The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[@AWar667]

Another thing to note with Acts 2:38 is that the preposition behind "for" is εις, which is the same preposition that appears in Matthew 3:11 when John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto (εις) repentance." I'm not aware of anyone who says that the baptism of John was the instrumental cause of repentance. Clearly, he was baptizing people who were already repentant. So if εις doesn't mean that baptism caused repentance in Matthew 3:11, why is it insisted that baptism causes remission of sins in Acts 2:38?

[@Defender_of_Faith]

How then do you apply Acts 22:16

[@Democracyofthedead]

“Why is it insisted that baptism causes the remission of sins?” Because the Bishops who wrote the Creed clearly taught that it did.

[@Defender_of_Faith]

​@@DemocracyofthedeadMark 1:1-8 could have something to do with it.

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

​@@Defender_of_FaithDon't really see how that verse is a counterpoint to the original comment. The word used there is "and." Be baptized AND wash away sins. It would be perfectly reasonable to understand that these two things are connected but not causally related. Also, "calling on His name" is absolutely a euphemism indicating those possessing saving faith. "Those who call on the name of the Lord" is commonly used throughout Scripture to that effect.

[@matthew_scarbrough]

What people would say is that you have not really fully repented until you are baptized -- the baptism serves as a seal for repentance to make it full. I don't think that is controversial: what happens when you meet a Christian that "loves Jesus" but they are embarrassed to get baptized or "don't" feel like it? you call into question their convictions. -- -- -- -- I did a bit of research that I could into _Tevilah,_ or "Jewish Baptism," and I think it sheds light onto the Baptism "debates". First, Tevilah was not about spiritual cleansing, it was about outward cleansing*. Ritual purity has nothing to do with personal guilt or sin, though there can be a little overlap. The point is to make yourself clean enough so that you can be in the presence of a Holy God without scaring him away lest he be ritually defiled (or, as he is an all-consuming fire, his pure cleansing presence burning you away into nothing). Second, Tevilah was done by _just you, to you,_ and it was done multiple times a day or week as needed. By contrast, Christian baptism is done by another Christian, on behalf of Christ's authority, to you -- you cannot baptize yourself. Tevilah were originally probably simple baths done in "living water" (flowing water). You went to a creek, got some hyssop, and scrubbed yourself -- if it's not enough, sit on the bank, sponge, scrub, and scoop up water to pour over yourself to clean. At the advent of Alexander the Great's escapades into the Near East, Greeks brought with them the stone bathtub -- you sit in it, hot water pours into your bath from a tank from overhead and you sit in the water about true waist-deep. This changed the Jewish concept of cleanliness, and they began doing Tevilah similar to Greek baths. Religious Jews began worrying the sanctity of Tevilah would be confounded for the Greek bath, so they developed the _mikveh,_ which was a large, head-height deep vertical pool that they filled with water. Above it were tanks always filled with water taken from a stream. There were steps that led down to the bottom of the mikveh. All towns had to have at least 7 mikvehs. At this point, tevilah is now a ritual. There is no act of scrubbing. You strip naked in front of your friends, and you walk down standing up perfectly straight into the water until it covers your head, turn around, and immediately walk back out -- vertical immersion for a mere second. Tevilah was required of all male, female, slave, and child converts to Judaism by the 3rd c. BC. Jews even debated over whether or not Gentile men had to be circumcised being that tevilah was now required alongside circumcision. Many said only circumcision, many said both, and some said just Tevilah (the perspective Christians would adopt, showing it was already an opinion floating in Jewish circles). Children that were not old enough to perform Tevilah on themselves, the mother held them in her arms, and they went down into the water together. If a woman wanted to keep her slaves after conversion, she either had to do tevilah first or she had to hold them and they all go down at the same time so they all become Jews at the same time -- if the slave becomes a Jew first, then he is no longer technically the same person, and no longer her slave. The Didache prefers that you use living water for your baptism too -- in fact, that seems to be what the Early Church cared about most, but you see something interesting. You immerse; if not, you pour; if not, you sprinkle -- this is a practical concern about how much water you have. IIRC, and I can't source this part as I forgot to write it down, it seemed like I found where some Jews did allow pouring or sprinkling if you didn't have enough water for a full mikveh, and then some sects still didn't necessarily immerse. -- -- -- -- Now the Essenes did Tevilah a little different. They did not strip naked. Men wore a loin cloth that covered their full false-waist area, women wore a short dress with a bottom, but the _implications_ of Tevilah were different. Essenes believed that the only true Tevilah washed you both internally and externally. Bear in mind that Christ says you must not wash the outside of the cup, but the inside also -- they had a similar idea. They believed that when Tevilah was done in a _true heart of repentance,_ with true intent to change, then it energized the Tevilah and it was a true tevilah, and it made you ritually outwardly pure and washed you internally so that your inside was also ritually pure. This seems to be what John the Baptist believed, but that may be projection. -- -- -- -- I can source all of this except for the claim about women bearing their children down into the water (yet) -- I have heard a few scholars say that, and I respect them as they generally don't lie and one of them firmly believes infant baptism is blasphemy, so he isn't biased for it. I can source women bearing their slaves down into the water.

[@Golden_writes550]

I believe it should be mandatory in all seminaries for all Protestant Pastors to study the history of the Church (without bias). Along with the studying of Scripture.

[@BeefyPreacher]

That is exactly what seminaries do.

[@nyart66]

They do but Baptist seminaries gloss over 1,000 years of it

[@soteriology400]

Also to make it mandatory to exercise discernment when reading history, and not read history so gullibly. There was a major rewrite of history that took place in the 4th century.

[@ZTAudio]

Agree. And let’s get Catholics to study actual history as well, instead of the “Catholic version” of history.

[@davidbur2790]

Agreed. Many people have converted to Catholicism because they have studied the early church. They have said "we" (Protestants) "do not practice our faith like the early Christians. Who does? The Catholics, especially the Eucharist".

[@jobeedrost]

Please make that series on the Apostles Creed, that would be awesome.

[@connorpetrick6572]

YES! Please do this. I would love it.

[@MatthewRonaldWiebe]

I would like a history of it, especially looking at the critical scholarship on it, going all the way back to Lorenzo Valla.

[@ServantofX]

This would be AMAZING!!

[@JohnQPublic11]

The original unaltered Apostles Creed is the only legitamate statement of Christian faith.

[@mwidunn]

@@JohnQPublic11 Um, well. Did you know that it originated as the baptismal creed of the Roman Church? It was professed by the catechumens during the baptismal ceremony.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬ ‭

[@johnathanl8396]

Yea and?

