Baptism - Basic Meaning by Dr. James White (2nd in series)

Watch this very important and informative sermon from Pastor James White's series on baptism. This is part 2 in the series. Dr. James White spends time dealing with the foundation of the subject of baptism. What does the word mean in its original language and context? Further, Dr. White demonstrates, through a small sample of church history, some of the important aspects understood about baptism by the primitive church.
We pray that this series is a blessing to you. Tell someone!
You can get more at apologiastudios.com. Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video. #ApologiaStudios
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy. In our Academy you can take a courses on Christian apologetics and much more.
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Twitter: apologiastudios?l...
Instagram: apologiastu...

[@ApologiaStudios]

Do you want more exclusive content from Apologia Studios? Subscribe to Apologia All Access for that, and more! From podcasts to live shows, seminary training to behind-the-scenes, All Access has it all! Click here for more info!

[@mikepruett1745]

distracting with people in front of the camera tripod height an issue??

[@twood6992]

As a microbiologist, water does not keep very long at warm temperatures (assuming it is not chlorinated like our current municipal water). It will quickly become very contaminated at higher temperature. Cold water, e.g. refrigerated, will keep and thus it would be characterized as clean or more pure. Seems in first century, they already knew this. Same goes for moving water which will not get so contaminated as opposed to stagnant water. All these point to an idea of cleansing both in a spiritual sense, as well as in a real physical sense. No one wants to take a bath in dirty water.

[@ReformedOudeis]

Thanks so much guys for posting this series! Far too often the subject of Baptism is given a very superficial treatment by folks who identify more with the Baptist tradition. This is an excellent and notable exception. Please continue to pursue this study diligently as this area is something about which today’s church is woefully ignorant.

[@skibike8499]

I praise God for this day and the people who’ve invested their lives to make it possible to hear about the history of the form of The Word we have in our hands today that has been so obscured in the past. May we focus on the work of Christ and let these things of debate be secondary to the calling to love God and others and make peace. And thank you Dr. White for your obedience to Gods direction.

[@AmericanShia786]

I knew about John Calvin's writing in the Institutes, but NOT Martin Luther, nor Francis Turrentin, nor Jerome or Cyprian! Incredible stuff!

[@jacksoncastelino04]

I found Dr Brant Pitre' explanation on Baptism is Absolutely accurate according to its proper context

[@OldMovieRob]

I found this very helpful.

[@sally9352]

This brought to my memory when I got baptized. I was living in Puerto Rico and got baptized at a waterfall. It was beautiful and you could feel the Presence of the Holy Spirit. You could feel His Spirit of on you and the and waterfall sounded like a lion roaring and you could feel the sprinklers of the water falling on your face. Praise God for His mercy! Thank you Holy Spirit for bringing in memoorence what you have done for me.

[@tatogl2616]

guess the waterfall was presbyterian

[@Stormvetprime01]

@@tatogl2616 if the water from the fall encased the baptizee completely then that's immersion. it's not a "below sea level" requirement, just covered by water. Usually that's easier in deep water because waterfalls with that kind of volume (encasing but not smashing one down) are rare.. I'll stick with how Jesus did it, encased/under water "for righteousness' sake".

[@tatogl2616]

@@Stormvetprime01 I said it because the waterfall was sprinkling her and Presbyterians sprinke.

[@Stormvetprime01]

@@tatogl2616 I get that but your comparison is too loose. Presbyterian (or Roman Catholic) sprinkling involves less than an ounce of water on someone's fingers or out of a small, hand-held basin. This barely covers the forehead, say 3% of their skin. A waterfall ENCASES the believer in water (100% of their skin) and is no different in saturation than submersion in a deep water basin like a river of baptismal. Big difference.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@Stormvetprime01 LOL, you haven't seen my pastor Baptize. He cups as much water as he can in his hands and does it three time for each member of the trinity. People come out drenched.

[@jlinscott8529]

When is part the 3rd part going to be released? Thanks, and God bless!

