The Sacraments - Mastering Reformed Theology Chapter 5

Read the Scots Confession: www.fpchurch.o...
Visit our website: www.kingdompre...
Make a donation: donorbox.org/p...
Theology Matters: www.theologyma...
Find a church: www.google.com...

[@david-001]

As a Baptist, I find it hilarious how many times I've been picked on in your videos, and yet, I keep coming back. 😂

[@tomtemple69]

It's a sign you should give up your inconsistent traditions and become Reformed 😂

[@dookiyeh]

same😂😂

[@LifesanL4976]

You will be assimilated into the presborg. Resistance was predestined to fail.

[@cephandrius5281]

I wish he tried harder to steelman baptist beliefs, it comes across as a bit uncharitable. I don't know any baptist who would say "baptism does *nothing*". If it did absolutely nothing, what would be the point? Would love to see a conversation between Zoomer and Ortlund about reformed theology.

[@tomtemple69]

@@cephandrius5281 the fact that you appeal to ortlund is telling 💀💀💀 You don't know much about him do you?

[@JamesPreus]

Baptist: The sacraments do nothing! Lutheran: They do everything! Reformed: They were predestined to do something I guess (good video, but I couldn't help it)

[@BasiliscBaz]

😂

[@captainfordo1]

They do everything

[@jtraptor7776]

you might say that you were predestined to

[@kingarth0r]

the strawman of all strawmans

[@Jordan-th3pr]

The sacraments are pivotal

[@daanmollema6366]

Love the Genevan psalm melodies in the background. I grew up Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands and these melodies have been with me my whole life. More intimately now that i am an organist.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Calvinist music is based

[@IanRomErv]

@@redeemedzoomer6053Gregorian chants are better.

[@SpeechCoach1453]

Which Genevan Psalm is in the video?

[@GreenGoblin107]

Reformed Presbyterian here 👋🏽 Thanks for all your work and dedication. These videos are awesome and I definitely look forward to them!

[@auggieeasteregg2150]

My grandpa was a Lutheran pastor and he affirmed faith alone. All biblical Lutherans do. That's like the whole point of Lutheranism

[@rawkfist-ih6nk]

I was curious about that one. But I’ve heard over time some Lutheran churches haven’t decided where they fall on some issues versus the Catholic Church

[@kimberlyhovis5864]

​@@rawkfist-ih6nk, which Lutheran synods are those?

[@OrechTV]

6:44 : thank you, I was thinking about re-baptizing myself but yes, it makes sense if you are baptized by Holy spirit, then your child water baptism just gains power / meaning, not that it was wrong. It reconnects as you say "because God is outside of time" ... makes sense. Thanks :)

[@smnvotny]

odkud jsi?

[@prushamusic]

Really appreciate your explanations - your channel is a blessing brother!

[@jtvanilla1776]

I've been attending baptist churches for years, and there's definitely a spectrum. My current church definitely believes that you need to get baptized if you are saved, and it's not just a symbol, but also not a prerequisite to salvation. More like a postrequisite, or the fruit of salvation. However, we believe that baptism is a personal choice as a product of salvation, that can't be made for us, and it's meaningless if not done from faith, which is why we don't baptize babies. One church I went to would do child dedication, which is more for the parents as a pledge to raise the child in faith, and that the church would participate in the child's discipleship in the hope they would one day accept Christ as their personal savior, which kinda reminds me of the concept of infant baptism. All that said, maybe the over-individualism of the Baptist traditions is why so many young people feel less connected to the church. Maybe if they believe they were dedicated through baptism to be in the church from birth, they'd be more likely to continue on the faith.

[@erikkarlson5902]

My biggest struggle with sacramentology is how counter-intuitive so much of the vocab is. Even as I came to hold a classically reformed view of communion I still thought I was memorialist for a long while, because I thought that it was the sign cooperating with the believers faith to confer a spiritual benefit to the believer rather than something special about the elements. The power at work was tied to the remembering (memorial) in faith, not the bread itself. Growing up at a staunchly memorialist church, everyone would have said this. We all were clarifying that we thought the elements were bread and wine when we said it was "just a symbol", we were rejecting transubstantiation. We all believed that when taken in faith it nourished us spiritually, and that when taken in an unworthy manner is could bring real harm. This is not to say everyone there secretly espoused Calvin's view of communion, they didn't but many were incredibly close. If you asked about elements and accidents you would get symbolic language reacting against Catholic error, but if you asked them if God did something to strengthen their faith and unite them with Christ many would have sounded very reformed. Baptism is often very similar. Almost every baptist I have ever met would agree that: 1.Water Baptism is a sign that is tied to the reality of spiritual baptism 2.Water Baptism is taught by our Lord, and should be sought immediately by any claiming to have faith in Christ 3.Refusal to be baptized is a sign of grave spiritual danger, or lack of saving faith 4.The moment of water baptism is not the moment you were saved, that is spirit baptism, but the two are obviously importantly related 5.Baptism is only effective for those with saving faith Then the major debate with our Presby brothers cannot be any of those points. It comes down to very specific language that the laity often does not understand in either's churches (luckily we aren't saved by perfect doctrine). Further the infant baptism debate really heavily hinges not on anything in this video but on the specific way that baptism and circumcision do AND do not correspond. This is a complicated argument on Covenants, Christs efficacy as mediator, and visible versus invisble church. Again something that is not primarily about how baptism works or what it is, but about the nature of the covenant community and their children. To give one last example: Lets take baptismal regeneration. Baptist say you are regenerated at your spiritual baptism, not your water baptism. So they usually respond that they reject baptismal regeneration. Presbyterians say that you are regenerated when you baptism becomes effectual, which is separated in time and space from your water baptism → but because of mostly different vocab (which is an important way we protect our doctrine, but can also make these conversation unnecessarily contentious and confusing) they would sometimes say they reject or affirm baptismal regeneration depending on who you ask and how. God bless you to any one who actually read through this.

[@colorplanetcrazy]

Thank you so much for this explanation; so much of this boils down to the lack of consistent communication between denominations. I think we all agree more than we think we do... We're reading through the same Bible, after all.

[@vincenzorutigliano7239]

3:30 In Catholic Theology (Aquinas) something different happens when someone in a state of mortal sin or doesn't have faith in the Eucharist receives communion they do receive the body of Christ sacramentaly, but instead of recieving it spiritually they recieve judgement (like 1 Corinthians says) This is why in Catholic Theology there is a distinction between spiritual communion (can be received together with the sacrament or through prayer by a faithful desire of the sacrament) and sacramental communion (where the faithful substantially receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly present in the form of both species, the Bread and the Wine)

[@luanbrooks4334]

Lutherans and Anglicans have a similar concept with the recieving judgement when recieving the eucharist if your living in unrepentant sin thats why most Lutherans and Anglicans have confession before the eucharist

[@carlose4314]

@@luanbrooks4334 sadly, not every Catholic Church has confession before mass

[@marvalice3455]

​@@carlose4314really lame.

[@Suqwhat]

​​@@carlose4314 Venial sins are confessed and forgiven during the mass. "I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters that I have greatly sinned ..." But many churches do offer formal confessions before one of their weekend mass times.

