In Support of Amending the SBC Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to Include the Nicene Creed

If you like theology and/or Church history, this video is for you. The 2024 SBC Convention Annual Meeting will be held on June 11-12 in Indianapolis. Earlier this year, I accepted the role of Pastor-Teacher at Sophia Baptist Church in Sophia, NC. Sophia Baptist Church is in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. As far as I know, the church has never sent messengers to the national convention. With my only being recently affiliated with anything SBC, and still in the beginnings of my tenure as an elder at a Southern Baptist Church, I didn't think about being a messenger this year. After I saw the article in Credo Magazine on May 30th by Malcom Yarnell, I am regretting not planning to go. That article was titled, "The Need for the Creed" and argues that the Nicene Creed needs to be added to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the statement of faith that must be affirmed by all churches in friendly cooperation with the SBC. I am familiar with that statement of faith. It is a distinctly Baptist statement of faith, but it is generic so as to allow for a big tent that includes Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic Baptists coming together to support missions and other ministries while remaining entirely self-governing in their church polity.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
DONATE: forthemaster.o... or www.buymeacoff...
WEBSITE: jonathanburris...
PODCAST: podcasters.spo...
FACEBOOK: / dr.jonathan.burris
TWITTER: / thepastorburris
EMAIL: [e-mail]

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

if a person / church cannot affirm the Nicene Creed, you are by definition not Christian. That creed is the baseline used to determine which scriptures would be canonized into the bible. If your church would not allow one of the church fathers to preach at your church, it is your church that has lost the true faith and that is a problem.

[@samuelcurrin9406]

Good points. Illiteracy about our Baptist and Christian history is tragic. I think the creeds are great. "No creed but the Bible" has simply not worked out well in practice. I was ordained in a SBC church but included the Apostles Creed in my service.

[@thejoshuamcgee]

We too are an SBC church in SC and recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday! It is important to be reminded of what we believe and why we believe it. It is also vital that we remember that we stand on the shoulders of the church fathers who devoted themselves to prayer, study, and application of Scripture!

[@ronjones6555]

Thank you so much for helping the rest of us gain proper clarity of this much needed creed! I so wish I would have had this creed, as well as the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession 50 years ago in my Christian walk. O how it would have kept my theology at least between the guardrails! And I could have avoided many years spent with Wrongness Pentecostals and Chaotic Charismatics!

[@r.m.solympic1771]

Thank you for the History lesson. I agree the Nicene Creed is important, because many professing Christians are not firm on the Trinity. Keep fighting the good fight! When you preach the truth you will find yourself attacked from many sides.

[@BrockSamson18]

Continue to delve into historical Christianity, my brother in Christ. We share such a treasured history together.

[@rrsafety]

At Catholic Mass, we recite either the Nicene Creed or Apostle’s Creed each week. It is a great reminder of our shared beliefs using words that have been in use for over 1,700 years.

[@reverendjenkins8011]

Hi, I’m Wes Clark the pastor of Laurel Baptist Church in W. Columbia, SC. We are in friendly cooperation with the SBC. I completely agree with you. We need to educate our congregations and unite us to the historical church. I appreciate your video.

[@pastorburris]

Thank you Brother!

[@caman171]

You mean the "historical church" that persecuted, jailed, killed and banished Baptists? You need a Baptist history lesson. While Baptists have never said you must be of us to be saved, we have said the churches of Christ are not the seed of Romanism. If your calvinist go read your man Spurgeon. Baptists are the last hope of Christian witness in this age. We dont need to be "united" with all other churches who gone apostate. If you truly believe the creeds, which were decided by councils or popes and bishops, should be binding, then bt default you are saying that the hierarchical established church, was designed by God.Theres no other way a "creed" could be adopted and enforced. I have NO desire to be "united" to Catholicism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism or Methodism, all who have many heresies and apostasies, which evidently the "creeds" were unable to prevent.

[@thejoshuamcgee]

Brother Wes, Josh here from Hillcrest in Gaston. Proud to serve the Kingdom with you!