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

@@johnathanl8396 baptism saves us through regeneration, uniting us to christs death and resurrection, forgiving our sins and giving us a new name

[@CrushingSerpents]

Here come the Sola/Solo Scriptura confusionists... The water is chummed lol

[@ricksonora6656]

If you compare various translations, you’ll find that the verse is extremely ambiguous. One common translation is that it means the one being baptized makes a pledge or declaration to God because his conscience is already made clean through faith. A skillful expositor never uses an ambiguous verse to contradict explicit verses, especially voluminous, explicit passages about salvation not coming through works.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

@@ricksonora6656 it isn’t ambiguous. “Baptism now saves you” is quite explicit. And furthermore, the early church unanimously held to baptismal regeneration in some form or another, it wasn’t until 1500 years later that the anabaptists started reading their flawed theology into the verse

[@mack6861]

Unfortunately, I have found many Baptists, including myself for a long time, have never heard of the Nicene Creed.

[@matthew_scarbrough]

One baptism for the remission of sins, except you get rebaptized five times through your life as you realise you never really believed right the first four times 😎

[@tymon1928]

probably because pastors see "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" and they prefer to keep anything catholic related outside their churches

[@Golden_writes550]

So true. I believe it should be mandatory in all seminaries for all Prot Pastors to study the history of the Church...Foundation is utmost importance.

[@Golden_writes550]

@@matthew_scarbrough No one understands in the beggining of anything. But time and studying and teachings reveals what things(spiritually) we done.

[@Golden_writes550]

@@tymon1928 Ortlund is not your typical Protestant.

[@Aaryq]

My brother in Christ, I agree with your father. I would love the Dr. Ortlund word-by-word breakdown of the Apostles' Creed series.

[@zachhawkins2698]

This is the first full video of yours that I’ve watched Gavin, thank you so much for being a voice of not just historical scholarship engaging with the Church’s Christian traditions from a Baptist voice, but thank you for being a calm, peaceable, and loving voice of Christ within your discussions. Coming from a nondenominational Bible church tradition myself, earlier this summer (2024) I began what now has become a deep dive into church/Christian history outside the borders of before the Reformation. & I have found that studying the apostolic fathers, councils, creeds, other patristics, and even present-day “orthodox” church differences and unity has been such an enriching journey in my Christian walk that the Lord has used and to help foster a spirit of ecumenism in me that I hope to share with others! In my list of KZbinrs that rep various traditions, you have certainly joined the ranks of those whom I have engaged with so far-Redeemed Zoomer, Dr Matthew Everheart, Jordan B Cooper, The Council of Trent, Fr Josiah Trenham, Ready to Harvest, The Other Paul, that young Anglican dude, and a few others. Your posture of academic humility in your presentation approach gains HUGE RESPECT from me and from one of my friends who is an Anglican and highly spoke well of you to me, saying that your non-combative/non-oppositional approach in your videos is far more appealing to listen to than many other scholars. My Anglican friend whom I highly respect also told me that he pretty much agrees with everything you say, which was huge for me. I had heard of you before jumping on board right now but I was in the dark in those times, and was judgmentally lame towards you. Please forgive me this wrong. I am very thankful for you & your work and am all about what God is doing through this ministry of yours! Thank you for repping the Baptists well in the scholarship of Christianity & most importantly for your graceful and peaceable approach. Can’t wait until we are all united fully in Christ! Blessings in God our Father & Christ Jesus our Lord through the Holy Spirit unto you & your family my brother! 10/13/2024

[@ScholasticLutherans]

When Lutherans say that a Cornelius situation is an exception, this is circumstantial. It is the exception because most Christians are baptized as infants. In the time of the Bible, most Christians are adult converts since it is the first generation of Christians. We do not mean it is a theological exception; it is an exception of circumstance. It is still the case today that adult converts are regenerated and converted prior to baptism and baptism acts as a sealing for them.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

Yes. Is speaking of the Baptism of an adult convert as a seal of a prior regeneration and conversion from Johann Gerhard? I've read it somewhere, but cannot remember where. Perhaps it was Krauth quoting Gerhard...?

[@taylorbarrett384]

That is how Aquinas and many Catholics (including me) understand it as well. Adult converts are usually regenerated at conversion, infants at baptism.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for sharing that. When I talk to Lutherans, I get different answers about this. Is there one authoritative or definitive position on this for Lutherans? Something in a statement of faith or confession you could point to?

[@joshuareeves5103]

I have heard Lutherans differ on this point from you, specifically the part about adults being regenerate prior to baptism. As I have come to understand typical Lutheran argument, it is the normative means for God to withhold the grace of regeneration until baptism, even for adults despite having faith prior. I think this is generally rooted in Luthers belief in infant faith and thus believing that for all, both infants and adults, first comes faith, then comes baptism, then comes regeneration. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't mean to be presumptuous assuming I, a baptist, have any place educating a Lutheran on Lutheran theology. This is just the way I have seen Lutheran theology portrayed and I would love to be corrected if I am wrong here.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

And, even though adult converts come to faith before baptism, their baptism applies forgiveness of sins to their entire life, as it is the grace of Jesus’ death on the cross applied to their entire life. So we can say a baptism at 30 forgives the sins from birth to death, in the same way that we are forgiven from a death that happened 2000 years ago.

[@ForgivenDoomer]

Very helpful

[@gracenotes5379]

For those who are proof texting baptismal regeneration using Acts 22:16, may I suggest that "washing away your sins" is inextricably linked with "calling on His name" both here and in Acts 2:21 (quoting Joel 2:32). Calling on the name of the Lord is impossible without faith (Heb 11:6). Faith, repentance and baptism are not meant to be widely separated events in time; it's only when they are separated temporally and isolated mentally that we are we tempted to argue about which of these is _effective_ . "Rising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." Taken as a whole, this is indeed "one baptism for the remission of sins."

[@joshuareeves5103]

First, I along with everyone else on here agree that a series on the Apostles Creed would be amazing. Second, you have no idea how ideal the timing of this video was. I am baptist, have been all my life, and I have only in the last couple years been exposed to tradition, creeds, classical theology, the church fathers, etc. In that endeavor a number of things have actually strengthened in my faith, however the question of baptismal efficacy I have found my world a bit turned upside down and I'm still struggling through it. You have been hugely helpful as I wrestle through it all, so thank you. My concerns have not been completely solved yet but I believe I am closer than I was before.

[@andyontheinternet5777]

I discovered you channel today and can't stop watching. I looked you up, and saw we are both Covenant MDiv grads and Baptist. God bless you brother!

[@TruthUnites]

cool, glad to be connected!

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

I commend you for defending the Nicene Creed as a standard of faith among all Christians. The SBC even contemplating rejecting a historical Creed as a standard confession of faith risks turning Baptists into a fringe group like The Seventh-Day Adventists or the Jehovah's Witnesses. That won't do. I want my brethren in the Protestant churches to share more of the Christian faith, not less. I applaud you for standing up for it and educating your brethren. The question of baptismal regeneration ought to make us consider what the church 1700 years ago meant by the Creed rather than considering abandoning it.

