nouns or adjectives, but they are describing an event that is completed in the past, that now has an effect on something in the future. It’s like if I said, “Having eaten dinner, let us go enjoy our walk on the beach.” It’s something that has happened. And because this has happened, this can give us strength and confidence.
Trent Horn:
In fact, the next verse in 10:23, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.” So there the confession, something that we made in the past, you still make, but it’s talking about something that we have made before.
Trent Horn:
And then it goes on , “Stir one another up, not neglecting the meat,” things like that. So I would see that as perseverance rooted in baptismal graces. Things that have happened to us that still have effects today. So I guess that’s how I would look at the passage.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. Fascinating. All right, so question of clarification. The clause there “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an conscience and our bodies washed with pure water,” do you see the hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience also as a past event being recalled? Or do you think that this is in concert with “drawing near, you’re receiving a fresh sprinkle [inaudible 00:58:50].”
Trent Horn:
Well, yeah, I think both “sprinkled” and “washed” are the same verb form as a perfect participle. So I would say that both of them are allusions to baptism, just like going back to the promise that would be in Ezekiel, “Your hearts…” I think the language is “sprinkling” can be found there. And that was also a mode of baptism in areas that didn’t have rivers or a lot of access to water, like desert areas. So I would see both as references to past baptism and the grace is a baptism continuing on.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. Fascinating. So the idea of the verse is draw near to God in the present, having had this happen in the past?
Trent Horn:
Right.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. Interesting. All right, I’ll think a bit on that. That’s good to get your take on that. What about, here’s another specific exegetical question I want to give you a chance to speak to because I raised it with circumcision. One of the things I pointed out is that circumcision of the heart and circumcision of the flesh seem to have this same complicated sign-signified relationship where one can stand in for the other. So I think if I were a Jewish person in the 200 BC, I could say to a Gentile, “Be circumcised, coming to the living God.” Or, “Be circumcised, having your sins washed away.” And what I’m saying is become Jewish, circumcision is the symbol of that, and part of the package of that is salvation. It’s the whole thing. I’m talking about the whole process.
Gavin Ortlund:
And then I mentioned Romans 2:29, where Paul is saying circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Spirit. And it seems to me like he’s teaching us what physical circumcision is. How would you comment upon this connection, tied into our discussion?
Trent Horn:
When you said he’s teaching us what physical circumcision is, are you saying he’s making a reference to the Jewish rite of circumcision, or how the language is applied to Christians?
Gavin Ortlund:
The former, the first of those two. Well, both by implication, but not just how it’s applied to Christians.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. And what I would say is that in Roman’s chapter two, Paul is talking about how everyone is convicted under the law. Everyone stands in need of salvation in Christ, Jew and Gentile. He convicts the Gentiles with the arguments from Romans one. In Romans two, though, he also holds the Jews accountable that just being circumcised is not a magic key to get into heaven, because there’s people who are outwardly circumcised, but their hearts have not been purified. That the active circumcision does not have the same effects on the soul. One must also be circumcised of the heart as a matter of that.
Trent Horn:
I could see how your language might apply there, but that would only show that circumcision as part of the old covenant was deficient in some ways. And this is prophesied in Ezekiel when God says, “I will take your hearts of stone, I will give you living hearts, hearts for me alone. I will write my law upon your hearts.” That there was something that while circumcision was quite helpful in the old covenant to create ethnic boundaries and identities for the Jewish people, it wasn’t enough for that spiritual transformative element.
Trent Horn:
So in all, especially the Pauline corpus, I would see that while the comparison you’re making about be saved, the circumcisions is a sign or seal accompanying it. I don’t think that would apply to baptism because baptism is purposely in the new covenants superior to circumcision in those ways that baptism really does accomplish what it signifies in cleansing the person of sin, making them an adopted child of God. I think that that’s very clear in the Letter to the Colossians, in Colossians chapter two, where you have the comparison with circumcision and baptism and Paul saying in Colossians 2:11-12, “In Him also you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh and the circumcision of Christ.”
Trent Horn:
Verse 12 often starts with the word “and,” but that’s not in the Greek text, “And you were buried with him in baptism.” Though I read them, if you take that there’s no word “and” in the Greek text, “Putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ, you were buried with Him in baptism.” So I guess that’s how I would look at it.