[@reverendjenkins8011]

@@thejoshuamcgee Likewise, keep us in your prayers.

[@FreddyCastaneda1]

Amen Brother Burris. I strongly agree that the Bride of Christ must remember where she came from and what was taught to her from her youth. Historical Christianity must be united with current Protestant Christianity.

[@annakimborahpa]

Pastor Burris at 10:50 - 11:01 "Roman Catholics came after me because I stated that there was no Roman Catholic Church before the Great Schism. The Bishop of Rome did not have authority over the church at this time. In fact, he never has." Response: The primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millenium according to the lives and writings of the Church Fathers (Introduction) The following are chronological examples from the lives and writings of Church Fathers from the first millenium (A) who are saints venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) taken from Constantine N. Tsirpanlis’ book Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology. According to Dr. Tsirpanlis, the Church Fathers he acknowledges possess four distinguishing characteristics: “(1) Orthodoxy of doctrine, (2) holiness of life, (3) ecclesiastical approval, and (4) antiquity." [Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology, Theology and Life Series, 30 (The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 1991), p. 21] But before relying on such an authority, it would be prudent to list Dr. Tsirpanlis' 'bona fides' in order to demonstrate his fidelity to Orthodoxy: Background - Tsirpanlis, Constantine N. was born on March 18, 1935 in Kos, Greece. Came to the United States, 1957. Education - Bachelor, Master of Sacred Theology, licensed in theology magna cum laude, Theological Seminary, Istanbul, Turkey, 1957. Master of Theology, Harvard University, 1962. Doctor of Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 1963. Master of Arts, Columbia University, 1966. Doctor of Philosophy, Columbia University, 1970. Doctor of Philosophy, Fordham University, 1973. Doctor of Letters (honorary), World Academy Arts and Culture, 1993. Career - Instructor, organizer Greek-American communities, 1958-1963. Professor world history New York Institute of Technology New York City and Delaware County College, Media, Pennsylvania, 1967-1975. Theology, sociology, history, ecumenism, Greek studies Union Theological Seminary, Barrytown, New York, scriptures, patristics, Greek language, theology Somerset, New Jersey, since 1999. Chairman, professor classics Collegiate School, New York City, 1967-1969. Professor modern Greek language and literature New School Social Research, New York City, 1968-1970. Professor classical mythology Hunter College City University of New York, 1968-1970, New York University, 1964-1974.

[@imustkeepremindingmyselfofthis]

I grew amongst Ruckmanites and the development of the ideas of John Burgon and his resistance to change. Ezekiel 24:7 was a nail in the coffin for me because the 1611 is missing the word “not” and the 1769 Benjamin Blayney revision contains “not” in the verse. Meaning, if one is perfect, the other cannot be. The look on the pastor’s face when shown this…it was as if someone destroyed his ontological closure. Ruckman was proven wrong…

[@annakimborahpa]