[@catholicguy1073]

It’s cognitive dissonance for Baptists to affirm the Creed when they completely disagree with baptismal regeneration which was unanimously believed by the Early Church. There is no one of note I can think of from that time period who disagrees with it. There’s nothing else in the faith that has the unanimous support that baptismal regeneration has that I am aware of.

[@SeanusAurelius]

Ortlund makes a good case that it's scriptural regardless. I'd argue that Catholics have an undiscovered inconsistency in that your baptism seems to achieve very little re: the forgiveness of sins despite you affirming baptismal regeneration on paper. Skip mass? Mortal sin. The Lutherans get it right. You were baptised and believe; never fear that your sin is not forgiven. Ortlund makes a direct refutation of your historical assertion at 23:00 onwards, FWIW. Justin Martyr's version of baptismal regeneration looks quite different to what Rome and the East propagate.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@SeanusAurelius so all the Church fathers who were taught by the Apostles are incorrect but Gavin is correct got it 😂 and the Apostles were incorrect 😂 The Creed is Catholic and affirms orthodoxy regarding baptism. Regardless of what you think Scripture means the way it was written was from the Catholic interpretation. So again it’s cognitive dissonance for any Protestant denomination who doesn’t hold to orthodoxy regarding baptism to then recite it when it is clear they disagree Gavin doesn’t break any new ground with his interpretation. His view is heterodox

[@nathangraham2189]

@@SeanusAurelius No it doesn’t. And I note that Ortlund here misquoted Cyprian of Carthage, not Justin Martyr. He’s a great guy in many ways, but it’s grating that he does this so often when looking at ECF writings. It is entirely unsurprising that when looking at the first century Church most persons would have believed the teachings of the Apostles first, temporally, and then proceeded to be baptized. The question remains: what does baptism DO? And what they UNIVERSALLY did next shows what they believed it did: they had their entire families baptized, including children under the age of reason. Why? Because they understood it to be spiritually regenerative. Ortlund is quite simply wrong here, and he’s intentionally muddying the waters. It was among the oldest and very first universal beliefs of the Christian Church that baptism was regenerative. There are NO orthodox voices from the first 2-3 centuries definitively arguing otherwise, and in his clear desperation on this topic Ortlund takes a SINGLE quote by a SINGLE Church Father out of context and twists it a bit to fit and then says “See, HUGE variance of opinion on this!” It would actually be funny how transparent and shallow the analysis is, if it weren’t so sad. It’s not that hard to do, just say it and be free of the weight of conscience: “The Catholic Church got this one right”. Say it and the truth will set you free!

[@nathangraham2189]

An additional note: it was Cyril of Jerusalem that he misquoted rather than Cyprian, apologies.

[@SteveMcKinion]

Thanks for highlighting our efforts, Gavin.

[@henrytucker7189]

If everyone gets to define the words of the Creed however they want, there is no point in having a Creed. Your points are interesting but neglect to address the most relevant question in this discussion: What did the men who gave us the Nicene Creed believe "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" means? I honestly don't care how 17th Century Baptists define baptismal regeneration (1,300 years after the fact). I don't care how the Westminster Divines defined it. I care about what the patristic "Framers" meant... because that's what I'm being asked to affirm in the Nicene Creed. Think of it this way: when a leftist judge takes an oath to "support, protect, and defend" the Constitution, he's committing a form of perjury because he fully intendeds to offend the "original intent" of those who drafted the document (like, for example, finding the right to an abortion within the text). Similarly, you don't get to claim creedal orthodoxy while simultaneously imposing your peculiar brand of sacramental theology upon the writings of the Nicene Council/fathers-- which we know they didn't hold.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

The more I study church history the more I think "why on earth did Gavin go from Presbyterian to Baptist???" 🤔

[@morghe321]

He was a Presbyterian?

[@mj6493]

@@morghe321Baptised in the Church of Scotland no less.

[@fab7an758]

His studies on credo-baptism led him to believe that the practice of baptizing infants is a development and that credo-baptism is the correct path.

[@chrispeele3746]

Or better yet, why did he not become Lutheran: the original and only true Protestant branch of the Reformation. All the rest are part of what’s known as “The Radical Reformation”. Speaking as a former Baptist.

[@carterwoodrow4805]

Because he found out that presbyterian covenant theology is false, and became a creedobaptist

[@AdrianNgHK]

Oh my. Both you and Trent within the same hour!

[@TonyCRosa]

I was SBC, and have the creds to prove it :) So Dr O, here are my 2 cents on this question. Apart from confessional baptists and/or historically aware & well educated baptists, there’s very little awareness OR engagement with the creeds in Baptist life. And I really don’t see this changing, despite the efforts of a handful of scholars. Baptist life is thoroughly about “the mission” (evangelism and intl missions) and those basic contours of theology (like ecclesiology) that one needs to justify that mission. Historical points and Christology or theology in general get relegated to idiosyncratic curious people, usually the people who want to take extra history courses as electives in seminary. Furthermore, Baptist life is NOT about historic liturgy, which in my opinion is the place where “affirming the creed” would begin to mean something.

[@fddooley1]

Tony, baptist church service appears to lack of Eucharistic worship including recitation of the apostles and/or nicene creed. Is the service only a bible study without commendation of the last supper?

[@TonyCRosa]

@@fddooley1 Only a Bible study, no. It’s more than that. There’s a certain expectation that the teaching in the service is to be received as authoritative, whereas in most bible studies the discussion can be more informal & more about opinions. But almost zero emphasis is placed on communion. And when there is communion in a service, it sits sort of awkwardly in the service. It’s often taken as a special time of individual reflection and part of musical worship time. I encourage you to go visit a few churches to get a personal sense of these things.

[@fddooley1]

@TonyCRosa Well, the Eucharist is the essence of Catholic worship. Scripture is throughout the liturgy, and the homily extrapolates the gospel of the day. Communion is essential, and Mass and Communion are available every day.

[@fddooley1]

@TonyCRosa I have attended other denominations, e.g. anglican, non denominations, a version of pentecostal which my friend invited me to attend (she left & later described that denomination as "happy clappers". I'm afraid each experience was empty and some quite crazy. So I am without comparison. What I find lacking in protestant services is worship.

