Baptism, way more than a profession of faith (Reformed Baptist Perspective of Sacraments)

[@Jonathanped]

I learned something that I think I agree with. New covenant equivalent to circumcision is regeneration and the new covenant equivalent to the priestly cleansing is baptism. I had never considered that, but now that I have heard it makes much more sense. Thank you for sharing. God bless.

[@HappyPenguin75034]

Well not what Jesus said.

[@FiveStones1Sling]

I recently studied that as well and makes since. Especially when you see that we are called kings and priests and who were anointed and cleansed a specific way. The kids and priests. Such a beautiful type and shadow

[@dannyshearman7068]

I have enjoyed your videos and sermons. I am so thankful I found yalls channel. You have greatly added in my journey of reforming. Thank yall and God bless.

[@rodneykrhodes]

Thanks pastor

[@faithreformedbaptistchurch8826]

Thanks for explaining where we stand.

[@isaacthibodeau9832]

Fantastic! Thanks for this video, brother.

[@mickycavanaugh4160]

Thanks Brother. I appreciate your explanation and defense of the reformed Baptism position

[@JudeStradtner]

What books would you recommend to learn more about Reformed Baptist Sacramentology?

[@nerdforlife6544]

So glad you are talking about this! God bless! 🙏🥰

[@trentenmeyer4513]

What would you say to those that the babies also were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea?

[@dunlapmichaell]

Great video. I wish you'd have given more information on Jesus's baptism and it's meaning.

[@robertbatista50]

Doug Van Dorn has a good message on sermon audio on Jesus’ priestly baptism.

[@faithreformedbaptistchurch8826]

Can we say that in word reality out word expression?

[@carterwoodrow4805]

I have a question, doesn't the 1689 reject the use of the language seal? If so why do you use it?

[@JudeStradtner]

No, it does not. It doesn't explicitly use that language, but the authors and subscribers of that confession used that language, as well as referring to it as a sacrament and not just an ordinance.

[@brothermartin1984]

What are some sources one can Read 📚

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith and what it says about the Lord’s Supper and baptism. founders.org/library/1689-confession/chapter-30-the-lords-supper/

[@robertbatista50]

James White is currently doing a series on baptism.

[@KevFer]

Question as I am trying to understand Reformed theology better. So would you go as far as to take the Catholic/Orthodox view and say that baptism is the *cause* of salvation (from God of course)?

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

No. Baptism is not the cause of salvation. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. But scripture makes baptism connected to salvation as something we give to someone after they have been saved

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Reformed theology is Protestant and has always and only taught that salvation is only through faith in Christ alone

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2arqYh9f5iAfrM Baptist Covenantalism (pt.1)

[@themanincharge6418]

Does regeneration precede faith?

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Yes

[@joshjay6765]

I’m new to studying the reformed view of baptism, so please forgive me if I seem to lack understanding in my question. From what I’m reading and hearing so far it seems the reformed position sees baptism more as a seal then something symbolic. Where the bible says you are sealed with the Holy Spirit when you believe, you pass from death to life when you believe, and we are saved by grace through faith, how can water baptism be more then a symbol? We are sealed when we believe. If people who hold to reformed theology also believe in unconditional election before the foundation of the world, how can they allow room that baptizing their babies somehow increase the odds of them being saved if they are already elect or reprobate before birth? I hope I don’t sound ignorant, I’m just trying to further understand this position, as it isn’t something I’ve dove into until recently.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Reformed Baptists wouldn’t baptize infants, so that’s not an issue for us. But regarding your first question. “The seal and the thing signified” seem to be connected at multiple points when baptism is discussed in the Bible, Rom 6 primary passage, also others. It’s not that the baptism seals, but that “the baptism of the Spirit” (regeneration/faith) isn’t to be viewed as disconnected from the physical act of baptism, but as one

[@joshjay6765]

@@thecrosschurchpensacola my bad, I mistakenly thought the reformed view on baptism in general included babies. Thanks for the response. I understand your view better now and look forward to continuing to study!