[@wham1984]

This explains so much!!! As a Non-Denom trying to understand Reformed Theology, I thank you for laying this out clearly

[@Dsingis]

As a german lutheran, I'd like to point out, that our understanding of baptism is closer to what you described as the reformed view. We don't believe that "baptism saves" in the way, that if you get baptized as a baby with water you're automatically saved. There may be some that do think that, namely what we call "paper christians" (only christians on paper, as in registered in a church register) but we generally think, that baptism is one way of creating faith (not we create it, but god) because the bible says, that faith comes from hearing (or reading, you know what I mean) the word of god. And since baptism is water combined with gods word, it has the potential to create faith. Just as if an adult is listening to a christian cermon, or apologetics video. That's how we think about the baptism. It's the faith that saves you, or as you described it, the baptizing with the spirit. Just think of all these people who were baptized as a child, grew up in the church, have always been christians and don't have one of those points in time they can point to as the moment they were born again. Those have always had faith, we think they received it at baptism. But without faith, your baptism is worthless. I'd like to quote Martin Luther from his own Big Katechism's section about baptism. (I'm german so I'll translate it from my german booklet here myself.) "The faith alone saves, but it needs an outwardly sign it can hold onto, like baptism" (Just like you explained the reformed view in this video. So we can "see" our salvation.) "Now some of our smartipants claim, that faith alone saves and works and outwardly things contribute nothing. To that we respond: Of course this is only a work of the faith, as we will hear later as well. But what those blind-leaders don't want to see, is that the faith needs something to have faith in. That means, something it stands on, something to hang onto. So the faith hangs onto the water und believes, that the baptism is something in which life and saving is; not for the water's sake, as has been said often enough by now, but because it is mixed with god's word and command and because his name is glued to it. If I now believe thusly, what other thing do I believe in as in god? Because he is who gave his word into it and planted it, and gave us this outwardly thing in which we can grasp this treasure?" end quote. In a later section he says: "[...] 'who believes and gets baptized is saved', that means faith alone makes a person worthy to recieve the redeeming, divine water in a useful way. Because what is thaught and promised with the words about the water can not be received in any other way than if we believe it from the bottom of our hearts. Without faith this water is useless, even if it is a divine, overflowing treasure. [...] Because it is unshakable: Who has no faith contributes nothing and receives nothing" end quote. (the last sentence is about salvation)

[@erc9468]

Yes - there are many American Lutherans as well who would agree with what is described here as the Reformed view.

[@joshthxtheContitutionalConserv]

I'm very thankful to God that I listened to this today. I was just talking with my wife about having our 4 yr old baptized and this has greatly cleared things up for me. Thank you.

[@ambrosius]

Man, this is so good. Thanks brother, from a 39 Articles Anglican.

[@andrewwetzel5491]

Posted 6 minutes ago? Uhhhh..... quick! Say something funny!

[@samson4christ]

SNICKERDOODLEGANABANAS!!!!!

[@Kimi_Agno]

CHICKEN BUTT

[@lorenzovillacarairoaza]

PNEUMONIULTRAMICROSCOPICVOLCANICSILICOCONIOSIS!!!! 🔥🔥🗿🗿💀💀🗣️✋🤥✋

[@Tri_Pyro]

Mountains aren't funny, they're hill areas!

[@Tri_Pyro]

Mountains aren't funny, they're hill areas!

[@jonathannerz1696]

“I say that is means is, as long as the definition of is is not is.” -John Calvin, probably

[@jermoosekek1101]

Is means is when the context of is means is literally, hopefully that is comprehensive of the debate.

[@BasiliscBaz]

This coment capture Essence of protestantism

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

RZ forgot to say that the Bible teaches that all those to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ will have eternal life (John 6:53-56), so there is no way an unbeliever can have it. This, with all the other explanations given, shows that Calvin's view is just the most accurate.

[@gagemccalester6720]

​@@pedroguimaraes6094one must examine themself before partaking of the body and blood, lest they sin against the body and blood of Christ.

[@ihiohoh2708]

Dude, have you ever heard of the thief on the cross?

[@carlossardina3161]

This helped me a lot. Thank you, Zoomer.

[@thomasberar4311]

Best 10 minutes of the week

[@stone8795]

I'm Catholic and I've very much been enjoying your videos. I've been keeping up with this series and honestly, I don't see a significant difference between our beliefs. It seems like the reformation was necessary back when the church needed it, but that time time is gone realistically. The Catholic church reformed by studying the the Protestant denominations. We view the church as being the authority to interpret the word of God, but the word itself is still unchanging and unquestionable. Through the will of the Lord, may we be united again one day.

[@TheOnlyConto]

Thanks for what you are doing brother

[@TheOnlyConto]

Been following a lot of your content with Kyle and Jay Dyer. My best friend is Orthodox and I am Reformed. Your content and discussions have helped me greatly as I navigate learning about the sacraments and church history.

[@ethanstrunk7698]

@@TheOnlyContobe cautious of Jay Dyer. Hes not universally accepted in his own sect

[@That_many_watts]

grateful for you channel, been deep diving on my faith and navigating being protestant and thinking about orthodoxy

[@DruckerYTA]

My brain is physically growing by watching these!

[@elijahcandage]

WHY ARE YOU UNDER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THIS GUY'S VIDEOS!?

[@DruckerYTA]

@@elijahcandage I just like his content lol, most theology videos are complicated but he makes everything easy to understand and also makes it slightly entertaining too.

[@kylasmith8273]

my goodness i was just searching to see if you done a video on the sacraments thank you for your service

[@yezki8]

And this is why we need theology teached to our youth. Thank you again for your service m8, God bless you

[@airrowZ]

Uhhhhh

[@grammaurai6843]

Point of clarification, that's not the "Baptist" view of the sacrament of the Table, but the evangelical/non-confessional view. The 1689 takes a very strong position against transubstantiation, but also against the view of the supper as merely eating bread and drinking wine. "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." I'm once again begging Presbyterians to stop using "Baptist" as a synonym for "non-confessional" 🥲 And yes, if you're born in a country you're a citizen of that country - which is why being born of the Spirit makes you a citizen of the Kingdom of God ❤

[@XvicvicX]

Each and every name in Protestantism has long since been deturpated.

[@eddardgreybeard]

Arguments against transubstantiation are nonsensical. It's Christs body and blood or it isn't. Christ said it is.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

It still not as accurate as the reformed view because the London Confession does not hold to reformed Covenant Theology.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

How many confessional baptist churches exist in the US today?

[@brunorosi]

​@@gumbyshrimp2606a few, I suppose. Look for one that subscribes to the 1689 Confession. They do exist.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Your words and the visuals help explain everything very well!

[@BananaLair]

My church in the Netherlands seems to be filled with those ‘pres-bap-terians’ you mentioned near the end of this magnificent video, so I think I might share this with some of my fellow church members!

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

dew it!

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Same here in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil;

[@robbierobinson4110]

Prot theology over simplified: " Jesus who? Anyways...Were not Catholic"

As a Muslim myself I have watched every chapter. And it feels great to see different understandings about God. Thanks for the videos. Also I am studying catholic church so your videos make me understand the basics of Christianity so love your videos. Keep up the great work.

[@ChristianEphraimson]

This is about the reformed tradition so innately anathema to catholic teachings.

@@ChristianEphraimson In order to understand something, I want to learn its antithesis as well as its own ideas. But yes you are right.