Trent Horn:
I could see how your description might apply with circumcision, but I see it as kind of deficient and baptism has a lot of more superior elements in it to what it actually confers upon a person. So I don’t think it would apply in that case. So I guess that’s how I would kind of look at it.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. All right. Fair enough, yeah. And my sense is, and I’ve thought about this a lot more since talking with Jordan Cooper, is I do appreciate there’s an amplification from Old Testament to New Testament with respect to these signs. So I agree baptism is superior to circumcision in various ways. I wouldn’t see that as located in this sign-signified relationship. And so when I read a verse like this, I could think people could hammer away at a verse like this to argue for circumcision or regeneration just in the way people hammer away at First Peter 3:21.
Trent Horn:
Are you talking about talking about Romans 2:29?
Gavin Ortlund:
Correct. They could just say, “Look, Paul says circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit.” And obviously that just doesn’t settle things. Let me ask you this. Do you, this sentence, “Be circumcised, coming to the living God.” Can you see linguistically how that’s a meaningful statement and how that’s at least at the linguistic level, a possible way to think about sign and things signified?
Trent Horn:
Okay. So you’re saying, there, what it means is it’s not that circumcision brings you to the living God, but you should be circumcised because that’s part of the process that brings you to the living God?
Gavin Ortlund:
Well, I would say it’s the physical sign of the process having happened. You know someone’s a Jew because there’s… And just the same with baptism. When someone’s baptized, you say, “Oh, that person is now a Christian.”
Trent Horn:
Well, Paul’s concern is that their heart isn’t going along with where other parts of their body are. That the heart wasn’t carried along with it. The problem is that the physical act of circumcision is not sufficient enough to cause this spiritual effect onto a person’s heart, and so one has to do that as well, along with the sign. Then I would say that baptism is superior because it really does cleanse and change our souls in that effect.
Trent Horn:
However, it’s not… And I agree with you that it was that some Catholics, if you’re trying to defend this view, it’s like there’s two extremes. Your extreme is it’s just a symbol and doesn’t communicate grace. The other extreme would be hyper ex operato. Once you receive baptism, the graces flow automatically because of the water and what it’s done to you. Whereas Catholic theology recognizes that it’s possible for someone to receive baptismal graces, but for no spiritual fruit to come from it because a person has not chosen to yield to that or allow the baptismal graces to flourish in their life. That a person has to cooperate with it. And so there is a part of faith involved in there as well.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. That’s helpful as a segue to my final question.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
I’ll just say a summary on that. For people watching this, if they’re wanting to try to understand, if the word of “metonymy,” it’s like, “I don’t know what he’s talking about.” Think about what I’m saying about circumcision and think about if that were also the way we thought about baptism, that might help people arrive at a clearer understanding. Because I am sensitive to the fact that some of these concepts, it is a little tricky to wrap your mind around.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, it’ a hard… I think I use this in my video, it’s like if I say the Pentagon told the White House, “Here’s the problems of the Defense plan.” Well, it’s not like that building told the other building what happened. The building represents it was these generals and people that told the president, so I see what you’re saying. I think your example of saved by the blood of Jesus is helpful because we don’t literally believe it’s only his blood. It’s the death of him as a whole person.
Trent Horn:
My concern is that with baptism, we would need a similar argument that like as we’re just highly confident it’s not just the blood, I would need another powerful argument that it’s not just baptism [inaudible 01:07:30]. But you’re right. I will give you this. It is an ingenious way to look at it that has a lot of explanatory power, but you’re right. With grammar, it’s like, what do I mean by that?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. So hopefully, that can help people. But okay, the last question is not at all necessarily even where we would… It’s not a challenge question, more of an invitation type question. Can you understand the concern of formalism that I have where the… See, because my perspective on this… And then after this I’ll ask you what other topics we want to talk about down the road if we want to do any of that too.
Trent Horn:
Sure. Yeah.