[@collin501]

​@thecrosschurchpensacola In your view, does salvation happen in a moment, or does it sometimes unfold over months or years, where the seed is beginning to bring about fruit of repentance, faith, including baptism. Then would you say that Paul to the Ephesians, in 1:13, was referring to them receiving the Holy Spirit when(around the time) they believed, as a historical event, knowing their history. Rather than a specific doctrinal statement that the moment one begins to believe, regardless of whether they have called on the name of the Lord, repented, or been baptized, that one immediately receives the Holy Spirit anyway.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYKVc2ton7eWqtE Baptist Covenantalism (pt.2) Why we don’t baptize babies

[@matthewstowe]

One question, when you spoke about the Old Testament precursors and how they’re supporting of believers baptism, in one of those examples everyone was grown and chose (Noah) but in the other example which is called the “baptism into Moses” there were undoubtedly children and infants with them. This was the entire people of Israel, they didn’t leave their children behind… so if anything it’s, from a Lutheran perspective, a precursor for infant baptism. Then shortly after we see the children of Israel go through the water of the Jordan into the promised land. Children were certainly present for that as well. And then again, the connection it makes to circumcision, and the parallel there. Who were the primary recipients of that? Infant males? The sacraments are more inclusive now, not more exclusive.

[@HarrisonBurnette]

Awesome! We need more sacramental baptist churches. Thanks for this video. However, the 1689 confession refers to the sacraments as ordinances. I disagree with that, and stand firmly with your position, i just wanted to make sure the sources are represented correctly.

[@gwillymilly]

if you’d like i can point you to an article on the point that the LBC, although it does use the term ordinance, the authors of it didn’t disagree that it was a sacrament. They differentiated from the WCF to stress a point of differentiation, which was faithful obedience on behalf of the one being baptized.

[@SandovArt]

Other point I've seen is that almost no Particular Baptist practices the Absolution proclamation/declaration when Calvin, Knox, Bucer and many others did it during their services.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

The Cross Church elders after a corporate prayer of confession, then silent confession, give an assurance of pardon. This isn’t the same as the Catholic Absolution, but not wanting the sinner after confessing to remain in guilt, they are reminded of the blessings and promises of the gospel

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

What you're referring to is the "obedience of faith". We don't do something just because we're putting on a show (typical Evangelical reason to be baptized) but because we believe what God has said about it. James said, "Faith without works is dead", but I say unto you, "Works without faith are impossible - unless you're doing it out of obligation or for show." Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain because he did it by faith (see Hebrews 11:4) Cain offered his sacrifice because it was what he had to do - his duty to God. Cain was one of those "do your best for God" kind of people. He was driven by duty and not by faith, hope, and love. I've heard a bunch of Evangelicals (Baptists too) say, "You don't have to be baptized but you should do it anyway." This is abject unbelief. We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. In other words, if you don't believe it will be effective then it doesn't matter whether you do it or not. If I don't believe "baptism doth also now save us" then being baptized is just a show. Jesus hated religion for show. The obedience of faith is when you do it because you believe it's going to work. Would you pray for the sick or lay hands on the sick if you didn't believe it would help them? No. Works without faith are impossible.

[@tomtemple69]

Baptism is a work of God, not a work of man that is the Baptist error

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@tomtemple69 - Exactly! Col. 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Baptism is the operation of God. It's His work. But it only works if we believe it. Baptists are taught to NOT believe in baptism's efficacy. I've heard many Baptist preachers teach that baptism has nothing to do with your salvation but you _should_ go ahead and do it anyway. This is the sin of Cain. I've heard them teach that baptism is a show of your faith in and love for Jesus and that's why you should do it. In other words, it's a show of piety. That's called religion-for-show. Jesus hated that brand of religion. Read Matthew 23 for more information. If you believe what God says and confess His doctrine then you are "in the faith". If your denomination requires that you depart from God's word (as most Evangelical denominations do) then you're on the wrong path.

