The Sacraments - Mastering Reformed Theology Chapter 5
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 03. 2024
- Read the Scots Confession: www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/...
Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/
Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo...
Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/
Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
As a Baptist, I find it hilarious how many times I've been picked on in your videos, and yet, I keep coming back. 😂
It's a sign you should give up your inconsistent traditions and become Reformed 😂
same😂😂
You will be assimilated into the presborg. Resistance was predestined to fail.
I wish he tried harder to steelman baptist beliefs, it comes across as a bit uncharitable. I don't know any baptist who would say "baptism does *nothing*". If it did absolutely nothing, what would be the point? Would love to see a conversation between Zoomer and Ortlund about reformed theology.
@@cephandrius5281 the fact that you appeal to ortlund is telling 💀💀💀
You don't know much about him do you?
Baptist: The sacraments do nothing!
Lutheran: They do everything!
Reformed: They were predestined to do something I guess
(good video, but I couldn't help it)
😂
They do everything
you might say that you were predestined to
the strawman of all strawmans
The sacraments are pivotal
I've been attending baptist churches for years, and there's definitely a spectrum. My current church definitely believes that you need to get baptized if you are saved, and it's not just a symbol, but also not a prerequisite to salvation. More like a postrequisite, or the fruit of salvation.
However, we believe that baptism is a personal choice as a product of salvation, that can't be made for us, and it's meaningless if not done from faith, which is why we don't baptize babies. One church I went to would do child dedication, which is more for the parents as a pledge to raise the child in faith, and that the church would participate in the child's discipleship in the hope they would one day accept Christ as their personal savior, which kinda reminds me of the concept of infant baptism.
All that said, maybe the over-individualism of the Baptist traditions is why so many young people feel less connected to the church. Maybe if they believe they were dedicated through baptism to be in the church from birth, they'd be more likely to continue on the faith.
My grandpa was a Lutheran pastor and he affirmed faith alone. All biblical Lutherans do. That's like the whole point of Lutheranism
I was curious about that one. But I’ve heard over time some Lutheran churches haven’t decided where they fall on some issues versus the Catholic Church
@@rawkfist-ih6nk, which Lutheran synods are those?
Reformed Presbyterian here 👋🏽
Thanks for all your work and dedication. These videos are awesome and I definitely look forward to them!
My biggest struggle with sacramentology is how counter-intuitive so much of the vocab is. Even as I came to hold a classically reformed view of communion I still thought I was memorialist for a long while, because I thought that it was the sign cooperating with the believers faith to confer a spiritual benefit to the believer rather than something special about the elements. The power at work was tied to the remembering (memorial) in faith, not the bread itself. Growing up at a staunchly memorialist church, everyone would have said this. We all were clarifying that we thought the elements were bread and wine when we said it was "just a symbol", we were rejecting transubstantiation. We all believed that when taken in faith it nourished us spiritually, and that when taken in an unworthy manner is could bring real harm.
This is not to say everyone there secretly espoused Calvin's view of communion, they didn't but many were incredibly close. If you asked about elements and accidents you would get symbolic language reacting against Catholic error, but if you asked them if God did something to strengthen their faith and unite them with Christ many would have sounded very reformed.
Baptism is often very similar. Almost every baptist I have ever met would agree that:
1.Water Baptism is a sign that is tied to the reality of spiritual baptism
2.Water Baptism is taught by our Lord, and should be sought immediately by any claiming to have faith in Christ
3.Refusal to be baptized is a sign of grave spiritual danger, or lack of saving faith
4.The moment of water baptism is not the moment you were saved, that is spirit baptism, but the two are obviously importantly related
5.Baptism is only effective for those with saving faith
Then the major debate with our Presby brothers cannot be any of those points. It comes down to very specific language that the laity often does not understand in either's churches (luckily we aren't saved by perfect doctrine). Further the infant baptism debate really heavily hinges not on anything in this video but on the specific way that baptism and circumcision do AND do not correspond. This is a complicated argument on Covenants, Christs efficacy as mediator, and visible versus invisble church. Again something that is not primarily about how baptism works or what it is, but about the nature of the covenant community and their children.
To give one last example: Lets take baptismal regeneration. Baptist say you are regenerated at your spiritual baptism, not your water baptism. So they usually respond that they reject baptismal regeneration. Presbyterians say that you are regenerated when you baptism becomes effectual, which is separated in time and space from your water baptism → but because of mostly different vocab (which is an important way we protect our doctrine, but can also make these conversation unnecessarily contentious and confusing) they would sometimes say they reject or affirm baptismal regeneration depending on who you ask and how.
God bless you to any one who actually read through this.
Thank you so much for this explanation; so much of this boils down to the lack of consistent communication between denominations. I think we all agree more than we think we do... We're reading through the same Bible, after all.
Love the Genevan psalm melodies in the background. I grew up Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands and these melodies have been with me my whole life. More intimately now that i am an organist.
Calvinist music is based
@@redeemedzoomer6053Gregorian chants are better.
Which Genevan Psalm is in the video?
As a german lutheran, I'd like to point out, that our understanding of baptism is closer to what you described as the reformed view. We don't believe that "baptism saves" in the way, that if you get baptized as a baby with water you're automatically saved. There may be some that do think that, namely what we call "paper christians" (only christians on paper, as in registered in a church register) but we generally think, that baptism is one way of creating faith (not we create it, but god) because the bible says, that faith comes from hearing (or reading, you know what I mean) the word of god. And since baptism is water combined with gods word, it has the potential to create faith. Just as if an adult is listening to a christian cermon, or apologetics video. That's how we think about the baptism. It's the faith that saves you, or as you described it, the baptizing with the spirit. Just think of all these people who were baptized as a child, grew up in the church, have always been christians and don't have one of those points in time they can point to as the moment they were born again. Those have always had faith, we think they received it at baptism. But without faith, your baptism is worthless.