@@ChristianEphraimson Also the videos are great to watch, such explanotary things are rare to find

[@rexlion4510]

May our loving Creator be your guide. He loves you and He wants to fellowship & commune with you! The most important thing to know is that Jesus (Isa) laid down His mortal life and shed His blood as a propitiation for your sins, to give you the opportunity to be restored to a right relationship with the Creator. Jesus said, John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." We believe that our Creator is so great, He is more than one Person (the concept of personhood and the concept of being are united for a human, but the One who created all things is far beyond us; it is easy for Him, one Being, to be three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Our Creator loves us so much, He incarnated in a human body to communicate vital Truths to us, to redeem us from the curse of sin which came upon all descendants of Adam, and to help us understand His plan for our lives. Peace. 😊

[@Shaqtheevangelist]

I'm proud to be a reformed Baptist

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

You are a particular Baptist. The Reformed tradition has been there for 500 years and Baptists who affirmed the London Confession always refered to themselves as Particular Baptists. Only in the XX century they started calling themselves "Reformed". Sorry, you are not part of our tradition.

[@thecadhalf]

I'm a Baptist that's in between Baptist and reformed just a little bit XD. This is blown way to far out of proportion like how some people in my church believe the rapture and some don't, but we are the same church. For example, I could say the rapture is a stupid thing to my parents and they would agree but if I said it to my grandparents, they would disagree, but we go to the same church. Instead of arguing about everything and making a new denomination they just need to except that there can be multiple ways of interpreting things.

[@aaronadamson7463]

Well, I would argue that the rapture is not as an important a topic as salvation issue.

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@aaronadamson7463 Rapture theology completely changes your view of God and the world. Is it a salvific issue? Of course not. However, it is a very bad teaching that has actually pushed people out of the faith.

[@ghillieguy52]

Separating baptism and faith by time is separation. The argument that god is outside time doesn't work since humans are not outside of time. Your faith is being separated from your baptism when the words and action are separated. This is not a matter of trying to empower humanity with salvation, it is a matter of declaring your faith both in word and in action, much in the same way that faith is expressed by faithful speech and faithful action, and one without the other is dead faith.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Since salvation was always by Grace through faith since the OTl, so everything you say could be applied to babies being circumcized. Btw, in the Reformed Churches those who were baptized as babies do need to make a public profession of faith later and in order to take communion we simply do not equate Baptism as a public declaration of faith.

[@Griffdawgtw6]

Well put. Baptism does what God says that it does, in time and space. God is faithful, and He promises to save us through Baptism. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:3-7, Titus 3:4-7, 1 Peter 3:21). He also promises remission of sins through His Body and Blood, which the Bread and Wine of Communion truly are, whether you put your faith in Him or not. (John 6, Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29)

[@subzero4190295]

This would only be correct if it were humans doing the works

[@MineStrongth]

@ghillieguy52 Yeah, but... someone once wrote down their position in a book or a confession, so that means it's true. You can't just argue against it. /s

[@Spudeaux]

Here's what I think sums up the Baptist view of other denominations: Roman Catholics - people that love wine and worship Mary Lutherans - Catholics that love beer but don't worship Mary Anglicans - Catholics that don't want to talk about why they're not Catholic Methodists - Catholics that don't drink Presbyterians - Catholics that don't move Pentecostal - Crazy

[@indigofenrir7236]

Change wine to statues and you'll be more accurate. What about evangelicals?

[@drascalicus5187]

​@@indigofenrir7236isn't that just a slang term for baptist, anabaptist, and mega church non denoms?

[@indigofenrir7236]

@@drascalicus5187 Lol not even close.

[@drascalicus5187]

@@indigofenrir7236 What is this strange "evangelical" denomination then, because I haven't heard of it?

[@indigofenrir7236]

@@drascalicus5187 Conservative traditional Christian with emphasis on evangelism. Idk if that's even a sufficient description.

[@esserman1603]

I was so happy to see this on my notifications! Thanks!

[@pezgomez]

This was an excellent explanation. I was baptised along with my family by sprinkling at a young age (3-4) in a reformed church and now find myself at a baptist church. I refuse to be rebaptised as scripture clearly teaches there is only one baptism, but the pressure is real and the denial of my baptism by this denomination sucks. This video helped tremendously. If you have another up your sleeve about modes of baptism I would love to see it.

[@InquisitorJack]

Why not attend a church in-line with your theological convictions instead of one you hold deep disagreements with on an issue that is important to that denomination?

[@grantross4366]

At the moment I tend to side more with the Baptist view. Zoomer's explanation didn't quite stick with me of the sign and the signified operating outside of time. Surely God does, but we do not so long as we are here on Earth. It seems that a sign (Physical Telling) happening before what it signifies is an empty sign. Smoke with no fire to put it another way.

[@philc.2504]

All demonstrations of baptism given to us in the Bible detail full submersion, we Baptists therefore believe that baptism should be via submersion. When someone who was 'sprinkled' as a baby comes to faith we would baptise them, not recognising the childhood experience. This differs from Anabaptists, who will rebaptise under all circumstances when a person joins their church, regardless of what has happened to that person before. Baptists will not baptise someone who has already received full immersion

[@benaim7925]

Immersion Affusion Aspersion

[@carlose4314]

Depends how you were baptized. Was it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Did the church affirm the nicene creed.

[@giraffewhiskers2045]

Baptist here.. me and my mom attend the same church and like this Sunday I’m going my crushes church which is Greek Orthodox

[@gainzorzilla8999]

I actually really align with this view on communion. As a baptist, infant baptism is still a hurtle for me to get over but I do agree that baptism is more than just symbolic. Feels like you’ve really opened my eyes here. Thanks zoomer