[@phantompenguintgl1652]

​@fddooley1 in the Baptist church I go to it is a bit more focused on the Lord's supper for our communion service. Though we do not cite creeds, we read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 and sing hymns related to Christ, his body, and his redeeming blood. We read verse 24 before the bread, verse 25 before the cup, and verses 28 and 29 as a warning before both. We close with a hymn about the return of Christ, with reference to paul's statement in verse 26 that we do show the Lord's death through the bread and cup "till he come". Our entire service is very much focused on it in my opinion though probably not in the same way as your catholic church focuses on it

[@stephenkneller6435]

I have talked to several Baptist pastors who said that though they agreed with the Creed, they had to reject them because they were written by men. None of them liked my follow up question. I then asked them if they provided an exposition during church, a sermon. Given their rejected of man written theology or theological statements, there is no way they could then deliver any sermon. They would just smile, say that’s different, then excuse themselves and refuse to talk to me again. Like you said, sometimes some bring it upon themselves.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

I don’t understand how one can claim, in good faith, to be a Christian without affirming the Nicene Creed. In refusing to affirm it, they are separating themselves from the martyrs, confessors, and fathers, without whom the true faith doesn’t even exist.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Many find the idea of the trinity to be pagan

[@anglicanwingaling]

@@geordiewishart1683then they are pagan because they affirm anti Christian ideas about God.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@geordiewishart1683 it’s hard for me to imagine someone claiming to be a Christian, yet also claiming that a foundational Christian doctrine is pagan.

[@joecoolmccall]

What do you mean by "affirming" it? Are creeds a be all end all, or merely a starting point? The creeds can be useful teaching tools, but where do they stand as a piece of authority? As a Christian, we affirm many things, many things which are not found in the creeds. That's the problem.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@joecoolmccall I’m not aware of anyone who believes that the Creed is all a Christian affirms. If I said something that suggests such, it was not my intent. The Creed contains objective facts concerning the Christian faith. It contains foundational, essential doctrines.

[@felixcharles9773]

It is historically anachronistic to say “one baptism for the remission of sins” was understood as a separate event than water baptism, especially at the time the creed was written.

[@kvzacomics]

I love your channel. Thank you for conveying ideas in such a clear and biblical language.

[@gabrielwerling9544]

You can’t “reinterpret” what the creed means is the thing. You have to read it in the same way as the people who wrote it, which I why I don’t think it really makes sense for baptists to affirm it. Especially the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church part

[@sentjojo]

And even putting aside the debate over baptismal regeneration, "one baptism" in the creed meant literally baptized only once. It's a direct contradiction of baptist theology no matter how hard they try to twist the words.

[@jeffhudson2346]

I believe the actual issue is with the word apostolic, when traditionally read is very problematic for all protestants.

[@iagoofdraiggwyn98]

​@@jeffhudson2346Not the Anglicans though.

[@lectorintellegat]

Nah, you need to stop listening to Trent Horn. One = United around the truth Holy = Communion of saints Catholic = Universal Apostolic = founded on apostolic doctrine, passed down generation to generation by laying on of hands It’s not difficult. And not in the slightest inconsistent with magisterial Protestantism.

[@sentjojo]

@@lectorintellegat That's not what any of those words meant at Constantinople. One refers to only one church. Holy meant it was instituted by God for God. Catholic does mean universal but means that the church has universal authority across nations. And Apostolic isn't just referring to doctrine, but authority through succession. No Protestant denomination has any of the four marks.

[@BipolarDistortion]

Thanks Gavin! I really appreciate your videos.

[@reverendjenkins8011]

Great video. I’m SBC and we follow the Orthodox Creed of 1679. Hopefully, the EC will approve of the NC. God bless.

[@brunoabreu6547]

Some days ago, you said that Protestantism was a reformation and not a revolution, which means that they were not starting a new church but simply correcting some errors and continuing the same church. However, if they cannot even accept the Nicene Creed, then that's not true.

[@anselman3156]

Whenever you baptize again someone who has been baptized as an infant, you are being an Anabaptist, that is, a RE baptizer.

[@leahcpratt]

I agree with your dad on the video series! I am SBC and teach a Christian History & Theology class at a non-denominational Christian high school. I utilize the Nicene Creed as our template for teaching a basic systematic theology. The students all memorize it throughout the semester, and it always brings great conversations, with every line - especially the one in question regarding baptism!

[@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv]

And right when Trent realses the video of how Protestents can not affirm the nicene creed and Sola scriptura as authoritative.

[@FangedLion]

I mean Gavin did what Trent said Protestants do who attempt to affirm the Nicene creed: reinterpret it beyond the original intent of the authors.

[@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv]

@FangedLion well let's grant that is true still does not change that protestants still can still do this when they believe in say baptismal regeneration more tightly. And if your gonna say catholic, well that would be an assumption catholic means the Catholic Church and not simply what the word means apart from the institution. Which is a debate that holds water to the protestsnt side. Plus I'd say Catholocism as well does that all the time with scripture going beyond what the author Intended and then saying you cannot check scripture to see if our saying is true since we are the church and cannot be judged by scripture. So If gavin Is doing that okay fine it's not good, but the Catholics do that with it too by inserting their own positions and interpretations into it. Yes I know you if you are catholic it would be no we are not we are correct prot says no we are we are correct and the Orthodox will say no you both are wrong the pope added to the creed and he didn't have authority. So it seems everyone does what they aren't supposed to. Rather looks like we have to look at the evidence in prayer and choose what to believe which i have seen the Catholic side be upset that you do that since hey he ain't the pope for example but I want reason to believe he is before I commit and using scripture is against the rule infallably according to Trent. If I ask for scriptural evidence of the pope or catholic church I'm anathema.

[@FangedLion]

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv You’ve missed the point entirely. The Nicene creed’s meaning is what the authors of it meant. You don’t believe in the Nicene creed merely by affirming the words themselves reinterpreted to form a new meaning. This also goes for, as you correctly pointed out, any reinterpretation of “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” to be an invisible church. This also goes for the Reformed that hold to triple asceity which means the Son cannot be begotten nor the Spirit. This goes in general also for those who do not hold a monarchical view of the Trinity in regards to “I believe in one God, the Father almighty.” These are all the beliefs and the intent from the original authors of the creed behind what they mean, not merely from modern day Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. If you say you affirm the Nicene creed but do not affirm the original meaning of the creed, then you simply do not hold to the Nicene creed. You hold to a new creed. This has nothing to do with being Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. I am merely explaining how Gavin does not actually affirm the Nicene creed even as he has explained in the video. To respond by avoiding the main point and instead saying that any other group which you disagree with also has these problems is a fallacy known as tu quoque. Whether or not Catholics and/or Orthodox misinterpret the creed is irrelevant to whether or not Gavin Ortlund properly interprets the creed.

[@FangedLion]

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv You’re missing the entire point here. Gavin Ortlund cannot affirm the Nicene creed because he is affirming a different creed entirely. If we know what the authors of the creed meant, then going by a different meaning is no longer the same creed. It is irrelevant what you think about Catholics or Orthodox to whether Gavin Ortlund is actually affirming the Nicene creed here. It’s a tu quoque fallacy.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

​@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wvJust want to mention, at least to me, Catholic and Orthodox are pretty similar in relation to the Nicene, the difference between them and protestantism is that protestantism explicitly does not seem to *want* to be unified in belief under a single authority (the one church). Rather, protestants want to read the book, have the debate, and just share their ideas about what it means with each other. But there's no idea that everyone should be a Baptist. It's a very liberal idea. Ortlund shared this anti-unity bias in his debate with Trent - the existence of an authority beyond his interpretation is an insurmountable problem for him. How then could he tell even a committed Lutheran to unite as a single church with a shared set of dogmas?