I'd like to quote Martin Luther from his own Big Katechism's section about baptism. (I'm german so I'll translate it from my german booklet here myself.)
"The faith alone saves, but it needs an outwardly sign it can hold onto, like baptism" (Just like you explained the reformed view in this video. So we can "see" our salvation.)
"Now some of our smartipants claim, that faith alone saves and works and outwardly things contribute nothing. To that we respond: Of course this is only a work of the faith, as we will hear later as well. But what those blind-leaders don't want to see, is that the faith needs something to have faith in. That means, something it stands on, something to hang onto. So the faith hangs onto the water und believes, that the baptism is something in which life and saving is; not for the water's sake, as has been said often enough by now, but because it is mixed with god's word and command and because his name is glued to it. If I now believe thusly, what other thing do I believe in as in god? Because he is who gave his word into it and planted it, and gave us this outwardly thing in which we can grasp this treasure?" end quote.
In a later section he says:
"[...] 'who believes and gets baptized is saved', that means faith alone makes a person worthy to recieve the redeeming, divine water in a useful way. Because what is thaught and promised with the words about the water can not be received in any other way than if we believe it from the bottom of our hearts. Without faith this water is useless, even if it is a divine, overflowing treasure. [...] Because it is unshakable: Who has no faith contributes nothing and receives nothing" end quote. (the last sentence is about salvation)
6:44 : thank you, I was thinking about re-baptizing myself but yes, it makes sense if you are baptized by Holy spirit, then your child water baptism just gains power / meaning, not that it was wrong. It reconnects as you say "because God is outside of time" ... makes sense. Thanks :)
odkud jsi?
3:30 In Catholic Theology (Aquinas) something different happens when someone in a state of mortal sin or doesn't have faith in the Eucharist receives communion they do receive the body of Christ sacramentaly, but instead of recieving it spiritually they recieve judgement (like 1 Corinthians says)
This is why in Catholic Theology there is a distinction between spiritual communion (can be received together with the sacrament or through prayer by a faithful desire of the sacrament) and sacramental communion (where the faithful substantially receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly present in the form of both species, the Bread and the Wine)
Lutherans and Anglicans have a similar concept with the recieving judgement when recieving the eucharist if your living in unrepentant sin thats why most Lutherans and Anglicans have confession before the eucharist
@@luanbrooks4334 sadly, not every Catholic Church has confession before mass
@@carlose4314really lame.
@@carlose4314 Venial sins are confessed and forgiven during the mass. "I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters that I have greatly sinned ..." But many churches do offer formal confessions before one of their weekend mass times.
Posted 6 minutes ago? Uhhhh..... quick! Say something funny!
PUMPERNICKEL!
SNICKERDOODLEGANABANAS!!!!!
CHICKEN BUTT
PNEUMONIULTRAMICROSCOPICVOLCANICSILICOCONIOSIS!!!!
🔥🔥🗿🗿💀💀🗣️✋🤥✋
Mountains aren't funny, they're hill areas!
Best 10 minutes of the week
“I say that is means is, as long as the definition of is is not is.”
-John Calvin, probably
Is means is when the context of is means is literally, hopefully that is comprehensive of the debate.
This coment capture Essence of protestantism
RZ forgot to say that the Bible teaches that all those to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ will have eternal life (John 6:53-56), so there is no way an unbeliever can have it. This, with all the other explanations given, shows that Calvin's view is just the most accurate.
@@pedroguimaraes6094one must examine themself before partaking of the body and blood, lest they sin against the body and blood of Christ.
Dude, have you ever heard of the thief on the cross?
I'm very thankful to God that I listened to this today. I was just talking with my wife about having our 4 yr old baptized and this has greatly cleared things up for me. Thank you.
my goodness i was just searching to see if you done a video on the sacraments thank you for your service
Point of clarification, that's not the "Baptist" view of the sacrament of the Table, but the evangelical/non-confessional view. The 1689 takes a very strong position against transubstantiation, but also against the view of the supper as merely eating bread and drinking wine.
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."
I'm once again begging Presbyterians to stop using "Baptist" as a synonym for "non-confessional" 🥲
And yes, if you're born in a country you're a citizen of that country - which is why being born of the Spirit makes you a citizen of the Kingdom of God ❤
Each and every name in Protestantism has long since been deturpated.
Arguments against transubstantiation are nonsensical.
It's Christs body and blood or it isn't.
Christ said it is.
It still not as accurate as the reformed view because the London Confession does not hold to reformed Covenant Theology.
How many confessional baptist churches exist in the US today?
@@gumbyshrimp2606a few, I suppose. Look for one that subscribes to the 1689 Confession. They do exist.
Here's what I think sums up the Baptist view of other denominations:
Roman Catholics - people that love wine and worship Mary
Lutherans - Catholics that love beer but don't worship Mary
Anglicans - Catholics that don't want to talk about why they're not Catholic
Methodists - Catholics that don't drink
Presbyterians - Catholics that don't move
Pentecostal - Crazy
Change wine to statues and you'll be more accurate.
What about evangelicals?
@@indigofenrir7236isn't that just a slang term for baptist, anabaptist, and mega church non denoms?