[@tomtemple69]

@@GizmoFromPizmo what is your faith tradition? are you Protestant or RCC/EOC?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@tomtemple69 - I was raised Catholic but then I converted to Christianity in my late teens. There is not a denomination that has any value at all. Denominations are a way to give permission to religious people who do not want to follow God. Each one has a major doctrine that prevents it from being Christian - in the biblical sense. When we read the New Testament, we see hints of this all over the place. The Jerusalem church would not budge on the doctrine of Justification by faith and they betrayed the main proponent of that doctrine to the Gentiles - like Judas betrayed Jesus. Paul predicted that there would be a falling away just after God removed the stops - the apostles (IMHO). After the apostles were gone the church IMMEDIATELY went to hell. History is my witness. Catholicism appeals to these fallen church leaders to justify her existence but by not going back to the apostles' teaching, they base their theology on the apostate theology of those fake "Early Church Fathers" (who were religious hacks compared to the apostles).

[@SandovArt]

I still don't get why some Reformed Baptists believe Jesus is not present in the Eucharist. Spiritual presence is real presence.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Reformed Baptists do believe Christ is present. Read the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. The Reformed view of the Supper is profoundly spiritual and not merely memorial. www.the1689confession.com/1689/chapter-30 (check these 8 points on The Supper, especially 6-8)

[@Swiftninjatrev]

Do you believe baptismal regeneration? 🤔

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Our church abhors that doctrine

[@Swiftninjatrev]

@@thecrosschurchpensacola Cool. I don't affirm it either. Oh also, thank you so much for your sermon series on the Lord's Supper, it was interesting and informative, and a good way of understanding the view exegetically. You make a convincing case for it. I'll have to study it more.

[@canadiankewldude]

Does this include "Once Saved, Always Saved"?

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

It does seem the scriptures teach that those who have been genuinely saved will continue in salvation kept by the Lord until heaven

[@φιλόθεος]

This sounds like a fair presentation of mature Reformed Baptist views. Whilst I wouldn't describe your view as sacramental, I think there is room for a realist sacramental view of Baptism amongst 1689ers. I don't think he was confessional, but Beasley-Murray seems to have held to that.If you've not already grabbed his book, and consider it, just beware.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Man, you kinda can't say that. Simon the Sorcerer, when he was confronted by Peter, immediately repented. We don't have any evidence that he was insincere.

[@SpotterVideo]

Why is the term "New Covenant" not found in the 1689 LBCF, even though it is found in the Bible multiple times? New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay. ======================================= Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[@mbgrocott7115]

Baptism is a spiritual occurrence just as prayer is, just as confession is, etc. Christ is High Priest as fully explained in Hebrews. We first meet our High Priest performing His priestly duties in baptism.

[@HappyPenguin75034]

Where does repent and believe come from? Your own decision and works?

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

Bearded Jim Halpert has good theology

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The doctrine of "receiving the Holy Spirit" often gets bogged down in the weeds and so it requires a "rightly dividing". Although it's never said out loud in Acts, there is a distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost 🙂 What does that mean? Under the New Covenant, having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is required for salvation. Romans 8:9 makes this clear. "Now, i any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Rom. 8:9 - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. So when Cornelius and his house received the word, they began to speak in tongues and prophesy (and whatever). This is the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It's something external that can be seen and heard with the senses. But Peter went ahead and baptized them in water to make the process complete. Water baptism (Christian baptism and not the baptism of John or whoever else), is for the remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It's not the giftS of the Holy Spirit (as in miracles) but the gift of the Spirit Himself - the indwelling. You may have a gift of the Holy Spirit and not have the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This describes Cornelius and his house prior to their baptism into Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This rightly dividing has to happen in your head as you read through the Book of Acts, otherwise you'll be confused. First, you'll think, baptism is to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) then you'll think, receiving the Holy Spirit can happen without baptism (Acts 10). So, in order to not be confused, you have to make a distinction (rightly divide) between the indwelling and the miraculous manifestation.