[@pixelprincess9]

Thank you for your perspective Dr Ortlund! I was not aware of the history of the creeds with the Baptist church.

[@Gregorydrobny]

While I applaud the Baptists who are moving towards adopting the Creed, it is also fascinating how much of it seems to be cherry-picked, i.e., a this-but-not-that approach. If we look at those who wrote the Creed, the Church at that time, and the approach to Christianity in general, it is quite difficult to ignore that that they were Sacramental in their approach to the faith, specifically in the two areas of the baptism and the Eucharist. It's hard to miss that these two Sacraments were _transformative_ in nature; they weren't "symbols" in the modern sense of that term (symbols in the Classical sense, yes; not in the modern sense). They _did something_ to you. They weren't just "outward professions of faith," as the modern saying goes. The point being, why adopt the Creed and ignore the way the Creed-writers actually lived and behaved? Again, I encourage Baptists to move in that direction. They just need to _keep_ moving in that direction.

[@thadofalltrades]

Because the creed writers were not infallible. Was their understanding fully correct?

[@Gregorydrobny]

@@thadofalltrades well, the alternative to them being correct makes for a weird situation, but the assertion here somewhat misunderstands what I'm getting at. It's entirely possible that it's my fault for that, so I'll try to explain better. The point is not that the Creed writers were "infallible." That's not part of my comment, nor is it an underlying assumption or presupposition. Rather, it is that they lived life and understood reality in such a way that imparts meaning into the words of said Creed that are lost by those who do not share that understanding. To take the Creed and say, "yes, I affirm all these things," but not actually affirm them in the way that the writers did means that it is a modernized version, not beholden to any original meaning. This is a problematic position for adherents to _Sola Scriptura_ for numerous reasons, but also brings up more questions than it answers.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@Gregorydrobny it's not problematic for sola scriptura because the idea is entirely biblical. We do this kind of thing for tons of biblical ideas. Understanding broadens and changes over time. There are lots of ideas of the church fathers had which were entirely wrong, but that doesn't change the fact they were church fathers. There should be no issue with looking back and affirming them for things they got right. Sola scriptura is not the Bible only, it's the Bible as the sole authority on issues of truth. Everything gets tested against what was transmitted in the Bible.

[@Gregorydrobny]

@@thadofalltrades it's problematic because it quickly becomes _Solo-Sola Scriptura_ for exactly the reasons described in my original comment. Does original intent of writings matter, or does only the modern context count, and who decides?

[@thadofalltrades]

@@Gregorydrobny original context matters in determining what they intended for sure, but then that must be compared against the Bible. If their intent is biblically unsound then a modern understanding which corresponds more closely to the Scripture is appropriate. Our modem understanding cannot override Scripture, but it can override extra biblical statements if it's closer in meaning to the original deposit.

[@musingsonchrist9880]

Dear Gavin, Thank you for your help in supporting the Nicene Creed. Our primary purpose is to buttress orthodox Trinitarianism and a robust Christology. I responded to one Baptist who objected to the baptism and universal church claims of the Nicene Creed in this way: “Phillip Huggins The statement on baptism is a direct quotation of the apostle Peter. The creed was written well before Augustine started tinkering with his novel doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The universal church is affirmed in Scripture. This creed is the most ancient creed and is affirmed by churches from the East to the West and by all Protestants and by most Free Churches. I dare say neither the early Baptists nor the SBC’s own WA Criswell were in favor of Roman Catholicism, but they were in favor of the Nicene Creed.” In Christ, Malcolm

[@suzym.f.1927]

Repent and be baptized. Repent = ask for forgiveness and be baptized comes after not the other way around.

[@LandonRSmith-ld2ty]

Thank you so much for doing this video. Been wrestling with this one for a while!

[@AndrewKendall71]

The Nicene is the central statement used by our private school to pre-qualify new student-families in addition to affirming participation in a gospel-centered church. We're a school with Evangelicals, Baptists, Bible Fellowship, Anglicans, and Catholics and others.

[@danielmclean3227]

YES, please do a series on The Nicene Creed breaking it down statement by statement, that would be incredible!!

[@felixcharles9773]

Are there any records of anyone at Nicea I or Constantinople who believed baptism for the remission of sins was invisible and involved no water? I know of at least one person in attendance - Athanasius of Alexandria - who elsewhere did affirm that water baptism in the Trinitarian name was salvific. Are there any examples of the opposite, of some in attendance who rejected water baptismal regeneration?

[@Hail_Full_of_Grace]

"believers baptism" is alien to the early church

[@Hadloc411]

Every church in all history has practiced credo baptism, and all existing groups that would confess the catholic faith practice credo baptism. The issue is that rejection of infant baptism.

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

A Christian believer is someone who repents and gets baptized. That’s where the term believer’s baptism comes from. If you believe but refuse to obey Jesus by refusing to get baptized, then can someone say they are truly born again? I’m not including people who died before they could get baptized but only those who refuse.

[@landowar2162]

”Believers baptism only”*

[@Hail_Full_of_Grace]

@@Hadloc411 by believers baptism i mean the Baptist understanding of baptism and their rejection of baptismal regeneration

[@hismajesty6272]

Do not interrupt your wayward brother when he’s doing something right. Baby steps.

[@richardcox7178]

Please to more videos on baptismal efficacy

[@joshuareeves5103]

I second this!

[@roberthughes9295]

He has a number of discussions with both Trent Horn and Jordan B. Cooper addressing this topic in depth.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@roberthughes9295 And yet it still hasn't been enough for me. I feel like there is still more to explore. I still haven't grasped what he means by "seal". This is also in the Westminster Confession but I have yet to understand in what way baptism is a seal.

[@MrPeach1]

I know Gavin isn't claiming to be a Baptist in the sense that I see it in America today but I feel like claiming baptism has efficacy probably puts him at odds with loads of Baptists.

[@richardcox7178]

@@MrPeach1 not the particular baptists of the 17th century

[@brianm.9451]

It’s great to hear your defense of Baptists surrounding the recent hoopla in the SBC. I say this as a Presbyterian who, at one point, was a Baptist. Your explanation of baptism regeneration was something I was taught early on: a two part sacrament and one that’s efficacious. We can disagree on the definition of efficacy but to say that the sacraments aren’t efficacious misses the beauty of sacraments altogether.

[@litigioussociety4249]

If a church doesn't have the Apostles, Nicene, or Athanasian Creed as a statement of faith, then I question whether their theology is heretical. If they outright deny any of the three, then that's definitely heresy against trinitarian theology.