[@estimatingonediscoveringthree]

What great teaching

[@monew632]

Lol, Dr. White! “Have a gay old time” is from the Flinstones theme song. You meant “don we now our gay apparel” or perhaps, “make the yuletide gay.” 😉 sorry-I did hear the rest of the message, but that line struck me and I had to giggle.

[@Kim_Roberts]

I'm glad you made that comment Molly, someone had to.

[@tricord2939]

He was not quoting the Hymn. 😀

[@Stormvetprime01]

Yeah that's perplexing. Guys named Don have to dress like they come from San Francisco.

[@jayheinz4624]

Molly!! I love The Flintstones theme!!🎶😅 and you're right!

[@Stormvetprime01]

Semantic Domain! Great analysis. I have a question: The Bible says God does not treat with Mankind using different standards per creature. However Christ assures the thief on the cross, after an on-the-cross conversion, that he would be with Christ in heaven. So post-conversion, presuming the Romans didn't let the thief down for a quick dip in the river, the thief on the cross was never baptized YET made it into heaven. How do we handle this? The fact that the thief never did any post-conversion "good works" (excepting a reformed heart/mind) affirms Scripture backs THAT up (works don't matter for eternal life).

[@garrisonprice3568]

Hey Will, I see your comment has gone unanswered but those who adhere to baptismal regeneration i.e. certain Lutherans, old-school Church of Christ-ers, etc, would probably reference the fact that since Christ had not died and been raised or given the great commission yet, that baptism was not the means of salvation. That obviously raises the issue of their understanding of how individuals are saved before the resurrection, Paul examines this thoroughly in Romans 3, 4, and 5. However, in my limited experience through dialog with a pastor of a old school "Church of Christ" church, they might renounce the idea that Paul was speaking of the righteousness credited to Abraham as Salvivic. This pastor stated that since Abraham had shown "faith" before the reference quoted by Paul in Romans, that therefore Abraham was saved before God credited his faith to him as righteousness in Genesis 14, and therefore Paul was not speaking of Justification in the salvivic sense in that portion of Romans. I assume he would extrapolate that out to all of Paul's epistles and try to use it to discredit the clear teachings of those passages regarding Justification by Faith Alone. Just want you to be prepared with what the other side might present if you use the example you presented, you might want to be prepared to ask some follow up questions regarding how they think individuals were saved before christ resurrection. Also, just so you have this in the apologetic toolbag, you can present that this sort of interpretation fundamental distorts Paul's argument and the consistency of his argument/presentation throughout Romans. Why would he talk about a none salvivic sort of "faith" sandwiched in between Roman's 1-3 and 5 onward. I think it is clear Paul was not intending to convey that the righteousness God credited to Abraham was non-salvivic, rather he was teaching that was when God credited the righteousness of Christ future work to Abraham. This leads into how those who disagree with that view, understand salvation (monergistic vs synergistic) and man's deadness and slavery to sin, etc. Apologia also has a cultish episode with a former Church of Christ individual that discusses some of the issues with their theology. Hope this helps answer your question my friend😊👍

[@twood6992]

Isn't it true that a major driving force of infant baptism in past history was because infant mortality rates were so much higher. They wanted to, in a sense, baptize them into the new covenant in case infant death occurs.

[@ReformedOudeis]

Everything I’ve read on the subject points to the phenomenon being a laity-led movement that put together 2 concepts both the idea that baptism remitted sins and that physical death was the punishment for sin. Since so many infants died before maturity, concerned parents saw the theological dilemma and demanded the sacrament for their children. Augustine was left with the task of providing a systematic justification for the practice in his later years especially due to the Pelagian controversy.