[@collin501]

Do you take Ephesians 1:13 to say that the Holy Spirit was received around the time that they believed, which would include baptism, rather than the specific moment of belief?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@collin501 - Well, if I understand you correctly, yes. We have specific examples of people who had not received the Holy Spirit even though they were disciples of Christ. Acts 19 describes the events. Acts 19:1-2 - And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. A disciple is a believer - a follower - but these 12 guys hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet. Notice the first question out of Paul's mouth. Acts 19:3 - And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. They hadn't received the Holy Spirit and Paul asked, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" This question is totally consistent with Acts 2:38, which is the standard for everyone who believes in the necessity of baptism for salvation. But, as I noted in my OP, the confusion comes in when we conflate the gifts of the Holy Spirit with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Both are referred to in Acts as "receiving the Holy Spirit" and you have to use your brain to distinguish between the two. Most people will not do that math. Is it because they'd rather be confused? I mean, maybe. My theology is unaffected by understanding the difference between the two manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I have a perfectly consistent and coherent theology. Most people in the denominational world do not and it's because (in my humble opinion) they frankly don't WANT to understand. But that's why God made Judgment Day. Those servants who did not want Jesus to reign over them... we know what happens to those folks.

[@samueljimenez7420]

And the most frustrating thing as a Baptist who’s questioning all of this… whenever I listen to Baptist talk about this… I wonder why we are tone deaf and I just want to scream… “what about our children?” If we’re going to address a counter argument against the Presbyterian. Let’s address the whole argument. It’s like we have a hyper focus on baptism where the Presby addresses baptism and God’s promise to their children, their reasoning on why and how they raise them to be in the covenant and even how to discipline sin and behavior. I have found zero… well maybe, slightly a good answer from Joel Webbon on this. Besides that. None.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

Pastor Jon Mark has a 3part series on Baptist Covenantalism you can find from two years ago posted on this channel. It deals with issues of the covenant thoroughly, from a Baptist perspective and the verses and arguments of Presbyterian position.

[@samueljimenez7420]

@@thecrosschurchpensacola thank you! Looking for anything. I’ve been a Baptist for a really long time and I’m not convinced to leave it yet. But they make a very good argument when it comes to our children.

[@BugattianVeyronian]

Respectfully, that's not what all Reformed Baptists believe. We have different covenantal understandings even among Reformed Baptist. It's interesting that you mentioned Sam Renihan. I'm 1689 federalist and I've read his book on covenant theology. I'm pretty sure he disagrees with you on the sacremental nature of baptism. You remind me of Jared Longshore and those who were with SES then converted to be RCs.

[@hexacarbide268]

There is a good reason why people say some of these things about baptist... Im just saying... Like placing human rules and regulations on baptisms... Acts 2, 39 for starters

[@basha0810]

Baptists really do have a bad rap. The only good one is a reformed one. I grew up in the Baptist church. Didn't get saved until I left. I'm glad you put this out there ❤️.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Baptism is never called a "profession of faith". I mean, it kinda is but the bible never calls it that. The Lord's Supper, however, is said to be a proclamation of His death until He comes. It's a minor point. I try to avoid likening baptism to some big display of piety. It runs counter to how Jesus viewed religion for show.

[@caman171]

well this cemented the fact that i actually agree with the Presbyterians on something. "Reformed Baptists" are neither Reformed, nor are they Baptist. a Presbyterian and a Baptist can agree. Who knew!