[@scripturequest]

If these man made creeds were that important, wouldn't we find them in Scripture, or find them early on in the church? The Nicene creed wasn't formulated till 325AD, it wasn't formulated by early Christians.

[@litigioussociety4249]

@@scripturequest All the parts of the creeds are in scripture. It's just a condensed summary of the theological verses in the Bible. The Athanasian Creed is more like a mathematical proof where theological terms are clearly defined, such as created, Lord, unity, human, etc. A statement like "I and the Father are one," can be interpreted many ways, but only one way in the context of all the rest of the theology in the bible. If you're suggesting a fellowship of Christians doesn't need any type of statement of faith, then that's dangerous. Likewise, not using a well-established, and well scrutinized statement creates the possibility of bad wording. For example, Ready to Harvest posts those polls about weird statements from different churches, and many are worded poorly to the point that you could have two members with contrasting views on major issues.

[@scripturequest]

@@litigioussociety4249 They're not though, these creeds need to be read into the Scripture, they don't come from Scripture itself. If a 'church' wants to advertise itself to others based upon what it believes, or distinguish itself based on the various amount of evil that are infecting the church, then fair enough. But the problem is when people treat these creeds as if they're something Christians must sign up to, 'else they're not really saved' etc.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

@@scripturequestevery line of the creeds comes from scripture. that's where they got them. if you disagree, show your work. the creeds were the guardrails within which the canon of the bible was decided. That's how scripture made the cut or not, along with apostolically-connected source.

[@scripturequest]

@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 It doesn't though, many of these creeds have to be read into Scripture as opposed to stemming from the Scripture themselves. The trinity is clearly a later development that contradicts the scriptures themselves.

[@jasonengwer8923]

Many of the earliest extrabiblical Christian sources refer to justification through faith without even mentioning baptism in those contexts (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, etc.), and some of them make other comments that seem to exclude baptism as a means of justification. Tertullian refers to people in his day who rejected justification through baptism, though he accepted it (On Baptism, 12-14). Celsus also seems to be aware of Christians like the ones Tertullian refers to. Early Christian conversion accounts often involve significant changes in the individual's life prior to his baptism, which increases the plausibility of regeneration and justification before baptism. For example, Minucius Felix mediated an exchange between a Christian, Octavius, and a non-Christian, Caecilius. Immediately after the exchange, without any involvement of baptism, Caecilius is referred to as being persuaded of Christianity (Octavius, 40). He comments, "I yield to God; and I agree concerning the sincerity of the way of life [Christianity] which is now mine". So, he's claiming to be living the Christian way of life, and he's doing so before baptism, becoming a catechumen, or anything like that. Minucius Felix refers to how Caecilius had "believed" (41) and was "converted…to the true religion" by his discussion with Octavius (1). Some of the church fathers who use highly efficacious language about baptism also use highly efficacious language, including language about the new birth and salvation, when discussing prebaptismal faith (e.g., Basil of Caesarea). However you explain that (that they viewed justification as a multistep process, that they were inconsistent, or whatever), it offers partial corroboration for the view that we're justified through prebaptismal faith. And some medieval sources advocated justification apart from baptism (e.g., some Waldensians, as discussed in Henry Vedder, "Origin And Early Teachings Of The Waldenses, According To Roman Catholic Writers Of The Thirteenth Century", The American Journal Of Theology, Vol. IV, no. 3, July 1900, pp. 482, 484-85; some Lollards, as discussed in J. Patrick Hornbeck II, et al., A Companion To Lollardy [Boston, Massachusetts: Brill, 2016], 118-19, 174). People received justification apart from baptism throughout the large majority of human history (the Old Testament era), which is relevant to appeals to continuity with the Old Testament era by figures like Jesus (Luke 19:9), Paul (Galatians 3:6-7), James (James 2:21-23), and Clement of Rome (First Clement, 32). We see many examples of people justified apart from baptism during Jesus' public ministry (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, etc.), so that even Tertullian, an advocate of baptismal justification, conceded that "in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord" (On Baptism, 13). But, contrary to Tertullian's claim that baptism was added as a requirement after Jesus' resurrection, we still see people justified apart from baptism after that point in time (Acts 10:44-48, Paul's assumption that receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of faith was normative in Acts 19:2, etc.). It should be noted, also, that the extrabiblical sources who held a high view of the efficaciousness of baptism widely disagreed with each other about the nature of that efficaciousness. They often assigned things like regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit to something other than baptism, like the laying on of hands or foot washing. G.W.H. Lampe provided many examples in his book The Seal Of The Spirit (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004). So, baptismal theology varied a lot in the pre-Reformation era, including among those who held a higher view of the efficaciousness of baptism. Anybody who's interested in more about belief in justification apart from baptism before the Reformation can search for a February 5, 2023 post at Triablogue titled "The History Of Belief In Justification Apart From Baptism".

[@dboan6847]

Baptists can't affirm the Nicene Creed as far as it was understood historically. They would necessarily need to redefine the idea of there being "one Baptism for forgiveness of sins" and there being "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

[@willcombs9301]

that is not totally true. The literal greek translation is "Repent, and you all be baptized concerning the name of Christ Jesus into the throwing out of your sins." As Dr. Ortlund broke down, Baptists have historically held to the Nicene creed. By the merit of Christ and his work in the sacrament of baptism, we can firmly and fervently hold to the Nicene creed. And the Protestant interpretation of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church is seen to be the whole church, i.e. the elect scattered around the world who Christ saves.

[@dboan6847]

@@willcombs9301 As I said, Baptists can’t affirm the creed as it was written and understood HISTORICALLY. They have to reinterpret things, which is exactly what you did. Baptismal Regeneration was the consistent understanding of the Fathes, including those who penned the Nicene Creed. To then reinterpret what they wrote to exclude it, favoring an understanding of baptism as merely being an outward sign of something that has already occurred inwardly and as something carrying no regenerative power is inconsistent with the creed itself as it was written and understood until well after the reformation. Same can be said for “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” The Fathers who penned this understood the Church to be one in Communion and tied to the Bishop. Read Saint Ignatius. It is clear. To reinterpret this to mean one “invisible” Church made up of a body of believers not in communion with *any* Bishop is the epitome of a shell game. The idea of “denominations” is foreign to the Creed and the historic Church, much less the idea of congregationalism and self governing individual country Churches answering to no Bishop.

[@ilovechrist914]

Protestants will just affirm there nicene creed how it suits there ideology not what it was meant with its true meaning

[@dboan6847]

@@willcombs9301 I understand where you are coming from, but as I said, Baptists cannot affirm the Nicene Creed as far as it was written and understood *historically*. Your comment shows exactly this point, because you have to redefine "one baptism for forgiveness of sins" away from the consistent Patristic teaching of Baptismal Regeneration in which the Creed was written and understood. In all honesty one can affirm almost anything someone says if they redefine the words away from what they originally meant to the author and into a definition they can agree with. That is exactly what happens when Baptists say they "agree with the Creed". They redefine "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" and "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" away from what the Patristics meant and into a congregationalist Protestant a-historical understanding.