[@Stormvetprime01]

@C Christ was immersed in the Jordan at 30 years old, no head sprinkling while filling his diaper, so yes, there you have it, Christ set the example, credo-baptism which means fully covered in water, most easily accomplished with DUNKING. I suppose a waterfall would work, provided it drops enough water to encase the baptizee.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

Reigning with Christ, circumcision was replaced by baptism by Peter's declaration, and rather than babies being circumcised into covenant with God, babies were baptized into covenant with God, as the promise of baptism is for you AND your children as taught in Acts. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@savedbygrace7982]

At the Council of Carthage in 252 it was discussed whether babies should be baptized on the 8th day, or right away, because even back then it was already seen as an entrance into the New Covenant, as circumcision was in the old. Household baptisms were already long being performed at that time. Calvin didn’t make up this connection. Covenant baptism isn’t new. I’m not sure what Dr. White is referring to in that respect. There are differences in the efficacy of baptism of infants between RC’s and Reformed. But the reasoning for household baptism is the same. Also, baptism having a solid meaning of immersion doesn’t explain the use of the word in referring to Noah and his family on the ark where they remained dry, or the Israelites passing through the sea, where they also remained dry, or Jesus referring to his crucifixion as a baptism, where he wasn’t immersed. Maybe Dr. White will address these references in a future sermon.

[@rexpaden9509]

Where do we get that list? 34:35? I’d love to get a copy of it.

[@supersmart671]

3000 people being Baptized in Jerusalem. How is it possible without sprinkling in place where (Jerusalem) there is not much water?

[@jimratter5561]

When Paul talked of "one baptism" in Ephesians was he not referring to how there were two baptisms during the Acts period, water and Spirit, but that after the Acts period was over and the Jews lost their special status there was only Spirit baptism?

[@robertoarriola-bustamante9169]

Acts 2:38 and 4:11-12

[@daric_]

I think it has to be interpreted as a triad. Commentators such as Hendriksen have made this observation. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". This isn't speaking of the mode of baptism, or whether baptism in water regenerates, or any number of things people claim it says. Rather, it speaks of one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we profess our faith, and in whose name we are baptized. I falsely used this as a Mormon to show Christianity was apostate and only one church's baptism was valid. God saved me and showed me the light.

[@rachaelmckeeth6811]

Anyone have the Chris Wiseman (I'm not sure of the spelling) site that he said is his friend who compiled the quotes on baptism?

[@michaelschneider9305]

You are so pretty

[@psalm51ajm]

I was wondering the same thing

[@PeterGoeman]

Does anyone know which website he is referring to when he says his friend Chris Wisdonin? I can't find anything online. I would like a link to that compilation of baptism quotes.

[@amichiganblackman3200]

14:17

[@amichiganblackman3200]

42:10

[@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104]

we have access to bays & gulf

[@aletheia8054]

I think he got his definitions from Wikipedia or something. Girdlestone and McClintock cyclopedia say something a little different. I noticed he never revealed his sources. He’s 90% correct in his history of the Greek word. But the little bit he lacks makes a difference. Why can’t he mention his sources?

[@zacdredge3859]

15:45 Sounds like Baptism to me. 😅

[@hammerbarca6]

Can we get links to the quotes?

[@wc8048]

I gotta say this outfit is very dapper.

[@TheTiminator180]

@Apologia Studios I LOVE these sermons and watch them every week. Thank you so much for posting these videos! Question though: baptism signifies and seals the washing away of our sins and the belonging into God's covenant. If infants are to be excluded from baptism, one of the following must be correct: the definition I gave is false, infants are not apart of God's covenant, or God has commanded us to specifically exclude infants from baptism. Perhaps I am missing something, which I will try to be humble in accepting if that's the case. Thanks in advance!

[@TheRealIsildursBane]

They would say it is the second: Infants are not part of God’s covenant; the New Covenant. I am still working through my belief in paedobaptism vs. credoaptism, but I do know they only see the elect as part of the New Covenant and the only way for us in our finite minds to ascertain if one is elect or not is through profession, thus baptizing upon profession of faith. The paedobaptist believes that they are part of the New Covenant just as they were part of the old and a child of a believer must be baptized just as a child of a Covenant member was circumcised in the Old Covenant.

[@TheTiminator180]

@@TheRealIsildursBane okay. If children are not part of the new covenant, does that also imply they would not enter into the kingdom of God if they were to die?

[@Aaronsm83]

@@TheTiminator180 I think so. Baptism aside, infants presumably do not have saving faith. And I think the conclusion follows that no elect person, in this view, would die in infancy, because it’s incoherent to say God elects someone but doesn’t justify him/her via the gracious gift of saving faith. So that suggests that the only people who die in infancy would be those who weren’t predestined to salvation through faith.