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millenium according to the lives and writings of the Church Fathers (Part Four) Three 4th century examples from the lives and writings of first millenium Church Fathers that are (A) venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) designated as such by Constantine N. Tsirpanlis: A. ST. ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 295 - 373) From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our father among the saints Athanasius of Alexandria (also spelled 'Athanasios'; from Greek, 'immortal') was a bishop of Alexandria and major theological writer in the fourth century. He is also called Athanasius the Great and (by the Coptic church) Athanasius the Apostolic. He was born in 298 and died on May 2, 373. His feast day in the Orthodox Church is January 18." (1) When being deposed by a council of Arian bishops in the East, he wrote the following in a letter to the emperor Constantus II, “When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship.” [Ray, Stephen K., Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), p. 201] (2) Further in his letter St. Athanasius quotes from Pope St. Julius’ Letter To The Orientals, A.D. 341, which questioned the judgment of the council of Eastern Arian bishops that had deposed St. Athanasius from his see: “Why was nothing written to us about the Church of Alexandria especially? Did you not know that the Custom was this: to write to us first, and thus from here justice would be determined? Therefore, if any such suspicion fell upon the bishop of Alexandria, the thing to do was to write to this Church.” [Clarkson, John F., S.J. translator, et al, The Church Teaches (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, IL, 1973), p. 68.] B. ST. EPHREM, SYRIAN DEACON FROM THE ANTIOCHENE CHURCH OF EDESSA (c. A.D. 306 - 373) From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our Righteous Father Ephrem the Syrian was a prolific Syriac language hymn writer and theologian of the 4th century. He is venerated by Christians throughout the world, but especially among Syriac Christians, as a saint. His feast day in the Orthodox Church is January 28." He wrote many poems that were put to music and used for prayer, teaching, and contemplation. One poem includes the following text, “Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [Kefa, or Rock, in the original text], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first- born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.” [Ray, Stephen K., Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), pps. 194-95] C. ST. JEROME, PRIESTLY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR AND TRANSLATOR (c. A.D. 342 - 420) From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our venerable and God-bearing father Jerome was noted as a scholar of Latin at the time when Greek was considered the language of scholarship. He was one of the most learned of the Fathers of the Western Church and is noted as the translator of the holy scriptures into Latin. This translation, the Vulgate, became the official biblical text of the Roman Catholic Church. During his early adult life he traveled extensively, learning Greek and Hebrew, while pursing his rhetorical and philosophical studies. Among the many treatises, commentaries, translations, and exegetical works that he undertook was the revision of the Latin bible using the more recent versions of the Hebrew Old Testament. An ascetic and harsh critic of secular excesses, he was a strong defender of the Orthodox faith against the heresies of his time. His feast day is commemorated on June 15." In an appeal to Pope St. Damasus, St. Jerome requested a decision on two separate and distinct matters, that of episcopal appointments and Trinitarian theology of which he wrote the following, “My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the church is built. This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails." [Rengers, Fr. Christopher, O.F.M. Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, IL, 2000), pps. 97-98]

[@annakimborahpa]

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millenium according to the lives and writings of the Church Fathers (Part Two) Two 2nd century A.D. examples from the lives and writings of first millenium Church Fathers that are (A) venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) designated as such by Constantine N. Tsirpanlis: A. ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our father among the saints Ignatius the God-bearer of Antioch (probably died AD 107) was the third bishop of Antioch, after the Apostle Peter and Euodios, whom Ignatius succeeded around AD 68. Ignatius, who also called himself Theophorus ("God-bearer"), was most likely a disciple of both Apostles Peter and John. Several of his letters have survived to this day; he is one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest group of the Church Fathers), and a saint in the Orthodox Church (feastday, December 20)." Traveling to Rome bound as a prisoner to be executed for his Christian faith, he penned seven epistles to different churches. His Epistle to the Romans begins with "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory; a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name: her do I therefore salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” [Ray, Stephen K., Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), pps. 135-137] B. ST. IRENAEUS, SECOND BISHOP OF LYONS From Orthodox Wikipedia: "The holy and glorious, right-victorious Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John the Theologian. His feast day is August 23." St. Irenaeus grew up in Asia Minor and as a child remembered seeing St. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John. Circa A.D. 180, he composed Against Heresies whose Book III, Chapter 3, No.1 contains the following passage: "Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” [Willis, John R., S.J., editor, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2002), p. 68.]

[@briangronberg6507]

I just saw that the Filioque is in brackets. That’s absolutely fantastic

[@EricBuitenhuis]

Spot on

[@musingsonchrist9880]

This is in large part so very precise and helpful. Thank you!

[@DixieWizard]

In Christ's baptism, it is written there was a Voice from above, Christ by the waters, and the dove overhead. In Genesis 1, it speaks of God's creation in trinitarian form. Christ mentions the Helper that will be sent from the Father. And the Helper comes in Acts 2. There are several other examples throughout old and new testament to affirm not only multiple Persons in God, but Three Persons precisely. As a former Southern Baptist, it warms my heart to see people pushing and advocating for affirmations of Trinitarian theology. I don't believe affirming something so rudimentary and essential to our Faith is going to change the nature of Baptist communion. Even if it doesn't happen this year, please push always to affirm the Trinity. For unitarians or neo-pneumatomachians to be allowed to openly dilute the Biblical Faith in your fellowship is unacceptable. For the love of God, defend the three Persons of the divine nature.