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

I'm gonna answer you about infant baptism. The answer is design in a way you can either disagree or agree, not ask questions for refinement or context or how things are connected nor can you debate. This is a "Tacitus declaration" meaning you can only agree or disagree, not argue or debate over or reply over So this is the argument of infant baptism. Here are some scholarly theological sources, arguments, and evidence from Bible, Church Apostolic Fathers' writings, and Church Fathers to support infant baptism: *Biblical Evidence* 1. *Genesis 17:12* - Circumcision applied to infants, setting precedent for infant baptism. 2. *Matthew 19:14* - Jesus blesses children, indicating their inclusion in God's kingdom. 3. *Acts 2:39* - Promise of baptism extended to entire household, including children. 4. *1 Corinthians 7:14* - Unbelieving spouse sanctified through believing spouse, implying children's sanctification. *Church Apostolic Fathers' Writings* 1. *Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2.22.4)* - Infants baptized to cleanse original sin. 2. *Tertullian (On Baptism, 18)* - Baptism replaces circumcision. 3. *Origen (Homilies on Leviticus, 9.9)* - Infants baptized to participate in Christ's resurrection. *Church Fathers' Writings* 1. *Cyprian (Epistle 58.5)* - Infants baptized to receive forgiveness of sins. 2. *Augustine (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.18)* - Children born to Christian parents considered Christians. 3. *Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 40.28)* - Infant baptism mirrors circumcision. *Theological Arguments* 1. *Covenant Theology*: Baptism replaces circumcision as sign of covenant membership. 2. *Original Sin*: Infant baptism cleanses original sin. 3. *Household Baptisms*: New Testament examples (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33) imply infant baptism. *Patristic Consensus* 1. *Council of Carthage (253 AD)*: Affirmed infant baptism. 2. *Council of Milan (390 AD)*: Reaffirmed infant baptism. *Assumptions and Implications* 1. Children born to Christian parents considered Christians. 2. Infant baptism prevents apostasy; unbaptized infants risk eternal condemnation. 3. Baptized infants grow into faith; apostasy possible if faith not nurtured. *Scholarly Sources* 1. *J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines"* 2. *G.L. Bray, "The Sacraments"* 3. *D.F. Wright, "Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective"* *Biblical Assumptions and Implications* *Old Testament Precedents* 1. *Genesis 17:12*: Circumcision applied to infants, assuming covenant membership. 2. *Exodus 12:37-38*: Entire households, including children, participated in Passover. 3. *Deuteronomy 29:10-13*: Children included in covenant renewal. *New Testament Teachings* 1. *1 Corinthians 7:14*: Unbelieving spouse sanctified through believing spouse, implying children's sanctification. 2. *Acts 2:39*: Promise of baptism extends to entire households. 3. *Ephesians 6:1-4*: Children of believers addressed as "holy children." *Assumed Christianity* 1. *Romans 11:16*: Children of believers considered "holy." 2. *1 Corinthians 7:14*: Children of believers sanctified. 3. *Titus 1:6*: Believers' children assumed faithful. *Apostolic Fathers' Writings* 1. *Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2.22.4)*: Infants baptized to cleanse original sin. 2. *Tertullian (On Baptism, 18)*: Baptism replaces circumcision. *Church Fathers' Interpretations* 1. *Augustine (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.18)*: Children born to Christian parents considered Christians. 2. *Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 40.28)*: Infant baptism mirrors circumcision. *Theological Implications* 1. Children born to Christian parents assumed Christians. 2. Infant baptism prevents apostasy. 3. Unbaptized infants risk eternal condemnation. *Scriptural Silence Counterargument* While Scripture doesn't explicitly state "children of Christians are Christians," biblical precedents, apostolic tradition and covenant theology support this assumption. The bible has us baptize entire families, and by the assumption of apostasy, the child of Christians is assumed Christian, only apostasy is the child not a Christian. So infant baptism is biblical. And yes I'm gonna baptize my future babies.

[@commanderchair]

Have you read Gavin Ortlunds article arguing against reformed paedobaptism called "Why not grandchildren?" I think it's pretty persuasive. I grew up Presbyterian, and have been struggling with these issues for a bit now and reading Bavinck has firmly pushed me to the credobaptist side because the way that he describes what baptism is and does for converts seems to be what I'm seeing in scripture... but then switches it up completely in talking about infant baptism and what it does and means for babies of believing parents. Feels like two different baptisms. Much respect for the reformed folk. Most of the authors on my shelf are reformed.

[@ihiohoh2708]

Do you not hold to the saving efficacy of baptism?

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

No it's not, it's just a reductio ad absurdum

[@antesemitic8668]

Confessional Baptists in my country believe in reformed view on sacraments.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

If they hold to the London Confession, it is closer but still is not the same. They loose a lot of it because they do not hold to Reformed Covenant Theology.

[@AS-np3yq]

Such a nonsense.

[@tomtemple69]

So why don't they baptize infants?

[@laiquende9971]

The 1689 does hold to the spiritual real presence but if you look at their section on baptism they remove the part on efficacy.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

@@laiquende9971 They really want to be called "Reformed" but they also really DON'T want to baptize babies rs.

[@elboyouc2]

Baptism saves? But whaddabout the thief on the cross?

[@Kenny-mu2xb]

While on earth, Jesus had the authority to save/resurrect those He willed to as God. Doesn’t entirely apply now because none of us will hang on a cross next to Jesus with a chance to profess our faith in Him to Him

[@CarlosJustThere]

Rewatch the first 3 minutes of the video. But if you don't, It's not the water baptism that saves, but it's a symbol of our salvation shown to the outside world, not the salvation itself.

[@Sir_Gugharde_Wuglis]

Faith saves. Unless you believe the Son of God dying for your sins is meaningless until you add water, commit vampirism and do some cannibalism.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Thats why we call it "ordinary means of salvation".

[@eddardgreybeard]

Baptism wasn't required until the promulgation of the gospel, after Christs blood was poured out, he died and was resurrected.

[@Blaaake]

I’m baptist and I first want to say thanks for being fair in the video. Essentially the way I see it is that inward and outward baptism can be compared to what happens when a couple gets married. Inwardly, they are making the covenant together with god and outwardly they celebrate it physically with the wedding ceremony surrounded by their loved ones. At my church, we also have it as a requirement to become a church member.

[@MarkTodd-yc1zd]

"Baptism now saves you" -St. Peter

[@Via-Media2024]

I was taught in confirmation that Episcopalians/Anglicans retain other sacraments from Catholicism along with baptism and communion such as confirmation, ordination, unction, matrimony, and confession.

[@jacafren5842]

Great videos, keep up the amazing work of proclaiming Christ. On that note: Jesus Christ saves, it is a person, he saves us🙏

[@stanthebamafan]

This was actually very helpful as I recently found my way back to the church after a long time off and I’m trying to understand what Presbyterians actually believe

[@Yehochanan72]

1:18 where did you get that actual footage of me, and why are my words visible in little speech bubbles?

[@swankelly]

7:55. Actually it seems to be what you're saying. You're saying you need Baptism along with faith, also to be saved. Whole households being baptized in the bible, tells us, people were baptized as a confession of their faith. Also, didn't really answer about the thief on the cross. I understand the concept of God not condemning him for not being able to be baptized, but that would also make it not part of salvation.

[@awcbaseball3500]

I’m a Baptist minister awaiting my ordination, and my church agrees with your definition of the reformed position on the sacraments. My church also practices the other 5 sacraments, excluding confession to the pastor/bishop/deacons. Only confession and repentance through prayer is necessary. We don’t, however, practice infant baptism. I don’t see anything wrong with it though. We also don’t believe in predestination.

[@kingarth0r]

If baptism is the same as circumcision then does this exclude women from being baptized? (rhetorical question obviously the answer is no, but it does show that you can't just equate baptism and circumcision)

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

We can, because the Bible does. Just a few examples: Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision. Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Reformed theologians argue that just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.

[@eddardgreybeard]

It absolutely does because it didn't exclude females from the old covenant either. Circumcision of the flesh, circumcision of the heart. Being born again began with baptism, and that's how the entirety of Christianity taught it until prots got their own ideas.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples: Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision. - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision. Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples: Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Yes, we can because the Bible does. Here just two examples: Colossians 2:11-12: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - This passage links circumcision with baptism, suggesting that baptism is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision Romans 4:11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well." - This verse discusses circumcision as a sign of righteousness received through faith. Just as circumcision was a sign of belonging to the Old Covenant community of faith, baptism serves a similar function in the New Covenant community.

[@ericflaviomaltadefreitas3867]

Well, I'm a strange case in this. I consider myself a Sacramental Baptist. My view is similar to the Reformed view that you explained but with some differences. The main is that Baptism and Communion are not only effective for salvation but also to confirm the damnation of the unbelievers who partake in them. In that sense, because both are pledges representing a spiritual reality, those who partake in them have to be accountable about their effects. I take this primarily from Peter, who describes the Baptism as tied with the accountability of individual and compare it with the Flood, that destroyed the sinners, but saved the justs. In that sense, I think that baptism independs of the time that it's administrated to be effective too, but the better administration hold the individual accountable caring that they not pollute the rest of the body (the Church). P. S. : sorry for my bad English, I'm Brazilian!