[@TheTiminator180]

@@Aaronsm83 this seems to be inconsistent with scripture. Jesus himself says, “do not deny the little ones to come to me for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14. Also, “for the promise is to you and to your children as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him” Acts 2:29

[@Aaronsm83]

I don’t think either of those passages establish that infants can have saving faith. They certainly aren’t inconsistent with pedobaptism, but I don’t think the most reasonable reading of them counsels it. I see Matthew 19:14 in two pieces-command and explanation. First, the command: children should be allowed to encounter Jesus. Jesus doesn’t specify whether he means only that children should be physically brought to him in his incarnation in the first century CE or that children should be taught about him forever, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s the latter. That makes sense whether one is a credobaptist or pedobaptist. After all, if a child can only be baptized in a credobaptist church by making a profession of faith after his 15th birthday (or 16th, or whatever), how can he profess faith if he wasn’t taken to church and taught scripture as a child? The preaching of the word is often the Spirit’s means of creating faith. Second, the explanation: the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. That statement isn’t totally clear, but I think we can narrow down what it could mean. Because some children aren’t elect, it probably can’t mean that the Kingdom of God belongs to all children, unless it belongs to those predestined to damnation. If it belongs to only to the elect, then, it may belong to them because they will *eventually* by saved by the gracious gift of faith, sanctified, and glorified. But that doesn’t require us to assume that even elect children, during infancy, have saving faith pre-justification, any more than an unrepentant adult does. Moreover, “such as these” may mean not people of a similar age, but people of a similar spirit: people whose spirit towards God is the bold, empty-handed spirit of a child towards its parents, a spirit that asks for what it wants without worrying about trying to “earn” favors. That spirit probably suggests saving faith. This isn’t a slam dunk passage, and I’m not saying that this is definitively what it means. But it is not so clear that we can confidently say it resolves the issue. The same is true of Acts 2:38-39 (38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”). Clearly, not everyone whom “the promise is for” could be baptized the minute Peter said this, because it is in part for “all who are far off,” i.e. people who haven’t been born yet. So the promise of God, which is here “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” may be the promise of salvation to the savingly repentant (“Repent and be baptized”). But one can’t come to faith and repentance before being born, so I don’t think the reference to “your children” helps answer the question of when children can have saving faith and ultimately when people should be baptized. It could very easily mean “your offspring and future descendants, once they are born and are old enough that they can and do have faith.” By the way, I am not a convinced credobaptist! I just think it’s a very tough question. The best arguments for pedobaptism, in my view, are these: 1. Even if an oikos does not mean or require a household with children in it, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that none of the oikoi in which all were baptized in the NT had a single child. 2. Dr. Ligon Duncan made a pretty powerful argument from silence based on covenant theology. He remarked that if on the morning of Pentecost, children of believers were in the covenant, and if that evening they were out of it, surely many believing parents would have inquired and worried aloud; and that he found no trace of that anxiety in the NT. EDIT: Post edited lightly for clarity.

[@michaelharrington6698]

Wheres the 3rd?

[@matthewbroderick8756]

"Arise and wash away your sins, be baptized ", ( Acts 22:16), for "baptism now saves you", ( 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5). Plus, the Flesh of Jesus Christ is True food and Blood True drink, ( John 6:53-55, Matthew 26:26). No one brings condemnation on oneself for consuming a mere symbol in an unworthy manner as Paul warns in Corinthians!

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@Nero IV John 6 is exactly about the Lord's supper as the Church Fathers attest, such as Jerome and Augustine and Ambrose and Athanasius, as Jesus Christ is the new bread come down from Heaven, for His Flesh is True food and Blood True drink, just as Jesus Christ teaches at the Last supper, "this IS MY BODY, TAKE AND EAT". ( Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:24, 1 Corinthians 10:16-18). You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!