[@steadydividends571]

If one were to actually understand the history of the nicene creed and the council of Nicea there is zero chance they could remain a southern Baptist…it will inevitably lead to Orthodoxy / Roman Catholicism.

[@caman171]

amen!

[@lightninlad]

Time Index 10:21: “This causes many to see the Roman Catholic argument that the bishop of Rome has always been accepted as the head of the church.” I certainly hope it does. We Roman Catholics view the Church’s teaching on Papal authority as an organic development, much like the Church’s understanding of the Trinity itself. One uncommonly cited evidence for the Papacy has to do with Daniel 2. We read in [Daniel 2:32-33] about King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which he sees a huge statue of a man. Its head was “made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay”. These various metals represent four kingdoms: the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires. These 4-kingdoms, we are told from the dream, would be replaced by a 5th and final kingdom which is founded upon a rock: [Daniel 2:44] “This is the stone that you saw cut out from a mountain**, but not by humans. It smashed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold.” Recall that Our Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter-and tells him that he(Peter) is the “rock” on which he will build his Church. We see in Revelation 12:4 that the *Dragon* sought to devour the child about to be born and it is said that: “She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations ⭐️WITH AN IRON SCEPTER⭐️. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.”-Rev.12:5 The child, who is Christ, then ascends into Heaven and rules the nations with this same “iron scepter”. Again the “metal” that Our Lord is ruling with is the SAME KIND of metal that the Roman Empire was made out of. Well who do we know resides in Rome claiming to be the Vicar of Christ? The Pope. Christ is “ruling” his church with an “iron rod” which means he is ruling through the Roman See. He’s ruling through the Pope.

[@pastorburris]

“We Roman Catholics view the Church’s teaching on Papal authority as an organic development, much like the Church’s understanding of the Trinity itself.” Thank you for contradicting the Magisterium’s official teaching and confirming that the belief is not from apostolic teaching. Good job 👏

[@lightninlad]

@@pastorburris How is it a contradiction of the magesterium’s teaching to say that the Church’s understanding regarding the Papacy developed? The magisterium has never denied that.

[@briangronberg6507]

I couldn’t agree more! I was raised in a traditional SBC church and despite everything I was taught I wouldn’t have been able to describe the historical and orthodox teaching on the Trinity and the hypostatic union. I was effectively taught modalism (you’re three people too!) and if you asked me what it meant for Jesus to be human and divine I couldn’t have given a satisfactory answer. I probably would have said something vague like “it’s a mystery.” It goes without saying that I didn’t know the richness of the magisterial Protestant tradition and its successors or a proper understanding of what Sola Scriptura meant. The Creeds aren’t “inventions.”

[@hismajesty6272]

Yes please. Low church Christianity needs to hold fast to the Creed, especially in this era when the Gospel is being twisted even more than usual.

[@pheriwinkle]

I confess I clicked on this video because of the T-shirt, because I thought it was funny when all I could see was the big word for "slave" ... and I assumed that it meant in the Jesus sense, but before you could see that part at the bottom I just thought it was hilarious, like, "Slave!" and you figure out the rest...

[@Jonathanhdz16]

Thank you Pastor Burris, another great informative video. There are many historical Protestant churches that still affirm the Nicean Creed, and some Baptist churches, and very very few nondenominational. The Nicean-Constantinopolitan creeds are historical and biblical identities of what Christians are. Now I’m not saying it’s wrong to not affirm it in church, since even without the creed it’s what scripture tells us to believe, and many churches have prospered without affirming it and blessed abundantly, but there are cases where unprepared leaders fall in heresy trying to come up with their own interpretations and definitions. God bless you all brothers and sisters.