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

RZ forgot to say that the Bible teaches that all those to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ will have eternal life (John 6:53-56), so there is no way an unbeliever can have it. "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.'"

[@Liethen]

Not as strange as you may think. I'm the same as you and that view used to be a lot more common among Baptists.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Being Baptist allows a broad view on the sacraments but basically there is the traditional Baptist believe that Baptism is a declaration of faith and the Supper is just a memorial. And there is the London Confessions view, hold by Particular Baptists, that hold that we receive Christ spiritually in the Supper (but i think they don't say that It is the blood and body of Christ ), and Baptistim still remains more like a declaration of faith. London Baptist are closer to us but they loose a lot of it because they don't believe in reformed Covenant Theology, that it is the idea that the OT and NT are the same covenant, but just a different administration, and the Baptistm and the Supper are just a substitution of the signs of Circuncision and Easter, but the inner reality mantains. Baptists also have a more individualist view on the Church and the Sacraments while Reformed have a more colective/Kingdom, since we see us more strongly as a continuation of Israel. Obs: I'm also Brazilian :D

[@ericflaviomaltadefreitas3867]

​@@pedroguimaraes6094 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[h] 31 But if we judged[i] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[j] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 1Corinthians 11 says other wise

[@brunorosi]

​@@pedroguimaraes6094Pedro, batistas reformados que subscrevem a confissão de Londres afirmam uma teologia do pacto reformada. Bem, talvez você diga que não é reformada até que se afirme que o antigo testamento e o novo testamento são o mesmo pacto, apenas em diferentes administrações. Penso que é uma definição arbitrária de reformado, e sem amparo histórico, mas tudo bem. Você já leu o livro do Pascal Denault, por exemplo?

[@Divosha_]

my church takes communion really seriously, and we are baptists. It so sad to see that people portray baptists so poorly. We also have to get baptized before communion, and only the people who baptized do the communion.

[@fishy5998]

my baptist church allows for anyone who has accepted Jesus to take it, no baptism required

[@SolitaireZeta]

The Reformed view of the sacraments are close, but no cigar. Viewing Baptism as contingent upon one's faith, undermines the objective and monergistic aspects of the Gospel, and thus, ironically, God's Sovereignty. Rather than being able to look to one's Baptism when one is in doubt, the Reformed view can, also ironically, lead one to an Arminian/decision theology view of one's salvation. In other words, instead of focusing on one's Baptism as an objective work of God performed on us, regardless of ourselves, it becomes an issue of "Did I have enough faith when I was baptized?" The Lord's Supper is supposed to be a reflection of the union of the divine and physical in Christ Himself. Christ cannot only be true God and true Man based on our faith in Him. He is the perfect Godman regardless of our own faith or lack of faith in Him. The Body and Blood only being the Body and Blood if one believes makes no sense in this regard. It also minimizes the very real danger of taking His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner: 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

[@aajaifenn]

I think the reformed view is not that our faith brings about the body and blood of Christ . The body and blood of Christ is always there in sacramental union with the elements for both believers and unbelievers .However unbelievers have their teeth and mouth to feed on the elements but do not the spiritual organ to eat the body and blood of Christ . That organ is faith and only with faith can one eat the body and blood of Christ .Only believers have both organs for physical and spiritual eating . St Augustine says that evil men do not eat the body and blood of Christ . He says prepare your heats rather than one's mouth to feed on Christ .

[@VickersJon]

Yo Zoomer, picked up and started reading The Mystical Presence by Nevin per your rec in another video. It’s awesome.

[@leonalefevre6611]

I was told by my Catholic friends that baptism isn't valid if the pastor says "WE baptize you in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit" not "I baptize you in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Does that wording matter and I should I get rebaptized if my pastor said "we"

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Bruh I doubt anyone cares. Your in good hands go at peace Leona lefevre

[@quagsiremcgee1647]

I remember someone who wasn't sure how baptism works. They were baptized as a baby, but i guess baptists didn't think he was saved. His reaction was to immediately get baptized again and stopped worrying about it.

[@andrewscears7345]

Nice video, Zoomer! Maybe you could do a future one where you look at books that are good for getting into reformed (and maybe just general) theology?

[@MrR1chL1zard]

I recently had a bible study group at my baptist church discussing the sacraments. Obviously, the one congregation cant speak for all Baptists, but we were all pretty much in agreeance with the reformed view. Just wanted to throw that out there to prove we arent nestorian in that aspect. Edit: See 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 30, Paragraph 7

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

By this paragraph I only understood that "baptism" is equal to being part of the visible Church, but do you believe that any grace is actually communicated in baptism? If so, why babies are not baptized? Peter said that the promises of the Covenant are from the children's of the believers. Do you believe that we are spiritually fed and united with Christ in Holy Communion? Answer these questions and tell me if your vision is really the same as ours.

[@JonathanMeyer84]

Can you elaborate on the scriptural basis for the distinction between the sign on the one hand and the thing signified on the other as opposed to both being the same thing? Thanks!

[@nicolaseito5172]

where can I find the song that starts at 8:47?

[@andreileahu8652]

Could you do a video or make an instagram post explaining Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I grew up in a Pentecostal community where Baptism of the Holy Spirit and being Born Again/Regeneration are separate events. It appears, from what I understand, that you're saying that they're one and the same. This has been a topic of great confusion for me for a long time. Thanks so much for all the work you do! God bless!

[@tomtemple69]

Baptism of the Spirit = regeneration and being sealed, Ephesians 1:13

[@meatballofall]

Cool video man - I appreciate your content more and more

[@JosefFurg1611]

What you claim is the "Baptist" view, is in fact the Zwinglian view, which is the OG Reformed view. Calvin wanted to make amends with Luther and departed from the traditional Reformed view. Bullinger kept it, and so did others, which the Lutherans called "Sacramentarians". In reality, the memorialist view of the Radical Reformation is a step forward from the original Zwinglian Reformed view. It's unfair to claim that the Calvinist view is the Reformed view, when in fact there is a vast Sacramentarian tradition on the Reformed side which dates older than Calvin's conversion, and which remains even after Calvin. Just call your view the Calvinist view, and leave the word Reformed to the people that actually started the movement and coined the term. "It is the *spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:* the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

[@SobaOfPulaski]

So my Southern Baptist Church has a lot more reformed theology than most in our community. For one communion for us is the true presence and our Pastor has made it very clear that folks should not take Communion without being saved. However, we still do not believe in Infant Baptism. Now I believe full-heartedly in the Church I am in being one that the presence of God is still there since I remember being saved there at the altar of that church. And I still feel very much at peace everytime I enter the sanctuary. However, I do wonder how I should start the discussion about what our Church really believes. Frankly, the more and more I think about and look around me, the more and more I believe we are a lot more disconnected from the rest of the Baptist Churches around us in that our theology and our practices are different. I am still unsure about Baby Baptisms and I will pray on that bit, but a lot of videos from you and other channels have made me think a bit as of late. Especially considering how spiritually dead or weak a lot of churches are around us, whereas we still are going strong. But I guess I am trying to find out whether or not we believe more in aspects of reformed theology or mainstream baptist beliefs or a mix of both.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Reformed Theology is a theological tradition, whose believes are summarized in the reformed confessions (Belgian Confession, Heidelberg Cathecism, Canons of Dort and Westminster symbols), and has been like that for 400 years, it is not just about TULIP and just believing in some form of "spiritual presence" in the Supper (Methodists believe the later too). If you don't hold our confessions you are not reformed. The reason why London Baptists do not baptize babies is exactly because they do not hold to reformed covenant theology and, as it is said by our theologians, Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology. Historically, Baptists who hold to London Confession used to call themselves "Particular Baptists" and was just a few decades ago that they started calling themselves "reformed" Baptists.