[@clayw70]

An important point often overlooked in Acts 2:38 is that repentance is mentioned prior to baptism. This would indicate that the individual must have made a statement of faith prior (or simultaneously) to the baptism. That matches the rest of the examples of baptism throughout the book of Acts. I relate the forgiveness of sin to the person repenting, and the baptism reflecting the spiritual reality that their sins have been washed away.

[@joshualiu1586]

Please do a video series on the Apostles' Creed as your dad suggested! That would be a wonderful resource for the Church

[@HaydenSF]

Can we PLEASE get that series on the Apostles Creed? I bet it’d get more views than you’d think!

[@SinceAD33]

I think this is where Protestants go wrong in the book of Acts. Cornelius and his household received the Spirit to speak in tongues as a sign for Peter. If speaking in tongues = regeneration then that means the apostles were only regenerated at Pentecost. Scripture is full of moments when people receive the Spirit for gifts (strength, leadership, prophecy, tongues). So it’s a false equivocation to say Cornelius and his household were regenerated when they received the Spirit. The next chapter makes it clear that the purpose of this odd event was meant to be a sign for Peter, not the natural Ordo salutis.

[@Godfrey118]

Agreed. They were also still baptized right after this spirit baptism. If baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward change then why would the spirit baptism, (speaking in tongues which is arguably a greater outward demonstration) not have sufficed for Cornelius and his family. But instead they were still Baptized in water

[@artistderekcollins]

Protestants don’t believe you are saved when you receive tongues. It is primarily Apostolic Pentecostals. Most other Pentecostals don’t believe it is the sign that saves you. Most other Protestants believe that tongues ceased in the first couple hundred years. And tongues are for today.

[@bw918t8y]

10:07 Yes please on a series working through the creeds line by line. Especially if you can give suggestions / resources for explaining it to children. We homeschool and I have been looking for resources for working through the creeds like that, and haven’t found anything appropriately robust on content but simple enough for kids to understand.

[@josnny1]

The idea about going through the Nicene creed sounds great!

[@Chromebreaks]

quote any early church father who rejected infant baptism. Were they all wrong? then God didnt keep his promice of preserving true doctrine through the Church.

[@Wesleydale754]

This video is on of the main reasons I left the Baptist church. Not confessional or creedal. No respect for the church’s fathers or the reformation. Too much individualism. In my 15 years at Baptist churches I never heard the nicene creed or apostles creed. Thanks Gavin for helping my Baptist brothers and sisters reclaim their roots!

[@scripturequest]

They're not 'church fathers' though, they're dead Christians, assuming they were saved.

[@tomlem64]

Let me preface by saying I do not in anyway want to be unkind or dismissive of those who advocate only for credo (believers) baptism. Having said that, modern American Evangelicals who support only Credo Baptism are outside of traditional christianity. Almost universally up until the time of the Reformation the Church, both East & West, taught "regenerative" Baptism, including for infants. During and immediately following the Reformation the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, condemned those Anabaptists who spoke against regenerative and specifically infant baptsim. My point is that modern American Evangelical Christianity, which descends from the Anabaptists, is outside traditional Christianity, and is in essence a "new" Branch within Christianity. This does not mean that all Chrisitans who support infant and regenerative Baptism agree precisely on what happens in baptism, but rather that modern American Evangelicals are not even in the discussion amongst those who follow biblical teaching on Baptism.

[@garrett2514]

It’s weird to me to accept a Creed that comes from a council on the one hand, and reject the canons passed in the council and the matrix in which the council took place on the other hand.

[@Jerome616]

Yup

[@WesleyKwan_]

That's because Protestants don't believe councils are perfect, they can get some right and some wrong. We only accept the Creed because it accords with Scripture, not because of the authority of a council. Makes perfect sense to me.

[@joshuareeves5103]

Which cannons? This is not me being contentious just BTW. I'm genuinely curious.

[@garrett2514]

@@joshuareeves5103 well, all the ones that deal with bishops, frankly. Specifically, Canon 6 declares certain bishops to have regional authority over other bishops.

[@garrett2514]

@@WesleyKwan_ Why would you care about this creed if the council is otherwise irrelevant? Why not make your own creed? Unless you believe the council holds weight, its creed should be insignificant.

[@andresond8599]

Ephesians 4 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

[@snakefrumpkin4271]

Hey Gavin - are you planning on making a response to Trent’s video on this topic? Just watched it and I really think there needs to be some additional care to the topic.

[@philipmangaoang1352]

Amen. I am a Baptist Pastor with Reformed leanings from the Philippines

[@jordanlight9996]

Fun video…complex issue to wrestle with. I love the idea of the creed deep dive.

[@mwidunn]

Even Nicaea is a "question mark" for some Protestants...? Yeah. Reason #116,347 that I am not a Protestant.

[@swimmerfish34]

The name Baptist has been greatly tarnished over the last 50 years. We look back at the days of Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, and Andrew Fuller. The Glory days of Baptist work and influence. All the same, I am very content to call myself a Baptist. In all my study of church history, different traditions, and Scripture, the core Baptist distinctives continue to make the most sense to me. However, Baptists are beset with great weaknesses these days. I long for a renewal and a return to the Glory days of the past. All the same, may God do his work where he will.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

The creeds come directly from scripture and from the teachings of the apostles who wrote those scriptures. Athanasius, Polycarp, Ignatius- they were there. They studied under the apostles themselves and under the fathers who studied under them. They had the opportunity to ask these questions. They weren't playing Indiana Jones 2000 years later. You can recreate 90% of scripture from reading the church fathers. They were intimately familiar with our faith in a way we will never be. They gave us very clear, simple creeds because 99% of humanity was illiterate until 150 years ago, but they could memorize creeds. They could go to church and hear liturgy that has orthodoxy built into it. The entire low church worldview is missing the boat on this.

[@thethinplace]

Maybe it's because I'm Anglican and Reformed but I don't think it matters if Cornelius is the norm. I do think for adult converts that is the norm. The question is whether or not we can say someone without faculties of adulthood (mentally handicapped, infants, etc) is regenerated by the moral instrument of baptism. Not because the water of itself held inherent power but because Christ has annexed a promise unto the performance of this Sacrament.

[@toddvoss52]

Yes the ultimate cause of all the sacraments is the power of Christ . Water in a certain sense is an instrumental cause . Strictly it is the baptizer that is the instrumental cause .

[@jimvari1909]

It would be good if all Christians, at Sunday service, pray the Our Father as a community and recite the Nicene Creed.

[@fantasia55]

Council of Nicea was chaired by the papal legate, who began proceedings by reading a letter from the Pope.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Nope. Watch the videos on this channel showing the actual history of the slow rise of the bishop of rome.