Gavin Ortlund:
My honest, sincere, heart-level concern is something that happens so much that I think that baptismal regeneration traditions can push against. So I’m not saying this always must happen for anyone who affirms baptismal regeneration, but what I just honestly see so much at the street level is a formalism where the focus is put on the rite. It’s like, “Baptism saved me so I’m good.” And there isn’t what you’ve mentioned: the need for faith. And there isn’t this sense of…
Gavin Ortlund:
Because the whole thing for me, the sacraments, the whole point, the point is to Jesus Christ. The whole point is you see the water and you think, “That’s what Jesus does to us. He washes our sins away.” You are submerged into the dark water, you rise up out of it and you feel this is what union with Christ is, “I’ve been raised with Christ.” And so the whole point is to point our eyes to Jesus Christ.
PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:09:04]
Gavin Ortlund:
… raised with Christ. And so, the whole point is to point our eyes to Jesus Christ. Can you understand this, the worry here of, at least at street level practice, traditions that think it’s baptism that causes regeneration, can put so much focus on the right, that we get stuck there. We’re not looking from it, up to Christ. I’m curious how you think about that concern and if you can see that concern.
Trent Horn:
I can see your concern, but it’s not as concerning to me. I would agree with you that, for example, somebody who treats baptism, “Yeah, well, let’s baptize the baby so that Nana is happy and look, we got to baptize. What else do we have to do?” Especially, in the case of infant baptism. Now for me, I am very in favor of it, obviously. I’m quite happy that my children are baptized because I know that they’re all below the age of reason. If something were to happen to them, I have absolute, complete confidence, they’re going to heaven, 100%. So, I’m fine with that. But if other people could baptize your baby and then, you don’t instill the faith in them, that’s bad, especially since they have the fruits of baptism. That’s why the Catholic church will not do baptisms, unless there is a well founded hope the child will be raised Catholic.
Trent Horn:
So, if a priest sees that the parents are just doing it to please Nana, it’s postponed until you can see there’s that well-founded hope. But I guess, some thoughts on here. I believe that Christ wants us to have assurance of salvation, but not a false presumption. So, I get where you’re concerned that some people could take the right of baptism and get a false presumption out of it. But I would say that same concern that if you hold the five point Calvinism, if you believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, for example. That just as much, if not more so, could lend itself to the same kind of presumption of saying, “Well, I made my act of faith, however many years ago and I can’t lose my salvation.” So, it’s fine that if one can believe in perseverance of the saints, while dealing with the presumption problem there, I would say the presumption problem is less when it comes to the doctrine of baptism.
Trent Horn:
So, what I would say is that putting salvation and baptism, I think it walks a good line between presumption and lack of assurance. We don’t want presumption. We don’t want someone to think they’re going to heaven, no matter what. I can do whatever I want, it doesn’t matter anymore, really. But, I would also be concerned of, and I’ve met people who say like, “Yeah, I was saved when I was 8 years old, 12 years old. Was I really saved? Now, I’m having a crisis of faith and not everything you believe when you’re 10, you believe when you’re an adult.” I think it makes sense that God would give us sacraments as these objective signs that can be abused to presumption. But, I don’t think so. At least not nearly as much as what other traditions would hold, especially with perseverance of the saints and things like that. So, I see where the concern could manifest, but I don’t think it is as concerning as what you might find. The same problem would afflict almost every other denomination of varying stripes. Does that make sense?
Gavin Ortlund:
Yes. I want to clarify the concern is not so much presumption as I think I used the word formalism of… Or, even we could speak of a ritualism where the object of faith is in baptism rather than in the God who works through baptism.
Trent Horn:
I see.
Gavin Ortlund:
Again, I always want to be careful to distinguish street level practice and official theology because this is one of my frustrations with a lot of the anti Protestant sentiments one hears now and again, in comments and elsewhere is that, common evangelical practice is represented as Protestantism. And, it’s just not true. There’s so much more to Protestantism.
Trent Horn:
But, it is hard. It’s a very large moving target. It’s not to use inflammatory language. For example, I’m hoping, I offered to debate Ray Comfort, for example, and hopefully we will do that in the fall. But, I’m sure you guys might have similar views, might also have way divergent views. I highly doubt his views are nuanced is yours. So, I get where you’re saying, I guess we always… We just have to tread lightly knowing that there’re different strains of belief within Protestantism.
Gavin Ortlund:
And an appeal I could make to Catholics summarizing Protestant theology would be one way for it not to be a moving target, is to look at confessional traditions and quote the confession and say, “That’s the view of this tradition.” Because in other words, the distinction I’m drawing is not that all Protestants are similar. We’re certainly not. But, it’s more between street level practice and official theology. If you want to know the official standards for a Presbyterian, you can look them up and read through the Westminster standards and see, this is what they believe.