[@SobaOfPulaski]

@@pedroguimaraes6094 so I guess my next question is how does one slowly begin to move their Church towards that next theological step. Again, part of me is still unsure on the matter of baby baptism, but I also don’t want to write it off without understanding a bit more. Granted I grew up in the Methodist Church, and I was baptized as a baby, that being said I really don’t believe that baptism was real since we had a Female “Pastor” who conducted it.

[@StealthySpace7]

I am a Baptist because I believe every adult should be baptized of their own free will, but I am not opposed to infant baptism, I don't see it as a necessary thing for infants as they are not capable of understanding the pledge they are making. But I don't separate baptism and communion from their spiritual meanings, I believe the spirit is in the bread and wine while not transforming them into literal blood and flesh. I also believe the spirit is in baptism and represented by water. So I don't really know where I fit because some of my views aren't Baptist, I just place a high importance on adults being baptized. After watching this video though, I am not so sure on the necessity of adult baptism. God is out of our perception of time, so our spiritual unity with him is as well, including our baptism as infants.

[@camerondowney6413]

2:21 confuses me. Because when he’s talking about being born of water, he’s not talking about water baptism. He’s talking about literal birth, because that’s the issue Nicodemus brings up.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

The interpretation of "born of water and the Spirit" has been debated among theologians. Some interpret "water" as referring to physical birth (amniotic fluid) while others see it as a reference to baptism, symbolizing spiritual cleansing and rebirth. So yes, some Christian traditions interpret this verse as a reference to baptism, but it's not universally agreed upon.

[@Ampwich]

I want to agree but using the word "water" for that seems a little off to me...

[@AarmOZ84]

John Calvin was the middle way with sacraments. He both agreed it was ridiculous to worry about spilling the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion, but it was equally ridiculous to not believe we drink the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion.

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

So, Baptist here. Honest question, in the reformed view, are there individuals that receive the sign (water baptism) that have not and will not receive the thing signified (spirit baptism) ?

[@ihiohoh2708]

Are nonelect sometimes baptized? The Reformed view is that baptism saves, but only for the elect.

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

@@ihiohoh2708 So, your answer is yes. I'm not being combative, just have sincere questions. Agreed that even in a Baptist church, a person can receive the sign without receiving the thing signified. But that is only because we are unable to truly determine the status of the individual's heart (whether regenerate or not). All we have to operate on is the external, their outward works and words. If we deem these outwards works and words to be indicative of regeneration, we baptize. Could we get it wrong, of course. There are those who were with us but were never "one of us." My second sticking point and question is regarding Acts 2 and Peter's instruction to "repent and be baptized." it is often quoted that this "promise" is for you and your children. What exactly is the promise the infant receives upon baptism? Are they receiving a promise that one day they will receive the remission of sins that water baptism signifies? Are they receiving the promise that one day they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? I have asked this question before but I am still unclear what the Reformed answer is

[@philc.2504]

Fellow Baptist here. Yes I think so, my example being that at our church we have previously heard credible testimony and baptised people who have since revealed through their actions that they are clearly not Christians - we prayed that they were merely backsliding and would demonstrate their salvation again, but alas unless they do they clearly were never truly saved

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

@@ihiohoh2708 So, yes is the answer. I am sincerely asking questions and not trying to be combative. I agree that even in Baptist churches, there could be people who receive the sign but never receive the thing signified. But the difference is that we only give the sign to those who claim to have received the thing signified. We are trying our best to administer the sacrament to those people who have demonstrated that they have received the sign. Of course, we get it wrong sometimes because we cannot see the condition of their heart. The real question has to do with Acts 2 and the "promise is unto you and your children." I have asked this question to Reformed people before but I can't seem to get a straight answer. What exactly is the promise that the infant is receiving? It seems that the people who obey Peter's command of "repent and be baptized" are receiving a two fold promise - 1 the remission of sins and the 2 the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is the infant receiving those things? If not, what is the promise that is communicated to the infant? For sake of clarity, I will just simply state that I think the more plain interpretation of the verse is that this promise is for "you" (Israel) and your children (future generations, or descendants) and for them that are afar off (Gentiles) The language seems to be corporate, that is, speaking of nations or people groups (Israel/Gentiles). Furthermore, the Bible does use "children" in contexts that mean something other than infants. Take for example, the "children of Israel" are clearly not all infants but descendants of Jacob, who is Israel. RZ has great content. Love what he is doing. I disagree with this point here but appreciate his ministry!

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

@@ihiohoh2708 I have typed out two responses and they don't seem to be going through

[@louannebvb]

Welp, you convinced me to become Presbyterian. I love this tradition

[@joshuang6896]

Baptists: when you get baptized, nothing happens. But if you don't do it the way we says it, then the nothing happens won't happen. So you have to do it the way that we says it to make the nothing happen happens. Even though nothing happens.

[@tomtemple69]

I love this meme Baptism doesn't do anything but if you don't it our way the thing that doesn't happen won't happen 😂

[@indigofenrir7236]

Water immersion baptism is a public declaration of faith, while spiritual baptism happens at the moment of faith. Baptism of fire is... hell. Idk why many people misinterpret this one.

[@tomtemple69]

@@indigofenrir7236 "Water immersion baptism is a public declaration of faith," yeah, that isn't in the Bible neither immersion nor "public declaration of faith" you've turned baptism into a empty, bare, individualistic sign

[@rawkfist-ih6nk]

@tomtemple69 That’s semantics. Baptists are bad about making cliche phrases and making slogans. Public profession of faith means sign. Immersion is where we get the word Baptist and it’s just a habit and symbol not a requirement. Usually referencing Jesus in the river but we lack rivers in the churches so for some reason we install bathtubs so I’ll grant you we are a weird bunch but most of this is misrepresentative of at least the majority of Baptists I know

[@tomtemple69]

@@rawkfist-ih6nk "Public profession of faith means sign' yeah, they've turned God's sign to us into a sign from man to the crowd " Immersion is where we get the word Baptist" it's ironic that the denomination named "Baptist" is the one who baptized incorrectly 😂 "Usually referencing Jesus in the river but we lack rivers in the churches so for some reason we install bathtubs " Jesus was sprinkled, not immersed....

[@carlose4314]

Paul said people were receiving communion in an unworthy manner in his first epistle to the Corinthians. How is that possible if you only receive the body and blood if you have faith?

[@philc.2504]

This is our Baptist argument for closed communion (believers only communion)

[@subzero4190295]

​@@philc.2504 but if its merely a symbol how do you eat and drink judgement on yourself?

[@captainfordo1]

How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man? Is means is! Also, you misrepresented the Lutheran view of Baptism. Or course we believe that Baptism cannot save apart from faith. We just believe that babies can have faith. As Jesus said, “have faith like an infant.”

[@follow_the_way]

What bible verse says "have faith like an infant"?