[@DannyLoyd]

First, why are you a Reformed Baptist? I can find nowhere in scripture of someone becoming a Baptist. Second, just simply read scripture and you know baptism is necessary. You quoted Acts 2:38 and as you keep reading it says that those who received the word were baptized and the Lord added them to the saved/church. v41 & v47. Second in Col 2 it does talk about circumcision, but it is a spiritual circumcision for it says it is done without hands and it is done by God when he removes the sins of the flesh. It also says in Col 2:12-14 that we are raised through faith in the working of God.....he forgives us all our trespasses. In Romans 6 it says that our old man of sin is put to death and we are freed from sin. So, again, why are you a Baptist? Why would the bride of Christ wear the name Reformed Baptist?

[@HappyPenguin75034]

Even you pick and choose scripture like he does. The thief was not baptized. Enough. Jesus said repent and believe. Baptism is a profession of faith. It’s a sign. Right. It’s not a sign and salvation. This is so bad. Let me ask. Do you really think reformed would say it’s not required so we can give a false gospel? Why! Somebody being baptized does not give the Holy Spirit. If it did entire world would be saved.

[@DannyLoyd]

@@HappyPenguin75034 So, how do you know the thief was not baptized by John the Baptist? The thief also did not believe in the DBR of Christ, so are you saying we do not have to either? Lastly, baptism in the name of Jesus wasn't commanded until after the thief had died. Jesus said in Luke 24:47 " Remission of sins to be preached in his name would BEGIN IN JERUSALEM" and that happened in Acts 2. The indwelling of the Spirit is given when someone has been baptized. Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins; and you SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HS". So, the gift of the HS is given when after you have repented and been baptized. And it goes on to say in Acts 2 that those who received the word and were baptized, the Lord added them to the saved, v41 and v47. In Col 2:12 it says, " You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also RAISED THROUGH FAITH IN THE WORKING OF GOD.......GOD MADE ALIVE together with him, having forgiven all our trespasses". So, in baptism we are raised through faith and God works on us by making us ALIVE..... Gal 3:26-27 " For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST". Can you be saved and not put Christ on? Lastly, Jesus also said in Mark 16:16 " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.." So, why be a Reformed Baptist?

[@HappyPenguin75034]

@@DannyLoyd you are Church of Christ for sure. Saying baptism wasn’t commanded until after resurrection. Why should I go on. It doesn’t say the gift is after baptism. You said it. Jesus said repent and believe. Your reasoning is you think the thief was baptized. As what a false believer?? Stop

[@HappyPenguin75034]

@@DannyLoyd tell me - why was Jesus baptized?

[@DannyLoyd]

@@HappyPenguin75034 prove he wasn't baptized, did the thief believe in the DBR of Christ? Since he didn't we don't have to either? Also no sinner's prayer for those of you who believe that. But as I said, baptism in the name of Jesus didn't start until Acts 2. Jesus plainly said in Luke 24:47 that " Remission of sins to be preached in his name WOULD BEGIN IN JERUSALEM.." WHAT DOES "BEGIN" MEAN? This happens in Acts2. So, no one up to that time had been baptized in the name of Jesus, which was for the remission of sins. In Acts you had some who were baptized by John and they were told to be baptized in the name of Jesus. It says in Acts 2 that when they received the word and were baptized, the Lord added them to the saved v41 & v47. It says in Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the HS". So, the gift of the HS came after they repented and were baptized. They had believed in v37, why weren't they saved? So, Jesus also said in Mark 16:16 after he was raised from the dead, " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved...." did he not? So, was Jesus wrong about that?

[@bobwood5146]

If you try to make earthly physical baptism more than an outward symbol of an inner spiritual supernatural connection between God and man ,you create something that is not biblical. You wind up not being able to criticize the Catholic with the bread and wine. I agree that most Christians probable do not understand the significance of their personal baptism, but these is no supernatural thing happening when a person is dunked. Most of us grow for years before we have an adequate understand of the true representation of out baptism. To try to [ and we should definitely try] bring the person into the true spiritual significance of what he is doing in baptism is virtually impossible. A couple of hours [ most do not have that much instruction] will never bring a believer into a full understanding of what is going on. Especially a new convert. The jailer and the Ethiopian were apparently baptized immediately if not very soon after conversion. It is the conversion where the supernatural happens. Many Christians will not understand their baptism until heaven.