[@Kurt2222]

The unleavened bread and fruit of the vine are symbols of Christ, and its a spiritual condemnation for taking it unworthy. The last supper Jesus told His disciples "this is My body...." and yet that was BEFORE Christ even died. So it IS SYMBOLIC, not literal flesh and not literal blood. Baptism is SYMBOLIC in the mind of God where salvation actually occurs. Water baptism is only spiritual washing away, not literal. It's absolutely necessary but these are SYMBOLIC/spiritual. It's like saying someone "touched your heart" by speaking to you. It's not literal obviously. In John 6 after Jesus said what catholics take out of context, Jesus said His words are Spirit and Life. So how can literal "words " be "life" ? That's symbolic/metaphorical, not literal in and of itself.

[@jayheinz4624]

Interesting and in-depth look at baptism! Let's remember though Jesus kept it simple, simple for a child to understand! just believe in him! Jesus plus nothing ,,saves you! Baptism is an outward expression of our belief in Christ! Baptism does not save look at the thief on the cross ,,,,he didn't have time to be baptized as well as many many others who died in Christ without being baptized..

[@bridgeofgraceandyou5687]

Baptism is a ritual cleansing g for JEWSat 30 yes old that are to enter into the priestly Levite operation in the temple. Where did John the Baptist get the information to baptized in the Jordan?

[@AveChristusRex]

Protestantism is a new religion. No one read the Bible like Protestants until ... *drum roll* ... Protestants.

[@AveChristusRex]

@Eyezayah What is a Romanist?

[@AveChristusRex]

@Eyezayah Protestantism was a movement in the 16th century. Catholicism is the faith of the only Church Jesus founded. He did not found the Protestant church. He founded the Church in 33 AD, not in the 1500s.

[@AveChristusRex]

@Eyezayah There's a very great difference between the interpretation of the Bible and the interpretation of history, since history is so much more explicit, both in written form, and in writings about practices and prayers that PRECLUDE certain interpretations. If someone in history says This passages means x, that's an explicit interpretation. If a passage just exists, your opinion may or may not be true. We're not looking to the Fathers of the Church for infallible opinions, but witness to what was believed. If all the early Church was Protestant, I would be a Protestant if I believed in Christianity. Otherwise I'm just like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim the church was immediately corrupted from its inception right up until a few centuries ago - I don't care what 'denomination' you are, that is untenable nonsense. I'm willing to humor some reasonable Protestant contentions, but not that big fat, obvious false-prophet lie.

[@AveChristusRex]

@Eyezayah "Rome DOES look to the Fathers for support of infallibility" Yes, that falls under "We’re not looking to the Fathers of the Church for infallible opinions, but witness to what was believed" You don't have to be an infallible person to say 'this is what I or the church believes.' And as to the assumption of Mary, it was celebrated hundreds of years before even the East West Schism and is still celebrated by both Orthodox and Catholics. It is moreover the prerogative of the Church guided by the Holy Ghost to interpret the deposit of faith. So for example since the New Testament depicts Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, it teaches us a lot about Mary. One thing about the Ark is that it was 'buried in a cave' and 'went missing.' Just like Mary's body was buried in the tomb and 'went missing.' We have no relics of Mary, even though relics were always cherished, and Mary as the most cherished saint of them all. This all points to Mary being assumed, but the Church can declare objectively by its authority given by Christ what is the actual truth of the matter, from the implicit revelation. It doesn't contradict Scripture, if anything Scripture implicitly teaches it, especially Revelation 12 where Mary is the Ark seen in God's heavenly Temple, standing on the moon, symbolizing being above change, and in the heaven of heavens. Every time you see 'haha the church only declared that a dogma so many years ago' you have to remember that the average time for something to be declared dogma is like a freaking millennium after it was already preached and taught and celebrated. And when it wasn't, the clear seeds were there, such that if you reject the dogma, you would reject the seeds also, proving yourself a heretic who never had a home in the only Church founded by Christ and thus given a right to interpret the Scriptures and Fathers. I also distinctly remember that St. Epiphanius compares Mary to Elijah and Enoch who were taken to heaven, or, without seeing death, and said that we don't know whether Mary died or was taken to heaven alive. Strange thing to say for someone who doesn't believe in the Assumption.