Trent Horn:
Sure. I’ll tell you though, what’s the hardest for me. I think why many Catholics have this view, if they engage in comments and say these things is, when you meet a Protestant friend, you ask them, “Oh, what denomination do you belong to?” I could bet, three out of five times, a lot of times they’ll say, “Oh, well, I’m non-denominational.” It’s probably the biggest denomination out there. It’s such a common one.
Gavin Ortlund:
Right.
Trent Horn:
I haven’t done a survey, but honestly I think I could probably say this, that the number of Protestants whose theology is rooted in confessional creeds, I would say that’s the minority. I think…
Gavin Ortlund:
I couldn’t agree to that. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church of America. My experience in that denomination was such where I’m interacting with other others as well. But, even if you are right, the point that I’m making is, then say, “I’m criticizing non-denominational Protestants.” What I was trying to say, my originating comment was, it’s unfair for people to treat non-denominational Protestantism as representative of Protestantism.
Trent Horn:
Sure. That’s why it’s important. And I think it’s important and others who engage in this and I try to do this as well. When you talk about views to qualify and to say… Usually, what you’ll have to end up doing is saying something like some Protestants believe X. I think, you’re really on a lot safer ground, if you say some, instead of all. Really the only things that are all are the things that are not Catholic, like all Protestants don’t believe in the papacy or things… Now, I want to make sure I understood you, because this was helpful clarification. I see what you’re saying. And that went back to my illustration of baptizing for the sake of Nana, ritualism of doing this. This is a concern with any kind of liturgical tradition where you have rituals, you fall into ritualism.
Trent Horn:
I think one extreme is to get rid of the rituals themselves, so you’re more focused. You’re more deliberate. But, I think that’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think that God gives us many rituals. We’re ritualistic creatures. It’s easy. In marriage, the signs of affection you give to a spouse can become ritualistic, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to get your wife flowers. You have to always move the heart with it. And so, that’s why I would say that I see the concern. But, it’s not enough to me to override the importance of, that the sacraments are not mere rituals, though we have a bad habit as humans to become ritualistic, we have to watch out for.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. Well, I’ll just say two comments, one is rewinding the clock about 90 seconds. One thing that as a Protestant, I could make the appeal for Catholics to do is, instead of summarizing, based upon what you see, read the historic standards. So, quote. If you want to criticize Presbyterian church polity, quote the Westminster standards. Or if you want to criticize, you know, whatever it is, just go quote those
Trent Horn:
Or, London Baptist or… Or, of course it depends…
Gavin Ortlund:
Whatever tradition… Yeah, exactly. And that’s something I think, would be a positive step. Because, the thing is evangelical Protestantism is really easy to observe. It’s very large in the United States. Since the fifties and Billy Graham does his crusades, there’re a lot of evangelicals around. So, whenever there’s a majority view, it’s easy to observe it and describe it by means of anecdote. And I really think it helped, the more that people would quote our confessional documents and even evangelicals have those. The other thing I was going to say is, rituals. I just wanted to say in agreement with you, rituals are good. And that the difference here is, we do have a different view on whether the power is in the ritual in some sense.
Gavin Ortlund:
That’s why I think that my pastoral concern comes up is, people think that baptism saves. When an infant is brought to the font and water in the name of the Trinity is put on the infant, they just passed into a state of regeneration. I don’t believe that, but it’s an invitation to see it through my eyes. If you don’t think it’s in that, can you see how this is going to cause people to downplay the role of faith. Not that it needs do that, but that it often does. It seems to me.
Trent Horn:
Sure. And that’s why in the baptismal liturgy, when Catholics would have their children baptized, they say, “What do you seek for your child? Well, we ask for faith, we ask for baptism. And so, we do ask for in the liturgy we ask, ” What do you seek for your child?” “Well, we ask for faith, we ask for baptism.” We do ask for… In the liturgy we ask for faith, especially for the child who does not have faith right now, at all. And that’s why there’s so much that happens about… Even for an infant, there’s a prayer of exorcism that is done. Because of the strong beliefs that the child is still under the domain of Satan. They’re a very cute dominion of Satan, but they still lack that grace. And so, there’s the prayer of exorcism to drive away the presence of the evil one. And also, the prayers over the godparents and the parents and their sacred roles and responsibilities in bringing to fruition the baptismal graces that have been given to the child.