@@drascalicus5187 Lol not even close.
@@indigofenrir7236 What is this strange "evangelical" denomination then, because I haven't heard of it?
@@drascalicus5187 Conservative traditional Christian with emphasis on evangelism.
Idk if that's even a sufficient description.
Separating baptism and faith by time is separation. The argument that god is outside time doesn't work since humans are not outside of time. Your faith is being separated from your baptism when the words and action are separated. This is not a matter of trying to empower humanity with salvation, it is a matter of declaring your faith both in word and in action, much in the same way that faith is expressed by faithful speech and faithful action, and one without the other is dead faith.
Since salvation was always by Grace through faith since the OTl, so everything you say could be applied to babies being circumcized. Btw, in the Reformed Churches those who were baptized as babies do need to make a public profession of faith later and in order to take communion we simply do not equate Baptism as a public declaration of faith.
Well put. Baptism does what God says that it does, in time and space. God is faithful, and He promises to save us through Baptism. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:3-7, Titus 3:4-7, 1 Peter 3:21). He also promises remission of sins through His Body and Blood, which the Bread and Wine of Communion truly are, whether you put your faith in Him or not. (John 6, Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
This would only be correct if it were humans doing the works
I'm Catholic and I've very much been enjoying your videos. I've been keeping up with this series and honestly, I don't see a significant difference between our beliefs. It seems like the reformation was necessary back when the church needed it, but that time time is gone realistically. The Catholic church reformed by studying the the Protestant denominations. We view the church as being the authority to interpret the word of God, but the word itself is still unchanging and unquestionable. Through the will of the Lord, may we be united again one day.
Thanks for what you are doing brother
Been following a lot of your content with Kyle and Jay Dyer. My best friend is Orthodox and I am Reformed. Your content and discussions have helped me greatly as I navigate learning about the sacraments and church history.
@@TheOnlyContobe cautious of Jay Dyer. Hes not universally accepted in his own sect
I was so happy to see this on my notifications! Thanks!
This explains so much!!! As a Non-Denom trying to understand Reformed Theology, I thank you for laying this out clearly
Really appreciate your explanations - your channel is a blessing brother!
My church in the Netherlands seems to be filled with those ‘pres-bap-terians’ you mentioned near the end of this magnificent video, so I think I might share this with some of my fellow church members!
dew it!
Same here in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil;
Prot theology over simplified: " Jesus who? Anyways...Were not Catholic"
I'm a Baptist that's in between Baptist and reformed just a little bit XD. This is blown way to far out of proportion like how some people in my church believe the rapture and some don't, but we are the same church. For example, I could say the rapture is a stupid thing to my parents and they would agree but if I said it to my grandparents, they would disagree, but we go to the same church. Instead of arguing about everything and making a new denomination they just need to except that there can be multiple ways of interpreting things.
Well, I would argue that the rapture is not as an important a topic as salvation issue.
@@aaronadamson7463 Rapture theology completely changes your view of God and the world. Is it a salvific issue? Of course not. However, it is a very bad teaching that has actually pushed people out of the faith.
My brain is physically growing by watching these!
WHY ARE YOU UNDER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THIS GUY'S VIDEOS!?
@@elijahcandage I just like his content lol, most theology videos are complicated but he makes everything easy to understand and also makes it slightly entertaining too.
I'm proud to be a reformed Baptist
You are a particular Baptist. The Reformed tradition has been there for 500 years and Baptists who affirmed the London Confession always refered to themselves as Particular Baptists. Only in the XX century they started calling themselves "Reformed". Sorry, you are not part of our tradition.
Helpful.
This video led me to the realisation I'm a moderately strong baptist.
Depsite not being reformed.
I like this channel alot!
And this is why we need theology teached to our youth. Thank you again for your service m8, God bless you
Uhhhhh
Welp, you convinced me to become Presbyterian. I love this tradition
Confessional Baptists in my country believe in reformed view on sacraments.
If they hold to the London Confession, it is closer but still is not the same. They loose a lot of it because they do not hold to Reformed Covenant Theology.
Such a nonsense.
So why don't they baptize infants?
The 1689 does hold to the spiritual real presence but if you look at their section on baptism they remove the part on efficacy.
@@laiquende9971 They really want to be called "Reformed" but they also really DON'T want to baptize babies rs.
my church takes communion really seriously, and we are baptists. It so sad to see that people portray baptists so poorly. We also have to get baptized before communion, and only the people who baptized do the communion.
my baptist church allows for anyone who has accepted Jesus to take it, no baptism required
I’m baptist and I first want to say thanks for being fair in the video. Essentially the way I see it is that inward and outward baptism can be compared to what happens when a couple gets married. Inwardly, they are making the covenant together with god and outwardly they celebrate it physically with the wedding ceremony surrounded by their loved ones. At my church, we also have it as a requirement to become a church member.
The Reformed view of the sacraments are close, but no cigar.
Viewing Baptism as contingent upon one's faith, undermines the objective and monergistic aspects of the Gospel, and thus, ironically, God's Sovereignty. Rather than being able to look to one's Baptism when one is in doubt, the Reformed view can, also ironically, lead one to an Arminian/decision theology view of one's salvation. In other words, instead of focusing on one's Baptism as an objective work of God performed on us, regardless of ourselves, it becomes an issue of "Did I have enough faith when I was baptized?"