[@TheKingdomWorks]

Defining a word simply by the meaning of its root is a fallacy. The word bapto is NEVER used in connection of Christian baptism. Must define by the use of baptizo in scripture and classic Greek

[@Kiyomoto657]

This was interesting. I have always believed Calvin led more men to hell than any other. However, I will listen to what you have to say.

[@ethanhocking8229]

Why?

[@ktcarroll4723]

And yet 98% of churches refuse to baptize into His name into His death even though no where in the Bible was anyone baptized in Father Son Holy Spirit no where but the 2% of churches that do baptize according to Acts 2:38 is called a cult but I stop short of saying a person is not saved if they baptize in the names/ titles Matt 28:19

[@ktcarroll4723]

And Calvin indirectly or directly was involved with a man burned for teaching Jesus name water baptism

[@ethanhocking8229]

@@ktcarroll4723 The man was burnt for attacking the Trinity, as far as I know. Calvin did not advocate his burning, but supported his execution.

[@Stormvetprime01]

@@ktcarroll4723 Great! So can people stop calling us who agree we find predestination and immersive, credo-baptism in the Bible "Calvinists"? We're just "Reformed" which means "what Christ originally said - no popes or pointy hats or incense."

[@ktcarroll4723]

@@Stormvetprime01 I hope we can as a body come together and just serve the Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and truth becomes we live in some crazy times keep your eyes on Jesus and off Washington DC

[@nikeinjesus1668]

KT Carroll. There is no contradiction in the Bible, therefore what Jesus said in Mt.28 is not in contradiction with the you read from the lips of the apostles. They understood and did exactly what Jesus commissioned them to do before He ascended to heaven. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, KT, the apostles did not alter from the instructions given. Therefore the misunderstanding falls on you. How you interpret scripture, based on what you've been taught. Jesus said "all authority is given unto me in heaven and on earth." Then He commissions his disciples to go throughout the world to preach the gospel. If they believe, they are to be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles made sure the crowd who were cut to the heart understood perfectly, that the command to be immersed was not from their (the apostles) authority, but by the authority of Jesus. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." It's like when an officer commands you to stop in the name (authority) of the law. In the NT there are no instructions/formula of wording which is to be said over a person who is obeying the gospel. According to Jesus, when we are baptized into the name of the Blessed Three, we are baptized into their possessionship. We humbly bow to their will. When the Pharisees refused to submit to John's baptism, we read they "rejected the counsel of God not being baptized of John." Jesus sits on that counsel as well, imagine the fate of those who refuse to submit to Christs baptism today.

[@oneofmany7768]

"It stops most bullets..." Personal experience? Lol...

[@jaquirox6579]

In the military most of us kept our mini pocket Bible in our left chest pocket, which is over the heart. Hearing stories that it would stop a bullet, just as well as our 40 lb Kevlar vest.

[@rhondahauser1750]