Trent Horn:
So, you’re right. I think that’s helpful and I think it’s good also for other Protestants. And this is something that happens on both sides of any dispute. There’s a dispute about an issue. You’re concerned about the other side. So, you swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I think both sides always have to be aware of when they might be doing that.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. That’s a good point. This has been a really enjoyable conversation and a really interesting one, because this is an area where we’re at the opposite ends of the spectrum as a Baptist and Roman Catholic. So, it’s fascinating to talk. But on other issues, I think people might be curious, what else we’re going to talk about? I know there’s been a lot of questions out here about whether we’re doing debates and that kind of thing. Do we want to talk at all to finish off here about other topics that we may discuss or debate at times. We don’t necessarily need to commit ourselves to anything.
Trent Horn:
Sure. Yeah. There’s a lot to talk about, and it’s so interesting here. I always look for things to do. I’ll do rebuttals. It’s just fun. You need to rebut this person, destroy them. I’ll offer, I think it’s important people to see the other position. But, I much prefer either formal debates or dialogues like this and both have their pluses and minuses. Debates have some pluses, dialogues have pluses. So, I’d be happy to do a lot more with you.
Trent Horn:
Sometimes I have said this. This is not the case with you. There are some personalities I have to put up more guardrails. So, I prefer debate to dialogue. There’re some individuals, it’s just not helpful to do a dialogue. It just isn’t. Debate is more helpful for people to see both sides. Now however, even with someone you can dialogue with sometimes debate is helpful because it allows more of a longer flow of an argument. And for people to assess the evidences that are put forward, which sometimes with dialogue, we can get tempted with rabbit trails. It’s more informal in the exchange. So debate or dialogue, I do think it’s important for Catholics and Protestants to talk about sola scriptura, and also apostolic succession in the papacy. That’s really like the loci of where we end up. It always gets back to these kind of points.
Trent Horn:
I watched your video a long time ago on relics. I thought about doing a rebuttal, but it might almost be fun to have another dialogue. You could come up with questions and I could talk like this. I think, this is a good format for that subject. Because I don’t even think we disagree that much. I thought it was interesting. Because I’ll give you this. Because, this will be interesting to see your thought. Well, with the thing with relics, when I was doing my debate with Steve Christie on the Marion dogmas, the veneration of Mary came up. I said, “Well, I can understand how people might be spooked by that.”
Trent Horn:
But at the same time, I try to ask Protestants once again, see things from my perspective, try to relate to me. I gave an example in the debate, “What would you do? If people get spooked by Catholics showing veneration relics, the bones of the saints, this or that. Kneeling, praying, kissing them, what would you do if we found the cross of Christ? We dug it up archeologically and we carbon dated it. And we knew this is the cross of Christ. And you were before that.” what was interesting is in that debate, I said, “Would you probably fall to your knees or weep or, or kiss the cross in veneration of what our savior achieved, our salvation. And in the debate, Steve Christie was doing this. He was going… He was shaking his head dramatically. No, he wouldn’t. I just thought, I don’t think a lot of protestants would agree with that. I don’t know. I think you might have a different, maybe a different take, or see where I’m coming from there.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah, I can. That would be fun to talk about the relics. One is that I never thought I would do a video on. But, as I’m reading through Martin Chemins and others. It’s one of those. It’s not like the first thing you think of as a Protestant versus Catholic issue. It feels like it’s a little further downstream from other things. But, it gets into larger issues like the distinction between veneration and worship, which is really important for some of the things we differ on. I wanted to say too, I agree with you about dialogues and debates. Sometimes in the comments people will call for us. “Oh, you should do this.” Both have their place. The thing about debates, why I actually feel more relaxed in a debate sometimes, is that you’re guaranteed not to be interrupted. Well, it’s not a guarantee. Somebody could…
Trent Horn:
Hopefully. I have been interrupted in debates.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. I can see how that could happen. But, it ensures the structure, which is nice. But on the other hand, it’s also nice to have less structured things that accomplish a different purpose as well. I’m certainly happy to do further dialogues. We had talked about doing two debates, one on sola scriptura, one on apostolic succession. My understanding is we’re not necessarily doing a sola scriptural debate in a live context at this point, based upon your last email about that, is that accurate? Just so, people know what to expect.