[@Jonathanhdz16]

@@dman7668 I think you are mistaken here. In no way does the creed teaches baptismal regeneration. The Creed teaches exactly what every Christian should believe. Now Lutherans and Anglicans may have a view of regenerational baptism, but they still believe in Sola Fide, Methodist in the other hand also practice infant baptism, but don’t believe in baptismal regeneration like Lutherans and Anglicans. Now historical Baptists always affirmed the creed and in no way did they teach baptismal regeneration or practiced infant baptism. The creed was to affirm the Christian faith and not fall into heresy like Sabelius with modalism, or Arianism with Arius. And the gnostics which had different branches of Gnosticism, or docetism, adoptionism, montanism and etc..

[@Jonathanhdz16]

@@dman7668also I do call him pastor because he has been ordained as a pastor before and he faithfully pastored them, so I give him that honor and respect. He may not have been ordained as a Southern Baptist Pastor, but that doesn’t negate the pastoral gift God has granted him. God bless you brother. In no way I’m trying to debate you just giving you my view. If you still disagree that is okay. No harm done.

[@Jonathanhdz16]

@@dman7668 once again if you disagreed it’s alright. I understand brothers and sister in Christ will not agree in everything. But I do have to add that just because Athanasius believed baptism that way doesn’t mean every single church father did. Just like the view of the Eucharist, there are church father writings viewing it symbolic, some of a spiritual presence and some in a more literal way but appealing to mistery, and were still able to be in communion with one another for there was no dogma in the view. So even if the church leaders during the making of the creeds believed in baptismal regeneration like today, that was not part of the consensus of the creeds, for the creeds objective was to define Christological and Trinitarian Theology, not baptismal regeneration. Now could I be wrong? Yes, there is so much more to learn about church history I’m still in a journey through it. But then again, I think it should be a topic we should talk about more to understand both sides. And I understand that you are not trying to be superior, There is much more I can obviously learn about this. God bless you brother.

[@jimmason5738]

I'd like to read something on church history without a bias slant. I am IFB. I went to a Bible college that was Baptist brider. Any suggestions?

[@annakimborahpa]

Every historian writes from their own perspective. Even the encyclopedia Britannica that is favorable to the King James Bible looks at religion from an Anglican perspective and takes a dim view of the English Puritans who eventually became Baptists, since they fomented two civil wars and executed a king. But since you are asking, I would recommend taking any issue that interests you and see what different encyclopedias have to say about it. For example, challenge yourself and see how different sources view the claims of Landmark Baptists. IFB may not like my recommendation, but you ventured out and visited this site of a former IFB pastor. Proceed prayerfully and cautiously.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

read the Patristic Fathers in their own words. Much of it is on youtube. Start with Polycarp, Athanasius, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr. These fathers studied directly under the Apostles which is important because those apostles were there to actually answer the big questions. They are the teachers who established the creeds as guardrails of the faith, hundreds of years before there was a canonized bible to rely on.

[@markbaker311]

Do you have a store where I can buy a shirt like that?

[@Revolver1701]

Members of the SBC have a visceral negative reaction to anything that sounds, to them, Roman Catholic.

[@josephkearns3999]

I'm curious as to the evidence people provide for why they think creeds are catholic inventions. We see evidence of early formulations of creeds all the way back to the writing of the New Testament from the apostle Paul. And even he may have been citing an early Christian formulation of the Gospel that began soon after the death and subsequent ascension of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15, no?

[@lightninlad]

We Catholics wouldn’t say all Christian creeds are Catholic inventions but we certainly would argue that the Nicene Creed was invented by the Catholic Church. I mean Catholic with a big “C” and not Catholic with a little “c”. I say that because a cursory sample of things written by St.Athanasius will verify that he was, indeed, Catholic in the modern sense of the word.