The Lord's Supper is supposed to be a reflection of the union of the divine and physical in Christ Himself. Christ cannot only be true God and true Man based on our faith in Him. He is the perfect Godman regardless of our own faith or lack of faith in Him. The Body and Blood only being the Body and Blood if one believes makes no sense in this regard. It also minimizes the very real danger of taking His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner: 1 Corinthians 11:27-34
I think the reformed view is not that our faith brings about the body and blood of Christ . The body and blood of Christ is always there in sacramental union with the elements for both believers and unbelievers .However unbelievers have their teeth and mouth to feed on the elements but do not the spiritual organ to eat the body and blood of Christ . That organ is faith and only with faith can one eat the body and blood of Christ .Only believers have both organs for physical and spiritual eating .
St Augustine says that evil men do not eat the body and blood of Christ . He says prepare your heats rather than one's mouth to feed on Christ .
Could you do a video or make an instagram post explaining Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I grew up in a Pentecostal community where Baptism of the Holy Spirit and being Born Again/Regeneration are separate events. It appears, from what I understand, that you're saying that they're one and the same. This has been a topic of great confusion for me for a long time. Thanks so much for all the work you do! God bless!
Baptism of the Spirit = regeneration and being sealed, Ephesians 1:13
This was an excellent explanation. I was baptised along with my family by sprinkling at a young age (3-4) in a reformed church and now find myself at a baptist church.
I refuse to be rebaptised as scripture clearly teaches there is only one baptism, but the pressure is real and the denial of my baptism by this denomination sucks.
This video helped tremendously. If you have another up your sleeve about modes of baptism I would love to see it.
Why not attend a church in-line with your theological convictions instead of one you hold deep disagreements with on an issue that is important to that denomination?
At the moment I tend to side more with the Baptist view. Zoomer's explanation didn't quite stick with me of the sign and the signified operating outside of time. Surely God does, but we do not so long as we are here on Earth. It seems that a sign (Physical Telling) happening before what it signifies is an empty sign. Smoke with no fire to put it another way.
All demonstrations of baptism given to us in the Bible detail full submersion, we Baptists therefore believe that baptism should be via submersion. When someone who was 'sprinkled' as a baby comes to faith we would baptise them, not recognising the childhood experience. This differs from Anabaptists, who will rebaptise under all circumstances when a person joins their church, regardless of what has happened to that person before. Baptists will not baptise someone who has already received full immersion
Immersion
Affusion
Aspersion
Depends how you were baptized. Was it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Did the church affirm the nicene creed.
This was actually very helpful as I recently found my way back to the church after a long time off and I’m trying to understand what Presbyterians actually believe
As a Muslim myself I have watched every chapter. And it feels great to see different understandings about God. Thanks for the videos.
Also I am studying catholic church so your videos make me understand the basics of Christianity so love your videos. Keep up the great work.
This is about the reformed tradition so innately anathema to catholic teachings.
@@CashFreedman In order to understand something, I want to learn its antithesis as well as its own ideas. But yes you are right.
@@CashFreedman Also the videos are great to watch, such explanotary things are rare to find
May our loving Creator be your guide. He loves you and He wants to fellowship & commune with you! The most important thing to know is that Jesus (Isa) laid down His mortal life and shed His blood as a propitiation for your sins, to give you the opportunity to be restored to a right relationship with the Creator. Jesus said,
John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
We believe that our Creator is so great, He is more than one Person (the concept of personhood and the concept of being are united for a human, but the One who created all things is far beyond us; it is easy for Him, one Being, to be three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Our Creator loves us so much, He incarnated in a human body to communicate vital Truths to us, to redeem us from the curse of sin which came upon all descendants of Adam, and to help us understand His plan for our lives.
Peace. 😊
Can you elaborate on the scriptural basis for the distinction between the sign on the one hand and the thing signified on the other as opposed to both being the same thing? Thanks!
Well, I'm a strange case in this. I consider myself a Sacramental Baptist. My view is similar to the Reformed view that you explained but with some differences. The main is that Baptism and Communion are not only effective for salvation but also to confirm the damnation of the unbelievers who partake in them. In that sense, because both are pledges representing a spiritual reality, those who partake in them have to be accountable about their effects. I take this primarily from Peter, who describes the Baptism as tied with the accountability of individual and compare it with the Flood, that destroyed the sinners, but saved the justs. In that sense, I think that baptism independs of the time that it's administrated to be effective too, but the better administration hold the individual accountable caring that they not pollute the rest of the body (the Church).
P. S. : sorry for my bad English, I'm Brazilian!
RZ forgot to say that the Bible teaches that all those to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ will have eternal life (John 6:53-56), so there is no way an unbeliever can have it.
"Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.'"
Not as strange as you may think. I'm the same as you and that view used to be a lot more common among Baptists.
Being Baptist allows a broad view on the sacraments but basically there is the traditional Baptist believe that Baptism is a declaration of faith and the Supper is just a memorial. And there is the London Confessions view, hold by Particular Baptists, that hold that we receive Christ spiritually in the Supper (but i think they don't say that It is the blood and body of Christ ), and Baptistim still remains more like a declaration of faith. London Baptist are closer to us but they loose a lot of it because they don't believe in reformed Covenant Theology, that it is the idea that the OT and NT are the same covenant, but just a different administration, and the Baptistm and the Supper are just a substitution of the signs of Circuncision and Easter, but the inner reality mantains. Baptists also have a more individualist view on the Church and the Sacraments while Reformed have a more colective/Kingdom, since we see us more strongly as a continuation of Israel.