[@follow_the_way]

Eternal life in Christ is offered freely by God to the whole world and those who want that eternal life in Christ will come to know Him by obeying His commands. So anyone that says they know Him, is the one that obeys His commandments. 1 John 2:2-4 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

If you consider yourself a fundamentalist then you limit the usage of unscriptural terms. Sacrament is such a word. Trinity is such a word. Eucharist is such a word. Clarity in doctrine is of utmost importance if we want to communicate what God teaches by His word. Faith cometh by hearing the word of God and so we need to stick pretty closely to Thus Saith the Lord on matters of doctrine. It's called guardrails :)

[@HappyPenguin75034]

He is false so …

[@Convexhull210]

The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible either but that doesn't mean the Bible isn't the Bible. The Trinity, the Eucharist, and other terms describe what Sceipture teaches. You can't be a Christian and deny the concept of what these terms mean.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@Convexhull210 - I'm almost going to agree with you 100% (how's that for my math skills on the weekend?). "Trinity" is definitely a scriptural concept and it does NOT break canon. "Bible" is another word for "book" and the word "book" appears many times in the scriptures (although it refers to scrolls). But "Eucharist" is a word that is PACKED with denominational baggage. Forget what was meant by it when it was first used in the early second century. They didn't mean what the modern people mean when they use the word. "Eucharist" carries with it an entire class of "Christian" (falsely so called). In today's economy, the Eucharist requires a magic act performed by a special holy man. It means way more than the elements of the unleavened bread and wine. "Eucharist" drags a load of theology that cannot be found in the scriptures. Use this test to see if you agree. Can a few ordinary lay people get together and partake of the Eucharist? Can I go to Kroger's, pick up a package of Matzo crackers (unleavened bread used at Passover), a bottle of red wine and invite my friends to take the Eucharist with me? We all believe that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus of Nazareth and we sincerely partake of His body and blood by faith in His own words spoken at that last supper. Can we do that and it count as the Eucharist? If you're a Catholic you have to answer, "NO!" Why? Because you need an ordained priest, right? Where is the ordained priest described in the New Testament? Where is the "miracle" of transubstantiation taught in the New Testament? These things break canon because they are not mentioned in God's word. If faith cometh by hearing the word of God then we need the word of God to authorize these things. We don't have it. All we have is a lot of pretenders who are looking to make money off the blood of Jesus telling us that we need them but we don't have God Himself prescribing any of it. You see what's going on, right? In Hebrews 11 we read, "By faith, so-and-so did thus-and-such" but yet I'm not allowed to eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood until some pretender says I can? I'm not allowed to act on faith. I need to go through a professional clergyman. Give me Book, Chapter and Verse for any of that and I'll go away. Catholicism breaks canon.

[@HappyPenguin75034]

You worship Mary then say you don’t. The latter means you continually lie which of lesser concern over breaking every commandment

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@HappyPenguin75034 - Worship God and Him alone shalt thou serve. Worshiping Mary violates the word of God. Are you just trolling me? Where did I give you any reason to think I'm a Catholic?

[@joeshuler2886]

Haha. You can’t be a sacramental Baptist.

[@thecrosschurchpensacola]

“Can’t” requires you to give some biblical rebuttal

[@joeshuler2886]

@@thecrosschurchpensacola well sir, baptists are not sacramental people. I know. I grew up in their church. But I’m not Baptist anymore. Baptists call them ordinances. And they are generally not covenantal people. I’m sure you know what that means.

[@Convexhull210]

​@joeshuler2886 this is a word concept fallacy. The historical roots of baptist theology uses both terms and both are used to mean more than symbols.

[@JudeStradtner]

@@joeshuler2886Baptist are absolutely covenantal people