[@WithoutGodYouCantDoDiddlySquat]

I contend, we Believers should go back further than the Council at Nicea. Millennia before Christ, was the Triquetra, the three-cornered connection to the power of three. Interconnectedness and infinity in the triangle is the foundation for all pagan and occult groups. In the pagan perspective, it represents the maiden/mother/crone, and in the Christian tradition it represents the father/son/holy spirit. Was the triangle adopted to explain the Godhead, or was it brought into a morphing away from true Apostolic teachings? The Christian Trinity also borrows from ancient Alchemy, which held the concept of the existence of life as being One Essence and Three Substances. The One Essence, was also referred to as the First Matter, the fundamental substance that underlies all matter, and is the source of Creation. The Three Substances are seen as different aspects, or manifestations, of the One Essence. The Three Substances are not separate entities but rather different forms of the One Essence. The key differences between the One Essence and the Three Substances lies in their nature and purpose - the One Essence is the fundamental substance that underlies all matter, while the Three Substances are different manifestations of this essence. Sounds like the Trinity beliefs of the Modalists, like William Craig, as you mentioned. I posit, to ward off the accusation of polytheism, Trinitarians had to come up with progressive doctrines such as Eternal Generation, Hypostatic Union, and Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit, in an attempt to explain how three different persons, who are each God, can be only one God, and not the polytheism that three separate Gods most logically leads to. I don't believe the rejection of the Trinity resulted in the heresies of Unitarianism, Oneness, JWs, etc; it caused them through many incompatible statements in Scripture, and logic. Does God want to be a mystery so that no man can explain Him? When attempting to prove the Trinity through Scripture alone, more questions arose than were solved. - Why didn't the Apostle Paul name God as all three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost, instead of proclaiming God as “God, the Father”, or “God and Father”, meaning only the Father is God? (In my Roman Catholic Catechism classes, we had to profess allegiance to God - the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They didn't get that construct from Scripture). - Jesus said God is “a” Spirit, meaning one Spirit, not two spirits. - Why did Jesus say only He knows the Father, where's the third person? - Why did Jesus say only one has come down from Heaven, Himself, if all three must be present at the same time? - Why did jesus say only two bear witness - Himself and His Father - not three bear witness (1John 5:20 in the KJV is not in the earliest manuscripts, thus it has been deemed too suspect to be added by most other Bible translations). - Why did Jesus say only He and the Father are one? - Why did Jesus pray for Believers to be one with He and the Father, and not one with the three of them? - Why did Jesus say He will manifest Himself to the Believer as the Spirit of Truth and the Comforter (John 14:18, 21) and not a third person? - Why did Jesus say He and the father come to live in The Believer, and not include the third person (John 14:23)? Can they ever be separated according to the Trinity concept of God? - If God's image is two persons in a holy union of one flesh, why isn't the Godhead likewise two Persons in a holy union of one Spirit (John 4:24; 17:5; Acts 2:32-33)? - Why did Apostle John say the true God is only the Father and the Son, and say our fellowship is only with the Father and the Son repeatedly? Where's the third person? - Why don't the seminaries teach that Jesus employed the speaking style called illeism, which would explain that He spoke “ IN the the third person” about Himself (John 3:16; 14:16-17), and never “ABOUT a third person”? God is an invisible Spirit who never changed forms, as the Word did, taking on visible flesh. For 33 years, The Word humbled Himself being the mortal human, Jesus (not being God, that is, not exercising His Divinity). The words He spoke, and the works He performed were the Father's reconciling the world to Himself through His Son. Is this why Jesus called the Father the only true God at the time? John 17:3 NRSV And this is eternal life, that they may know you, *_the only true God,_* and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. The Son is eternal God, because the Word is eternal God. As the Word, and as the Son, the Risen and Ascended Jesus Christ returned to dwell in the one Holy Spirit, who is the Father alone. The Father and the Son (the Word made flesh) ALONE are the givers of life eternal, no third person has this power. John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with *_thine own self_* with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 2 Corinthians 5:16 ESV From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. *_Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer._* Jesus’ purpose was to reveal the Father so that “we may know Him”. We know the Father because we are ‘in Him” by being in His Son. The Father and the Son are the true God. These two are one Spirit. 1 John 5:20 NASB95 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that *_we may know Him who is true;_* and *_we are in Him who is true,_* in His Son Jesus Christ. *_This is the true God and eternal life._* Only Jesus Christ shares the Glory of the Father, He's the only one who has proceeded from the Father, or knows the Father, and the Father is the only holy Spirit who is God. There is one Spirit of the Lord, just like there is one spirit of you. 1 Timothy 6:16 NRSV It is *_he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see;_* to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. John 6:46 NRSV Not that anyone has seen the Father except *_the one who is from God; he has seen the Father._* 1 Corinthians 2:11 GNT It is only our own spirit within us that knows all about us; *_in the same way, only God's Spirit knows all about God._*

[@4jgarner]

I love that you're saying this. But sadly i expect to find this comments section filled with stuff against this later on.