[@captainfordo1]

@@follow_the_wayLuke 18:17

[@follow_the_way]

@captainfordo1 What bible version are you using because none of the major versions say that.

[@follow_the_way]

@captainfordo1 Still waiting for the version that says what you claimed.

[@a_game_nub6884]

@@follow_the_way gonna step in here and say I belive the verse is commonly said as have faith like a child. Considering that infants are also considered children it is not to far off, especially when one looks at John jumping in the womb when he was near Jesus, obviously proving that even unborn infants can and do have faith in god, even if it’s a rudementry one. This is also backed up by human nature where someone who isn’t exposed to religion and also not exposed to anti religious sentiments tends to belive in god, especially children.

[@Kenny-mu2xb]

The effect of the sacrament of water baptism is by the power of the Spirit

[@OmgKyo]

Hey I'm a new believer, could anyone tell me how someone gets saved, and goes to heaven? Thanks :)

[@toinouant4509]

Believe in God, in the Incarnation, the resurrection. Be baptized, confess your sins, partake of the Eucharist, and generally be a good person (like everyone else).

[@KikatzuMusik]

@@toinouant4509 That's a false gospel. LORD Jesus said there is no one good but God alone. If you put your trust in your own goodness, you will make the finished work of Christ a mockery! Good Works are for granted in God's Eyes. Works of men cannot justify, but the Works of God do. The Gospel is this: Repent and believe fully in Jesus Christ. By his blood you have full redemption of sins. Only a saving Faith in Christ will save you, a mere believe will not.

[@toinouant4509]

@@KikatzuMusik cool 👍

[@KikatzuMusik]

@@toinouant4509 It's simply this: The world and all of their religions tell you "do". But Christ on the Cross said: "Done!" (τετελεσται) Watch the sermon "Hells best kept secret" by Ray Comfort.

[@OmgKyo]

@@KikatzuMusik this makes way more sense then doing a bunch of tasks to be saved. Thanks 🙏

[@igorlopes7589]

1:23 Best lutheran satire video ever

[@michaelg4919]

Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lecture 3 (paragraph 4) teaches that both are necessary (baptism saves the body & faith saves the soul) so this would match the reformed view. This would also mean that "salvation army" members won't go to heaven, because they reject baptism.

[@Jaunyus]

This is a very helpful video in understanding not just the Reformed position, but also other views in relationship to it. However, perhaps it may be better to describe the Lutheran view not as "Monophysite", so much as "Miaphysite". Like the Miaphysites, Lutherans would claim that the Lord's supper involves a mystery of how the emblems and the Lord's blood and body are united. In essence then, this conflict over how the sacraments are to be understood, resurrected the ancient conflict between Chalcedonian Christians and Oriental Christians regarding the person and natures of Christ. While history may never repeat itself, it does rhyme. May we as modern protestants learn from our ancient ancestors. Fascinating discussion. Peace my brother.

[@gagemccalester6720]

I'd disagree with the Chalcedonian point. True bread, true body, etc is the Lutheran view. Two natures, one essence. Its Catholics and transubstantiation that might better reflect the Monophysite type for the sacraments. I'd also ask, when you say "spiritually" there, can you actually define what that means? If you can't, I'd argue that's almost the same as symbolic, like when people say they're "spiritual" when asking about their faith. Jesus often talked in parables like saying "I am the door", but wasn't referring to an actual door. When he says "This is my body" he is referring to a "this", that being the bread. I'd have to say, "Is means Is" is something we should consider greatly. Its what Jesus said, directly, and he did not feel the need to clarify. If you were to imagine asking him if he meant "This represnts my body" don't you think his response would simply be "This is my body"? My final question is why people don't accept the very literal take. Sure, you might say scripture doesnt argue for it (as the inverse would apply to any other position) but do you have a personal problem with it being the literal body and blood? Is that where the extra analysis comes from, to try and disprove it?

[@ReformedBerean]

Hey brother. I know we discussed on one of your last videos on the comment section before. But I want to call you to be true to Reformed Baptist(confessional, creedal, covenantal) we and I as well agree with your view of the sacraments. Not all Baptist have that same memorial view or empty view of the sacraments. I know your videos are to educate people, so I would call on you to be honest. I’m not saying you’re breaking the 9 commandment but you are kind of getting into the territory of 9C violation. By not being honest about your Reformed Baptist. Again I love you as a brother in Christ and this is why I feel comfortable in commenting on this video. I’m not here for an argument or to make a show for people in the comment section.

[@popcornchicken6750]

I think he’s just generalizing and due to the wide variety and very decentralized way Baptist churches are, not all will agree with ur take (i believe generally reformed zoomers take is true of most “reformed Baptist”, escpecislly those prevalent online) God bless

[@ReformedBerean]

I can understand that. But not all Presbyterian churches agree and there’s a wide variety. And I just think since if he’s teaching on history, theology, and etc.. he should be honest with his audience. Particular (Reformed) Baptist right from the beginning always distinguished themselves from the Arminian Baptist and the Anabaptist. They made it clear in their confessions and in there writings

[@philc.2504]

Thank you for commenting brother, I came to say the same thing. Baptist is quite a broad title, I myself being a Reformed (or particular) Baptist Christian would hold what this video calls the Reformed view of communion (spiritual presence) but disagree with its justification of infant baptism and it's silence on baptism by immersion

[@erikkarlson5902]

@@ReformedBerean yes he doesn't force other traditions to own that most of their churches have abandoned their confessions, baptist are very singled out and don't get to be represented by their historic confessions when say Lutherans, Anglicans(remember Episcopal is the mainline), and Methodist do.

[@ReformedBerean]

@@philc.2504 yea I would just hope he takes what I’m saying into consideration

[@odisho100]

That’s not true the about what the baptists believe about the Lord’s supper, London Baptist Confession 1689 says that they are spiritually receiving Christ. Chapter 30 Part 7.

[@erikkarlson5902]

No no, only every other denomination gets to be represented by their historic+confessional standards. The Lutherans don't have to own that most Elca laity don't know their confessions, but still get to be steelmanned. Just baptists are fair game because Congregationalism bad 😔.

[@redfritz3356]

Thanks, now I know I'm a Baptist.

[@AshtonDawson-lh2qb]

So, would you agree that Baptism is then an outward symbol and confession of an inward change?

[@adrianjohnson222]

I'm actually not even a christian, but you explain things so well it makes me want to learn more! I've been told my whole life that most of christianity is evil and everyone who believes in God is stupid, but just the fact that theology and theological history is so complex sort of refutes that. I can't say I would ever let go of my more leftist beliefs, but I can safely say that I now believe God exists, though I'm not sure in what form or how. Do you have any recommended readings for me regarding God and Christianity? I just think it's super interesting stuff.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith By Tim Keller.

[@Levaix]

Three thoughts: 1. Good summary that helps to "make sense" of something most other denominations are confused by. 2. Weird, it's almost like divine mysteries are difficult to comprehend from our limited human perspective. 3. Me telling you to stop dunking on baptists (no pun intended) isn't going to change much, but please watch out for your pride. Just because you don't agree with (or, I suspect, fully understand) a viewpoint doesn't mean it's appropriate to publicly belittle it. While the stereotypes do exist, not everyone is a raving strawman. There are actual reasons people hold certain viewpoints, and it's okay to respect the benefits and drawbacks of looking at things a certain way. For better or worse, the failure to do so is what led to so much fracturing during the reformation.