Obs: I'm also Brazilian :D
@@pedroguimaraes6094 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[h] 31 But if we judged[i] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[j] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Corinthians 11 says other wise
@@pedroguimaraes6094Pedro, batistas reformados que subscrevem a confissão de Londres afirmam uma teologia do pacto reformada. Bem, talvez você diga que não é reformada até que se afirme que o antigo testamento e o novo testamento são o mesmo pacto, apenas em diferentes administrações. Penso que é uma definição arbitrária de reformado, e sem amparo histórico, mas tudo bem. Você já leu o livro do Pascal Denault, por exemplo?
I was taught in confirmation that Episcopalians/Anglicans retain other sacraments from Catholicism along with baptism and communion such as confirmation, ordination, unction, matrimony, and confession.
Hey, you’re awesome, thank you mate!
Nice video, Zoomer! Maybe you could do a future one where you look at books that are good for getting into reformed (and maybe just general) theology?
Cool video man - I appreciate your content more and more
Yo Zoomer, picked up and started reading The Mystical Presence by Nevin per your rec in another video. It’s awesome.
John Calvin was the middle way with sacraments. He both agreed it was ridiculous to worry about spilling the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion, but it was equally ridiculous to not believe we drink the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion.
1:18 where did you get that actual footage of me, and why are my words visible in little speech bubbles?
Have you read Gavin Ortlunds article arguing against reformed paedobaptism called "Why not grandchildren?" I think it's pretty persuasive. I grew up Presbyterian, and have been struggling with these issues for a bit now and reading Bavinck has firmly pushed me to the credobaptist side because the way that he describes what baptism is and does for converts seems to be what I'm seeing in scripture... but then switches it up completely in talking about infant baptism and what it does and means for babies of believing parents. Feels like two different baptisms. Much respect for the reformed folk. Most of the authors on my shelf are reformed.
Do you not hold to the saving efficacy of baptism?
No it's not, it's just a reductio ad absurdum
Thanks for the great videos! ❤ how do we log onto the minecraft kingdom craft server? Thanks
The effect of the sacrament of water baptism is by the power of the Spirit
Hi! Which books do you recommend that deal with the sacraments from a Reformed perspective?
This was far less unifying of Protestantism than your usual videos.
I'd disagree with the Chalcedonian point. True bread, true body, etc is the Lutheran view. Two natures, one essence. Its Catholics and transubstantiation that might better reflect the Monophysite type for the sacraments.
I'd also ask, when you say "spiritually" there, can you actually define what that means? If you can't, I'd argue that's almost the same as symbolic, like when people say they're "spiritual" when asking about their faith.
Jesus often talked in parables like saying "I am the door", but wasn't referring to an actual door. When he says "This is my body" he is referring to a "this", that being the bread. I'd have to say, "Is means Is" is something we should consider greatly. Its what Jesus said, directly, and he did not feel the need to clarify. If you were to imagine asking him if he meant "This represnts my body" don't you think his response would simply be "This is my body"?
My final question is why people don't accept the very literal take. Sure, you might say scripture doesnt argue for it (as the inverse would apply to any other position) but do you have a personal problem with it being the literal body and blood? Is that where the extra analysis comes from, to try and disprove it?
Reformed Presbyterian here! You keep creating remarkable videos thank you! What song did you use at the end when talking about John Knox
Baptism saves? But whaddabout the thief on the cross?
While on earth, Jesus had the authority to save/resurrect those He willed to as God. Doesn’t entirely apply now because none of us will hang on a cross next to Jesus with a chance to profess our faith in Him to Him
Rewatch the first 3 minutes of the video. But if you don't, It's not the water baptism that saves, but it's a symbol of our salvation shown to the outside world, not the salvation itself.
Faith saves. Unless you believe the Son of God dying for your sins is meaningless until you add water, commit vampirism and do some cannibalism.
Thats why we call it "ordinary means of salvation".
Baptism wasn't required until the promulgation of the gospel, after Christs blood was poured out, he died and was resurrected.
the unlikes on this video are extreme
as a Lutheran, I lean towards "it is usually best to keep it simple."
I’m a Baptist minister awaiting my ordination, and my church agrees with your definition of the reformed position on the sacraments. My church also practices the other 5 sacraments, excluding confession to the pastor/bishop/deacons. Only confession and repentance through prayer is necessary. We don’t, however, practice infant baptism. I don’t see anything wrong with it though. We also don’t believe in predestination.
What is that music near the end?
If baptism is the same as circumcision then does this exclude women from being baptized? (rhetorical question obviously the answer is no, but it does show that you can't just equate baptism and circumcision)
We can, because the Bible does. Just a few examples:
Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision.
Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Reformed theologians argue that just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.
It absolutely does because it didn't exclude females from the old covenant either.
Circumcision of the flesh, circumcision of the heart.
Being born again began with baptism, and that's how the entirety of Christianity taught it until prots got their own ideas.
Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples:
Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."
This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision. - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision.
Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.
Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples:
Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision
Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.
Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples:
Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision
Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.
This view on baptism really helped put me at ease, as I was wondering if I should be rebaptized since I was as a child when I was baptized. However, is there anything regarding the mode of baptism that changes things? I was baptized by the sprinkling of water on my head, not dunked in it. Would that in any way make it ineffective?