[@dougrichardson5275]

So how would YOU translate the message on your t shirt. Is it servant of Jesus Christ or slave of Jesus Christ😊

[@pastorburris]

Slave of Jesus Christ. doulos always means some type of slave. There are other words for servant.

[@Paladin12572]

I wholeheartedly agree!

[@MiguelVega-ze6ny]

Interesting. Joe Heschmeyer also just released a video about the article. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e32yi5V5oaeEaas Interested to see what more you would have to say about Baptists affirming the Nicene Creed.

[@AlyoshaBosha]

A consistent application of the Nicene Creed always leads to embracing the Orthodox faith.

[@lightninlad]

Which Orthodox faith? There is currently a split between the Russian church and the Greek churches, as well as smaller splits with Old Calendarists and Old Believers(thankfully the Jerusalem/Antioch split was recently resolved). Since there can only be one Church, which of these is it? There are no visible boundaries of the church and you could be in schism or worse, heresy. If the individual ultimately has to rely on their own personal intuition to determine the truth why did Christ establish a physical Church with teaching authority to begin with? If I were to convert to Orthodoxy I wouldn't even begin to know which Church would be the right to join. EDIT: The “Pastor” muted me so I can no longer reply, I can only edit my previous responses. Having said that, “yes”, I definitely DO know what a schism is “Aloysha” and perhaps YOU are the one who ought to look it up LIKE I DID. If you choose to do that you shall find that there are indeed SEVERAL schisms within the Orthodox Church right now. Please feel free to click the link and see for yourself👇: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow-Constantinople_schism

[@AlyoshaBosha]

@@lightninlad i think you understand very well what constitutes a schism, and if not, you are not willing to look it up. Also many of these "orthodox" groups admit to have schismed away from the main church. Before asking for information, you should open your heart to actually wanting to receive information, otherwise it is an act of teenager-like pettiness. I do not mean this in any rude way, sorry if that sounds like it, but this is the underlying mentality of such replies.

[@lightninlad]

@@AlyoshaBosha Oh I DID look it up and MAYBE you should look it up so I of understand that “yes” there is currently a schism in the Orthodox Church(several)👇: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow-Constantinople_schism Back off. Seriously.

[@Jaxson-iv6tk]

Christ and Him crucified. Teach that. I disagree my brother. Forget the creeds the creeds have been most destructive. You say teach the creeds. I say teach people to have an intimate relationship with God. When Jesus came into my life in 1996 I was alone in my room and suddenly He revealed Himself to me and I left that room a changed man. I got myself a bible and it was like I already read it because I knew it in my spirit. I was free. But then over time I was introduced to mens doctrines and creeds ,opinions, bible Translations, rules and so on it goes. I didnt need a creed from some group men who professed to know God more than me. Believe this and reject all others. I judge people based on the love and relationship with the Lord. By their fruit you will know them, preach Christ and him crucified. Does what the beleive produce fruit in thier lives. Do you think all people who believe what arianism taught were bad people out to decieve? If a person is seeking truth it will lead then to a right understanding no matter what they believe today. Maybe for some it was enough to believe that Jesus was a man who loved His God so much He was obediant unto death and God exalted Him because of it. Did that understanding cause Him to repent of his sins and serve the living God and bear fruit unto salvation. Was he so touch by this understanding that he wanted to tell the world about Jesus? Who are you to reject Gods servent based on your creed? Maybe you believe He is fully God and fully man because beacause thats what it took for you to be changed by His sacrifice. But for the other man it was enough to know God sent a man who loved Him enough to die for Him and the sins of the world and he was changed. Ive met many people over the year that have had different views of Christ but at the end of the day what united us was Christ crucified and we loved the Lord and wanted to share it. Think about what I am saying. Talk to the Lord and listen. Jesus is many things to many people but the results are the same NEW LIFE!