As James White says, compare with the (3) recognized English versions (Wycliffe, Tyndale & Geneva ) before the KJV and then the versions after, with the KJV. This will reveal truth. “Only Begotten Son” is written before the KJV and in the KJV, and removed from most versions (modern day versions published after 1960), ASV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NLT, etc. (This is a title of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God)! There is only one “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, JESUS! He was begotten of the Father, he was born of a verging both, he was without Sin, he rose from the dead, JESUS, the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Also look for the word “Lucifer”, it’s written in Isaiah 14:12 in the Wycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva versions, and the KJV, and removed from the NIV, NASB, EVS, NLT, Message, ASV, etc (All published after 1960), with the exception of ASV. This is the name of Satan, which has been removed. The Word “JEHOVAH”, is written in the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva and KJV, and removed from ALL versions written after 1960, including the NKJV. (JEHOVAH is a name prophesied forward to the New Testament, who is Jesus, read Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 & Isaiah 26:4, this will interpret the word Jesus in the NT, your everlasting strength and your song, God almighty over all the earth (Revelation 1:8, written in ref, Jesus speaking, he is the Almighty) , your salvation -SAVIOUR. JEHOVAH is written in all caps. If you remove all vowels from JEHOVAH (there are no vowels in Hebrew), you will have JHVH, the 4 letter Hebrew word for God! And all modern day versions have removed “JEHOVAH”. Look at Revelation 22:14 the word “commandments” has been removed and replaced with “wash you robes”. The instruction in Revelation 22:18,19 says we are not to add or remove from the prophesy of this book, and that is exactly what has happened in (Modern day versions). WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Because in all versions there are instructions and through a process of elimination we can remove false (manmade versions). Selling Bibles makes a fortune. All versions which have removed the Titles of God are counterfeit versions, IF YOU FOLLOW GOD’S INSTRUCTIONS! That eliminated all versions written after 1960 as true translation. BAM! They are paraphrased versions (manmade. Now we have the recognized English ASV, published in 1901. It used the word JEHOVAH beginning at Genesis 2:4 the problem with this is that the B I B L E says, by the name JEHOVAH he (God) was not know unto Abraham, Issac and Jacob by the name JEHOVAH, but by the name Almighty. Therefore, we know that man has removed the title of God, which is LORD and added JEHOVAH in place of. Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. Instructions: Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18,19, same instruction in the Old and New Testament, nothing has changed in all versions. For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if ANY MAN shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this PROOHESY, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. We are not to add or remove from God’s word. All versions who have removed “Only Begotten Son, JEHOVAH, Commandments, Lucifer, etc. are counterfeit versions. Now we have (4) recognized versions to put through the Test. (2) follow the Bible translated from Latin into English (Wycliffe (Catholic Bible), and Tyndale), and (2) follow the translation, translated into English directly from Hebrew and Greek (Geneva and KJV). All versions published after 1960 follow the Wycliffe, Catholic version translated from Latin. The Geneva and the KJV are very similar, with one main exception, that the KJV is the ONLY version authorized by a KING (authority). Remember God appoints Kings and yes many were and are evil, but the pattern in the OT reveals God uses holy men under the king for his purpose. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[@marteld2108]

No early Christian taught Baptism as Calvinists do. You are teaching heresy.

[@jordantheriverman6143]

No early Christian taught that one is immersed in water to symbolise being dead buried and raised with Christ? You're a very confused person.

[@marteld2108]

@@jordantheriverman6143 ...please check your spelling before you post. The word is “symbolize” not “symbolise.” You are confused brother, you put your confidence in a man named Calvin for his teachings on how to be saved. The early Church never taught Calvinism. I will pray for you. Happy New Year.

[@takundadanha5250]

@@marteld2108 symbolise is the British spelling...

[@gianniryansmith614]

@@marteld2108 The English spelling is ‘symbolise’

[@MansterBear]

@@marteld2108 Do you have an answer to his question? I see a strawman of calvinism. I see your assumption of his worldview, even though he gave you no evidence to confirm that assumption. I don't see an actual answer to his question though.

[@aquillafleetwood8180]

Buried in baptism! No...you have no right to change the mode!!! Can one believe with half a heart! Spinkling dirt on a body does not bury it!!!! ...smh... Faith alone is another false doctrine! What rules make it...extreme???

[@jsrrrmg]

So how many works do you have complete to be justified?

[@ReformedOudeis]

I would suggest the following short vlog that will answer a great deal of your questions and concerns: “Defending Saved by Faith Alone to the Church of Christ” kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGLPdmuYmKmfhc0

[@brianyoungberg9904]

Simple example is the man being crucified with Jesus, who accepted him on the cross and Jesus said he would see him in heaven. No works. What about a quadriplegic who cannot do any works, but accepts Jesus as his personal savior. Not saved? Typically, faith without some works may not be true faith. Faith leads to works. Do something, whatever that is. However, you never how much to do if have to do works.

[@jordantheriverman6143]

Whoever believes in me, has eternal life.. Jesus Christ. Jesus wasnt preaching false doctrine Aquilla. He meant what He said.

[@robertoarriola-bustamante9169]

@@jsrrrmg it's obeying and Acts 2: 38 it's clear