1:23
Best lutheran satire video ever
Hey brother. I know we discussed on one of your last videos on the comment section before. But I want to call you to be true to Reformed Baptist(confessional, creedal, covenantal) we and I as well agree with your view of the sacraments. Not all Baptist have that same memorial view or empty view of the sacraments. I know your videos are to educate people, so I would call on you to be honest. I’m not saying you’re breaking the 9 commandment but you are kind of getting into the territory of 9C violation. By not being honest about your Reformed Baptist. Again I love you as a brother in Christ and this is why I feel comfortable in commenting on this video. I’m not here for an argument or to make a show for people in the comment section.
I think he’s just generalizing and due to the wide variety and very decentralized way Baptist churches are, not all will agree with ur take (i believe generally reformed zoomers take is true of most “reformed Baptist”, escpecislly those prevalent online) God bless
I can understand that. But not all Presbyterian churches agree and there’s a wide variety. And I just think since if he’s teaching on history, theology, and etc.. he should be honest with his audience. Particular (Reformed) Baptist right from the beginning always distinguished themselves from the Arminian Baptist and the Anabaptist. They made it clear in their confessions and in there writings
Thank you for commenting brother, I came to say the same thing. Baptist is quite a broad title, I myself being a Reformed (or particular) Baptist Christian would hold what this video calls the Reformed view of communion (spiritual presence) but disagree with its justification of infant baptism and it's silence on baptism by immersion
@@ReformedBerean yes he doesn't force other traditions to own that most of their churches have abandoned their confessions, baptist are very singled out and don't get to be represented by their historic confessions when say Lutherans, Anglicans(remember Episcopal is the mainline), and Methodist do.
@@philc.2504 yea I would just hope he takes what I’m saying into consideration
So do y’all have a record of the baby baptisms and do y’all have a ritual or ceremony for adult salvation?
So, Baptist here. Honest question, in the reformed view, are there individuals that receive the sign (water baptism) that have not and will not receive the thing signified (spirit baptism) ?
Are nonelect sometimes baptized? The Reformed view is that baptism saves, but only for the elect.
@@ihiohoh2708 So, your answer is yes. I'm not being combative, just have sincere questions.
Agreed that even in a Baptist church, a person can receive the sign without receiving the thing signified. But that is only because we are unable to truly determine the status of the individual's heart (whether regenerate or not). All we have to operate on is the external, their outward works and words. If we deem these outwards works and words to be indicative of regeneration, we baptize. Could we get it wrong, of course. There are those who were with us but were never "one of us."
My second sticking point and question is regarding Acts 2 and Peter's instruction to "repent and be baptized." it is often quoted that this "promise" is for you and your children. What exactly is the promise the infant receives upon baptism? Are they receiving a promise that one day they will receive the remission of sins that water baptism signifies? Are they receiving the promise that one day they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?
I have asked this question before but I am still unclear what the Reformed answer is
Fellow Baptist here. Yes I think so, my example being that at our church we have previously heard credible testimony and baptised people who have since revealed through their actions that they are clearly not Christians - we prayed that they were merely backsliding and would demonstrate their salvation again, but alas unless they do they clearly were never truly saved
@@ihiohoh2708 So, yes is the answer. I am sincerely asking questions and not trying to be combative. I agree that even in Baptist churches, there could be people who receive the sign but never receive the thing signified. But the difference is that we only give the sign to those who claim to have received the thing signified. We are trying our best to administer the sacrament to those people who have demonstrated that they have received the sign. Of course, we get it wrong sometimes because we cannot see the condition of their heart.
The real question has to do with Acts 2 and the "promise is unto you and your children." I have asked this question to Reformed people before but I can't seem to get a straight answer. What exactly is the promise that the infant is receiving? It seems that the people who obey Peter's command of "repent and be baptized" are receiving a two fold promise - 1 the remission of sins and the 2 the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is the infant receiving those things? If not, what is the promise that is communicated to the infant?
For sake of clarity, I will just simply state that I think the more plain interpretation of the verse is that this promise is for "you" (Israel) and your children (future generations, or descendants) and for them that are afar off (Gentiles) The language seems to be corporate, that is, speaking of nations or people groups (Israel/Gentiles). Furthermore, the Bible does use "children" in contexts that mean something other than infants. Take for example, the "children of Israel" are clearly not all infants but descendants of Jacob, who is Israel.
RZ has great content. Love what he is doing. I disagree with this point here but appreciate his ministry!
@@ihiohoh2708 I have typed out two responses and they don't seem to be going through
When should communion be performed? Does he have a video on that?
I don’t mean to nitpick but in reference to baptizism not being separate, can you maybe explain Acts 19:1-6?
1:21 with how the thief on the cross was mentioned and how this could mean baptism doesnt save potentially, It would be nice to have an explanation, because its a genuinely intriguing question
Interestingly the big theological conundrum between the infant vs adult baptism thing happens when one has received the former, and then joins the a denomination that believes the latter.
If you stay in a denomination that believes in infant baptism, then you've already had it and thus won't be expected to get it again. Whereas the ones who don't won't face the rebaptism issue because they get it once they believe in Jesus for their salvation.
I feel for those who find themselves in that position though, and have to decide what is theologically accurate. Though we at least can say that, so long as we agree on the key fundamentals of Christianity (as laid out in the nicene creed) then it is not a decision that will affect salvation.
Clearly explained
Thanks
Anything on the original immersion process which was a ritual washing in the mikveh?
Hey Zoomer i want to ask a question that is really important to me: what is the most conservative church? With westboro baptist, jehovas witnesses, mormons
2nd: what is the most conservative church with a big empasis on Tradition?
Thanks
where can I find the song that starts at 8:47?
what if you get baptized on a cult (7th day adventist) and then, years later, recieve the batptism of the Holy Spirit, after leaving the cult. that means i have to be re-baptized?