[@kubixus]

6:34 not entirely true; that's only true for some countries that give citizenship by Jus soli. I think most countries only award citizenship by blood, that is to children of citizens.

[@masonmcgahey7]

I’ve been struggling with Catholicism and these videos help put into perspective why I hold Reformed theology. Would you ever do a video on Thomist vs Calvinist predestination? The Thomist view is something that made me think maybe it’s possible to be Catholic without sacrificing my theology 😂, but at the same time it seems the Catholic Church has moved far and away from this view with its current teachings and theology and leans much more molinist.

[@rexlion4510]

As a former cradle Catholic, I would advise staying far away from them. Between their worship of the wafer, the prayers to saints, the iconography, and the extreme attention & adoration given to Mary, they are a hot mess.

[@masonmcgahey7]

@@rexlion4510 Thank you for the warning. If you don’t mind me asking what caused you to move away from the Catholic Church. Are you Reformed?

[@rexlion4510]

@@masonmcgahey7 I don't mind you asking at all. I prayed and asked God at age 18 to fill me up with His Spirit. I didn't expect to feel or experience anything (what Catholic ever does? LOL), but suddenly _I knew that God was Present inside of me,_ and He began _communicating_ to me in "thought pictures" so fast I could scarcely keep up. I've never been the same since, obviously! It was He who began urging me gently to explore other churches and He who began exposing the errors and accretions of Roman Catholicism to my understanding. I resisted for 8 years, because the RCC had taught me that there is no salvation outside of the RCC, but finally I became obedient and left it. God led me to attend an Assemblies of God church for 6 years. Then when He asked us to move 1,000 miles (on faith) to another state, He took us to a couple of non-denoms for about 25 years. Then another 2 years in A/G. Then He unmistakably led me into an ACNA Anglican parish, where I've been for about 5 years now. I so appreciate the weekly Communion and the traditional hymns!

[@masonmcgahey7]

@@rexlion4510 Wow, that is quite a story, amen brother. I appreciate you sharing your testimony, it gives me confidence to keep praying and trusting in where the Lord is leading me. I’ve been apart of a Church start and have been in a non-denominational Church for the last 2 years. While we are non-denominational a majority of our Church family is Missionary Baptist and a small fraction of us are Reformed Baptist. I’ve noticed a lack/negligence of Church History and Tradition that is present in Non-Denominational Churches or Baptist branches in general. I am firm in belief that Church Tradition and History does not supersede the word of God, but I’ve had a hard time feeling edified when almost everyone in the church has a disdain for systematic theology and history. It’s been hard for me to grow when it seems more of a nuisance. I feel as though me and the more reformed members are slowly getting pushed out. It’s had quite an effect on me but I pray that God leads everyone involved in the situation in a way that glorifies him and there is no ill will. As I’m quite reformed in my theology I am feeling drawn to visit some Presbyterian Churches and learn more of Church Tradition and History that has an emphasis on Sola Scriptura. The Anglican Church has also been interesting to me. Im surprised you went from Catholic to AG to Anglicanism, when looking at a history of each denomination and its traditions it seems like an interesting journey.

[@NoblePancakesLashleyMcfunk]

😂 this is great and very informative. Also I like how you don't even finish the sentences when bringing up typical counter arguments. "...Have you heard dofthe thief on the...." Love it! Lol we all know the responses so you don't HAVE to finish the sentences but it's just funny to me.

[@mysticassassin4]

1:21 with how the thief on the cross was mentioned and how this could mean baptism doesnt save potentially, It would be nice to have an explanation, because its a genuinely intriguing question

[@pawlaovicto7824]

Cool video. I'm a Pentecostal and we have basically the same view of the sacraments/ordinances as Baptists i.e.: 1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone 2. Baptism and Communion are works 3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion don't save But after reading John 6, I can't sustain this anymore. I have a more sacramental view, that goes: 1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone 2. Baptism and Communion are Grace 3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion save. So, I still am searching for the views of "anamnesis" which make a more deep spirituality of the "stickers" of the ordinances without being sacramental, but Idk it seems sketchy. But still, I'm searching a direct instruction that Communion and Baptism (specially this last one) are Grace.

[@juliab516]

This view on baptism really helped put me at ease, as I was wondering if I should be rebaptized since I was as a child when I was baptized. However, is there anything regarding the mode of baptism that changes things? I was baptized by the sprinkling of water on my head, not dunked in it. Would that in any way make it ineffective?

[@knightrider585]

+3:08 If the Eucharist is only the body and blood of Christ for those who have faith, why does St Paul talk about people becoming sick and dying from taking communion "without discerning the body" of Christ (1 Corinthians 11: 28-30)? Why would mere bread and wine make someone sick?

[@JonathanBeechner]

Question about the reformed view: You said that if someone takes communion but doesn't have faith, they are only receiving the sign and not the thing signified. Now, my church (which believes the same thing, I think) always asks non-believers to NOT take communion and wait until they come to faith, often citing I Corinthians 11:29. Why is that important? If they would not receive the thing signified anyway, why does it matter whether they take communion?

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Although they do not receive the thing signified, there still remains the curse for those who participate unworthily. They are independent things.

[@cesarcardona4478]

Clearly explained Thanks

[@CODENAMEDERPY]

This was far less unifying of Protestantism than your usual videos.

[@awkwardfun2389]

When the non-elect receive Baptism or Lord’s Supper, why does this separate the sign and the thing signified if they are Sacramentally United?

[@Shawn-nq7du]

Jesus said, "This is my Body." He didn't say if you have faith or not. Now, Catholics would say faith and being properly disposed are necessary components for the sacrament to transform one's soul. If one is in a state of mortal sin, taking the Eucharist would be more harmful than helpful because it is truly and really the presence of Christ.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Jesus also said that all who receive his body and blood will have eternal life. Therefore, there is no way they could be in the elements so that an unbeliever could have them: "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. WHOEVER eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. WHOEVER eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.'" (John 6:53-56)

[@derlijn]

what if you get baptized on a cult (7th day adventist) and then, years later, recieve the batptism of the Holy Spirit, after leaving the cult. that means i have to be re-baptized?

[@MrJosedaluz]

You need to make videos with interview about conversions of Catholics to protestants and vice versa.

[@franciscoarturoriveranajer2500]

Hey, a so called "reformed baptist" here... very aligned with your View of the Supper, but obviously not with baptism. Some cuestions: If a baby received the baptism and now he Is part of the church (at least the visible people of God), should they partake of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? They are subject to church discipline and may be excomunicated if having not repented sin? Thank you!

[@WM3636-d1c]

On your explanation of baptism saving, what if you want to and have planned to be baptised, in say a week, but you happen to die within that time. You haven't really refused the sacrament, but it's not like you were prevented from doing so either. In this view, what would happen then?

[@connerstarkey1031]

If the two are interlinked, how it is possible that in the book the acts there is more than one example of people having belief and being baptized by not being full of the spirit?

[@placeholderplaceholder5625]

To be baptized by fire is to completely surrender to the Holy Ghost to the point that you release control of your own body and allow the Holy Spirit to take control. This is commonly referred to as “Speaking in tongues”, which is to be baptized by the fire of the Holy Ghost. That’s why you should be baptized twice, once by water, and once by fire.