[@jonathanclemens4660]

Great video, again! I so regret the disassociation from the historical Church present in so much of the IFB. There's someone from my former church who has gone so far as to totally reject the teaching of the Trinity as a "Catholic" doctrine and labelled me as demon possessed largely because of my use of modern translations. Sad set of priorities there. In any event, just one more example of the bad things that happen when we forget where we really come from.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

I grew up in IFB churches and never once, in any of them, heard the words "Jesus is God". That's just for starters. As I got older and began studying theology to fill in the gaps in my understanding that I had, I discovered problematic contradictions in what I was taught in church. To be blunt, I discovered that much of what I believed was nonsense based on cherry picked verses. "To be steeped in church history is to cease to be protestant" is a quote from John Henry Newman. I agree.

[@docbrown7513]

The nicene creed creates ambiguity about the eternal diety of Christ and is an unecessary tricotomy. It is better to just affirm Jesus Christ Messiah is also God.

[@FH-ue5oh]

Great analysis

[@lightninlad]

Time Index 07:00: “The Nicene Creed is relevant today because it provides a clear interpretation of scripture that, when taught properly, serves to defend against modern heresies…” But wait a minute, who has the authority to interpret scripture? Is that authority infallible? If not and if only scripture alone is infallible then wouldn’t that make having a fallible interpretation of it kind of a waste of time? 🤔

[@pastorburris]

Okay, I will play your game. Can you point out every scripture reference where the Magisterium has provided an infallible interpretation? Surely one has been provided for every single verse or passage right? I eagerly await your link.

[@lightninlad]

@@pastorburris I hardly think that’s relevant. I’m not arguing that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted every verse of scripture. I was asking YOU-yes you Pastor Burris, where the SBC derived its authority to interpret and whether or not they claim that authority to interpret INFALLIBLE?

[@pastorburris]

Excellent question. The authority of the individual believer to be able to interpret scripture is based on the following principles: Sola Scriptura Priesthood of All Believers Perspicuity of Scripture Illumination of the Holy Spirit Historical Context Tradition

[@lightninlad]

@@pastorburris Are the interpretations of said believers INFALLIBLE?

[@pastorburris]

No more than the interpretations of the Magisterium are infallible. Don’t forget, you actually stated yourself that certain doctrines develop over time. And in your self-affirming system, who determines the infallibility of the Magisterial interpretation and teaching? The Magisterium. That’s circular reasoning. You never let students grade their own papers when it really matters.

[@euston2216]

*1.* How many Fathers, in the eternal sense, do you have? If your answer is "One", which it should be, then... *2.* Does your one and only Father love you enough to have laid down HIS OWN LIFE for you? If your answer is not "Yes", then you have the wrong Father. ----------------------- Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God _IS_ God the Father manifested in genuine human form. HE laid down HIS life for us. HE raised HIMSELF from the dead. And HE gives eternal life to all who believe on HIM.

[@pastorburris]

That’s Modalism Patrick!

[@euston2216]

@@pastorburris I'm not a "modalist". I'm a believer in the *self-sacrificial love* of the Father...whose name is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*

[@MAMoreno]

@@euston2216 You allude to Philippians 2, but your stance makes Philippians 2 incoherent.

[@euston2216]

@@MAMoreno Philippians 2, like the rest of scripture, is consistent with the revelation of the self-sacrificial love of the unipersonal God. Unfortunately, creeds of men have blinded many to that love.

[@Jaxson-iv6tk]

I think it was awful to attack Arius the way those few men did. Imagine being told by one group that you are not a Christian because you didn't agree with their view. When the Israel looked upon the fiery serpent believed and were healed they didn't have to believe all kinds of things just that God provided it for them and all they had to do was believe.