Might become Reformed ngl 🤔
I respect your Presbyterian analysis and terming of Lutheran Sacramentology but I hope it's clear that we aren't applying those terms and analysis when we are merely affirming what the Scripture says. This is our confession.
Man i've always new re-baptizing was a little iffy but never could understand why i thought that.
I would love to see a baptist (or others) do this from their point of view
So correct me if I’m wrong but your saved by faith in the blood but also saved by baptism when you believe what I just said so your getting dubble saved?
I thought the Lutheran's believed in Consubstantiation which is different than transubstantiation. Is this correct?
You need to make videos with interview about conversions of Catholics to protestants and vice versa.
So my Southern Baptist Church has a lot more reformed theology than most in our community. For one communion for us is the true presence and our Pastor has made it very clear that folks should not take Communion without being saved. However, we still do not believe in Infant Baptism. Now I believe full-heartedly in the Church I am in being one that the presence of God is still there since I remember being saved there at the altar of that church. And I still feel very much at peace everytime I enter the sanctuary. However, I do wonder how I should start the discussion about what our Church really believes. Frankly, the more and more I think about and look around me, the more and more I believe we are a lot more disconnected from the rest of the Baptist Churches around us in that our theology and our practices are different. I am still unsure about Baby Baptisms and I will pray on that bit, but a lot of videos from you and other channels have made me think a bit as of late. Especially considering how spiritually dead or weak a lot of churches are around us, whereas we still are going strong. But I guess I am trying to find out whether or not we believe more in aspects of reformed theology or mainstream baptist beliefs or a mix of both.
Reformed Theology is a theological tradition, whose believes are summarized in the reformed confessions (Belgian Confession, Heidelberg Cathecism, Canons of Dort and Westminster symbols), and has been like that for 400 years, it is not just about TULIP and just believing in some form of "spiritual presence" in the Supper (Methodists believe the later too). If you don't hold our confessions you are not reformed. The reason why London Baptists do not baptize babies is exactly because they do not hold to reformed covenant theology and, as it is said by our theologians, Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology. Historically, Baptists who hold to London Confession used to call themselves "Particular Baptists" and was just a few decades ago that they started calling themselves "reformed" Baptists.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 so I guess my next question is how does one slowly begin to move their Church towards that next theological step. Again, part of me is still unsure on the matter of baby baptism, but I also don’t want to write it off without understanding a bit more. Granted I grew up in the Methodist Church, and I was baptized as a baby, that being said I really don’t believe that baptism was real since we had a Female “Pastor” who conducted it.
Cool video. I'm a Pentecostal and we have basically the same view of the sacraments/ordinances as Baptists i.e.:
1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone
2. Baptism and Communion are works
3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion don't save
But after reading John 6, I can't sustain this anymore. I have a more sacramental view, that goes:
1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone
2. Baptism and Communion are Grace
3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion save.
So, I still am searching for the views of "anamnesis" which make a more deep spirituality of the "stickers" of the ordinances without being sacramental, but Idk it seems sketchy. But still, I'm searching a direct instruction that Communion and Baptism (specially this last one) are Grace.
Baptist churches where I live have the reformed view about sacraments.
This is a very helpful video in understanding not just the Reformed position, but also other views in relationship to it. However, perhaps it may be better to describe the Lutheran view not as "Monophysite", so much as "Miaphysite". Like the Miaphysites, Lutherans would claim that the Lord's supper involves a mystery of how the emblems and the Lord's blood and body are united. In essence then, this conflict over how the sacraments are to be understood, resurrected the ancient conflict between Chalcedonian Christians and Oriental Christians regarding the person and natures of Christ. While history may never repeat itself, it does rhyme. May we as modern protestants learn from our ancient ancestors. Fascinating discussion. Peace my brother.
Calvin also said some interesting things regarding head coverings. Care to cover that topic in a future video?
Thanks, now I know I'm a Baptist.
Baptists: when you get baptized, nothing happens. But if you don't do it the way we says it, then the nothing happens won't happen. So you have to do it the way that we says it to make the nothing happen happens. Even though nothing happens.
I love this meme
Baptism doesn't do anything but if you don't it our way the thing that doesn't happen won't happen 😂
Water immersion baptism is a public declaration of faith, while spiritual baptism happens at the moment of faith.
Baptism of fire is... hell. Idk why many people misinterpret this one.
@@indigofenrir7236 "Water immersion baptism is a public declaration of faith,"
yeah, that isn't in the Bible
neither immersion nor "public declaration of faith"
you've turned baptism into a empty, bare, individualistic sign
@tomtemple69
That’s semantics. Baptists are bad about making cliche phrases and making slogans. Public profession of faith means sign. Immersion is where we get the word Baptist and it’s just a habit and symbol not a requirement. Usually referencing Jesus in the river but we lack rivers in the churches so for some reason we install bathtubs so I’ll grant you we are a weird bunch but most of this is misrepresentative of at least the majority of Baptists I know
@@rawkfist-ih6nk "Public profession of faith means sign'
yeah, they've turned God's sign to us into a sign from man to the crowd
" Immersion is where we get the word Baptist"
it's ironic that the denomination named "Baptist" is the one who baptized incorrectly 😂
"Usually referencing Jesus in the river but we lack rivers in the churches so for some reason we install bathtubs "
Jesus was sprinkled, not immersed....
Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper is the most accurate, because Jesus said that all who receive his body and blood will have eternal life. Therefore, there is no way they could be in the elements so that an unbeliever could have them: "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.'" (John 6:53-56)
That’s not true the about what the baptists believe about the Lord’s supper, London Baptist Confession 1689 says that they are spiritually receiving Christ. Chapter 30 Part 7.
No no, only every other denomination gets to be represented by their historic+confessional standards.
The Lutherans don't have to own that most Elca laity don't know their confessions, but still get to be steelmanned. Just baptists are fair game because Congregationalism bad 😔.
Any tips with continually falling back into the same sin?
Confess and pray.
I once read: we were not built / designed to overcome sin we Need Grace and Jesus
REPENT and ask the Holy Spirit to transform you
Nice video!
So basically, Reformed Christianity is the "well ackcthually" of protestant christianity. Got it.
Edit: i think after this, though, im gonna go and take a look into the scots confession
I’ve been struggling with Catholicism and these videos help put into perspective why I hold Reformed theology. Would you ever do a video on Thomist vs Calvinist predestination? The Thomist view is something that made me think maybe it’s possible to be Catholic without sacrificing my theology 😂, but at the same time it seems the Catholic Church has moved far and away from this view with its current teachings and theology and leans much more molinist.
As a former cradle Catholic, I would advise staying far away from them. Between their worship of the wafer, the prayers to saints, the iconography, and the extreme attention & adoration given to Mary, they are a hot mess.
@@rexlion4510 Thank you for the warning. If you don’t mind me asking what caused you to move away from the Catholic Church. Are you Reformed?
@@masonmcgahey7 I don't mind you asking at all. I prayed and asked God at age 18 to fill me up with His Spirit. I didn't expect to feel or experience anything (what Catholic ever does? LOL), but suddenly _I knew that God was Present inside of me,_ and He began _communicating_ to me in "thought pictures" so fast I could scarcely keep up. I've never been the same since, obviously! It was He who began urging me gently to explore other churches and He who began exposing the errors and accretions of Roman Catholicism to my understanding. I resisted for 8 years, because the RCC had taught me that there is no salvation outside of the RCC, but finally I became obedient and left it.
God led me to attend an Assemblies of God church for 6 years. Then when He asked us to move 1,000 miles (on faith) to another state, He took us to a couple of non-denoms for about 25 years. Then another 2 years in A/G. Then He unmistakably led me into an ACNA Anglican parish, where I've been for about 5 years now. I so appreciate the weekly Communion and the traditional hymns!
@@rexlion4510 Wow, that is quite a story, amen brother. I appreciate you sharing your testimony, it gives me confidence to keep praying and trusting in where the Lord is leading me.
I’ve been apart of a Church start and have been in a non-denominational Church for the last 2 years. While we are non-denominational a majority of our Church family is Missionary Baptist and a small fraction of us are Reformed Baptist. I’ve noticed a lack/negligence of Church History and Tradition that is present in Non-Denominational Churches or Baptist branches in general. I am firm in belief that Church Tradition and History does not supersede the word of God, but I’ve had a hard time feeling edified when almost everyone in the church has a disdain for systematic theology and history. It’s been hard for me to grow when it seems more of a nuisance. I feel as though me and the more reformed members are slowly getting pushed out. It’s had quite an effect on me but I pray that God leads everyone involved in the situation in a way that glorifies him and there is no ill will. As I’m quite reformed in my theology I am feeling drawn to visit some Presbyterian Churches and learn more of Church Tradition and History that has an emphasis on Sola Scriptura. The Anglican Church has also been interesting to me. Im surprised you went from Catholic to AG to Anglicanism, when looking at a history of each denomination and its traditions it seems like an interesting journey.
I recently had a bible study group at my baptist church discussing the sacraments. Obviously, the one congregation cant speak for all Baptists, but we were all pretty much in agreeance with the reformed view. Just wanted to throw that out there to prove we arent nestorian in that aspect.
Edit: See 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 30, Paragraph 7
By this paragraph I only understood that "baptism" is equal to being part of the visible Church, but do you believe that any grace is actually communicated in baptism? If so, why babies are not baptized? Peter said that the promises of the Covenant are from the children's of the believers. Do you believe that we are spiritually fed and united with Christ in Holy Communion? Answer these questions and tell me if your vision is really the same as ours.
Question. Since you have a reformed view on Baptism wouldn’t infant baptism be redundant since they don’t have the baptism of the Holy Spirit rendering baptism ineffective?
no cuz the efficacy of baptism isn't tied to when it's administered
Idk if your Pentecostal but I went to a Pentecostal church and one thing that didn't make sense is that they would pray for baptism of the Holy Spirit for children as young as 8 years old they believed some of them received that baptism based of them speaking in tongues but they still would not allow them to be baptized in water until they were 16.
@@mercinc2926 nahhh gang I’m not sure I’ve chosen a denomination yet but I lean more towards Baptist than any other church. I’ve definitely heard of Pentecostal churches doing weird stuff like that though
How do you know they don’t though?
@@ihiohoh2708 because baptism of the Holy Spirit requires faith
How did you get that picture of me at 4:54?
How does 1 Corinthians 11:29 fit into the Reformed view of communion?
"Baptism now saves you" -St. Peter
Richard, your new beard makes you look like a young Ridvan Aydemir (Apostate Prophet)!
Also hey! Chapter 5? Did I miss 1 - 4? Or is that just my old age catching up with me. (I'm only 41 but fell away and I drank and drugged heavily in my 20s or so and my brain is a bit addled by time and abuse"