Trent Horn:
Well, I don’t know. Well, we might. I don’t know. It’s really up in the air. I really have to probably stop scheduling these things because I love them. But, they also take up my calendar and things like that. I love doing not just debates, but I like being in person with people. I’m just tired of the… I have a lot more fun when I’m across the table with somebody. That’s why I loved when I was at Emory university a few weeks ago with Nathan Novis. We were in person at the medical school to debate abortion. Just a whole different feel when I could just be across with the person.
Trent Horn:
You’re in California. We could either have you come down to Catholic Answers. We have a great space there to do debates. Jimmy debated Bart D. Ehrman in a great church there. Very well done. Or, I think it could be fun because you’re up in LA Metro area, north of there.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah.
Trent Horn:
It’d be cool to do a debate, something like this at Viola and we livestream it. I think, we have some Catholic contacts there and others. I would love to do something that’s in person, but also has a streaming element to it. It’s just all about the scheduling and finding the time. But, the reason I picked those two topics was I do think a lot of these debates between Catholics Protestants, it boils down to sola scriptura.
Trent Horn:
Some people might think, well, why not also debate the papacy? I think there’s a place for it. I’ve appreciated the debates you’ve done on that. But, my concern always when I do debates with other traditions is I don’t want to debate something where we’re too far apart where it’s like, if I try to debate the morality of slavery in the Bible with an atheist. If he doesn’t even believe in God, it’s going to be really hard to even approach the text in a fair way. Not that I’m comparing you an atheist or anything. But I feel like to me, the doctrine of the papacy becomes much more intelligible if one already believes in the doctrine of apostolic succession.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. I agree with you that both sola scriptura and apostolic succession are both nerve centers for our differences. I’m in principle open to doing either or both of those. People watching this know my schedule. I’m taking May off over the summer. I’m not planning on saying yes to any debates or dialogues, because I’m disciplining myself to finish a book project in the fall. Then, going forward, what I’ll probably try to do similar to what you said, Trent. They’re fun, but they are consuming and we’re having our fifth baby due in August. So, we’re going to have five kids.
Trent Horn:
Awesome talk.
Gavin Ortlund:
So, if people don’t see me for a few years, they’ll understand. But, what I’m probably thinking of doing is doing one or maybe two per semester. One or two dialogues, debates in the fall. One or two in the spring. But, I’ll reserve one of those slots if you want to do one of those in the fall. So, I’ll have that as an option and we can just keep talking to…
Trent Horn:
I say, we do that for sola scriptura. We keep it in person. I think we reached out to Comfort. If he hasn’t gotten back to us, then I’d love to set that up with you. Maybe in the spring we could do something else. And as your schedule lightens and you feel up for it, we can also these interview dialogues. You have questions, you ask me and it’s a bit more lighter than a full debate or something.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. I thought of this one as more of an interview because I’d posed those six questions in my last video. Going forward, I’ll probably treat it more as just a dialogue just to back and forth, share our views and that kind of thing.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, sure.
Gavin Ortlund:
Okay. Anything else before we sign off?
Trent Horn:
No, I think you’ve given some good advice to people and I would definitely encourage them, people who are watching to continue to learn and dive into these various arguments. You want to learn more about what I do? I have my channel, the Council of Trent. I have a book on Catholicism called the Case for Catholicism. That has a chapter on baptism. Although, I’ll probably be revisiting those topics in the future with more updates and things like that. Yeah. Check that out. And then definitely, keep checking out Gavin’s channel and all the stuff he’s doing and his books. He’s got some neat books on atheism. And then, I wanted to chat with you about your book on theological triage at some point. What are the essential doctrines and what or not. So, we’ll figure that out here. We’ll figure it out.
Gavin Ortlund:
Yeah. Much to do. Much to come. This is all good. Thank you so much, Trent, for the great dialogue and thanks everybody for watching. We’ll see you next time.
Gavin Ortlund:
If you like today’s episode become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content for more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.