[@fantasia55]

@@truthisbeautiful7492 You deny Hosius was the Pope's representative at Nicea?

[@tomwallis9889]

Great content, thanks Dr Ortlund!

[@ernie8869]

To affirm the Nicene Creed would take not only believing that baptism is necessary to forgive sins, but to also submit to this group calling themselves the one true Church. By this time the Church that developed the Creed recognized 32 popes who had the authority to speak for the entire Christian community as evidenced by having the authority to excommunicate those that didn't align with the truth as defined by the one true Church. No way any baptist or any Protestant for that matter, would have aligned with that.

[@mathete9968]

In fact it becomes hypocrisy when Baptists and Presbyterians affirm the Nicene Creed. Because neither of these sects truly believe in baptism for the remission of sins. And sadly I have come across a reformed Baptist church which claims to hold the Nicene Creed. As a former Baptist I see through every one of their false arguments. But I too was once under that wretched false doctrine. It was when I tried to prove the Baptist doctrine from the Greek that I began to realise that every one of their arguments falls apart at the Grammatical level. But there are many texts also which teach very differently to their official doctrines. No Christian should remain in a Baptist church. Although I freely admit that many genuine believers do so in complete ignorance without realising the harm they are doing to others as well as to their children .

[@ernie8869]

@mathete9968 I know of a local Reformed Baptist church that has a part of their stated beliefs that they affirm the Nicene Creed...but leave out the last paragraph. How they find this credible, I have no idea. And I agree with you that many are ignorant, but not Dr. Ortlund. I know people who rely on his interpretations and the damage he's doing is incredible as he leads people astray like he does in this video.

[@mathete9968]

​@@ernie8869Indeed. One of the Apostolic injunctions that is critical to observe in all cases of Christian doctrine is 1 Corinthians 1:10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be NO DIVISIONS among you; but that ye BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER in THE SAME MIND and in THE SAME JUDGEMENT. It is not enough to "SPEAK THE SAME THING", which is what happens when Baptists and Presbyterians confess the Nicene Creed. The Lord instructs us to also to BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER in THE SAME MIND and in THE SAME JUDGEMENT And there is no question of THE SENSE (Nehemiah 8:8) in which the early church taught and confessed the Doctrine of One Baptism FOR the Remission of sins Therefore it is false and misleading and indeed double talk, when false teachers use the same terminology and speak the same thing, but invest in it a different meaning. No Baptist or Presbyterian can confess the Nicene Creed in a good conscience. He has changed the meaning and he knows it. It is no longer a truly universal confession of faith and it is false and duplicitous to use it. They have no claim to the historic confessions of faith. They have departed from the Faith

[@The_Supernatural_Life]

I am very happy that most of your commenters found this video to be helpful. I, however, found it raised more questions than it answered. Please do a deep dive on "believers baptism," which is the position of my church.

[@cristiansoto7417]

Bro yes please do a video going over the creeds!🙌🏻

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Who met at Nicea, creating the Nicene Creed? Answer: three hundred and eighteen Catholic Bishops, creating and articulating the Nicene Creed in response to a rebellious Catholic priest named Arius who claimed Jesus was created. All of the Bishops, believed through their words of consecration, that the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ. So too, they (and their priests) led Christians at Mass on Sunday: the reading of scripture (the Liturgy of the Word) followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It's in the Mass where the Written Word of God was proclaimed and scripture understood. None of this fits with the baptist faith (not Catholic Bishops, not the Mass, not the Liturgy of the Eucharist, not baptism for the forgiveness of sins). So when the Bishops articulated the belief in _One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,_ they were not referring to any protestant denomination unless being a follower of Arius was considered protestant. They were referring to the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith passed down by the apostles. The Bishops too articulated that there was one baptism for the forgiveness of sin. Baptism as a sacrament actually does what is symbolizes. Baptists were 100% right to reject the creed rather than trying to fit their theology into the creed that was foreign to what the writers wrote. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,

[@ernie8869]

This is brilliant (as long as you don't believe that baptism is just a symbol). What you exposed is the hypocrisy of Protestants who contend that they are more similar to the early church than Catholics. As you rightly pointed out, it's silly and absurd, and to argue for it simply shows a bias that is clouding simple truth. There is no way any faithful Protestant today would have submitted to the authority of the one holy catholic apostolic Church. It's just silly to argue that point of view.

[@bonniejohnstone]

They weren’t Catholic Bishops, they were ‘Bishops’! There was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. After the schism of 1054 there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church (we are not officially called the Eastern Orthodox Church). Repeatedly, the Eastern Church is erased from documents and documentaries by carefully inserted words about Church History that make it appear that Western Rome was always in charge. (Something like what was done above) Not many people know anything about Eastern Christianity that they accept the Roman Catholic narrative. If Orthodox pushback and correct the historical narrative many Catholics are unaware of Eastern Fathers, and history even before the split.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@bonniejohnstone If you have a point to make on the Orthodox Church and the Council of Nicea, I am all ears.

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

I have always been puzzled and fascinated by Cyril of Jerusalem's unpacking of the Creed for his catechumens (dated between Nicaea and Constantinople, btw) in which he says: "The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following, 'And in one Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and in one Holy Catholic Church; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in eternal life.'" (Catechetical Lectures 18.22) Does anyone have any resources or background on this apparent historical anomaly of the Creed referring to one baptism of "repentance"? If so, please share. I would love to learn more! 😊

[@funandmental]

Thanks for standing up for us Baptists while also giving us a well deserved wrap on the knuckles. I remember being so relieved when I discovered that I could be both catholic and Baptist.

[@koppite9600]

Should we really care? You aren't glued to them.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@koppite9600 Historically we are

[@johnparker9770]

Well to me it's never been about being this or that denomination, it's about being a disciple of Christ.

[@funandmental]

@@koppite9600 I understand your point. For me personally, my honest understanding of Scripture binds me before God to the Baptist distinctives. At the same time, I have a deep love for church history. I’m glad that I can have both with a clean conscience.

[@WayneDrake-uk1gg]

I don't think he's really trying to "stand up" for the Baptists, as such, I think Ortlundism is more about the Postmodern principle of "casting doubt on overarching narratives". IOW, if one can successfully use Church History to legitimize the Baptists, it can legitimize anything, and is therefore moot as any sort of objective possibility. Similarly, when he uses agreement with the Church Fathers, he's not trying to justify Protestantism, as such, rather he's employing the Postmodernist "embrace of irony" by making agreement with Saints and Doctors of the Church canonized by the Institutional Church into a basis for breaking communion with the Institutional Church

[@MB-42]

I have run into so many Baptists who have such a disdain for creeds, confessions, and liturgy in general and it reeks of the influence the charismatic/nar/non-denom mega church movements have had on the Baptist church.

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

Sir, just want to say thank you for content like this. I got saved at 19 in an independent Baptist church and quickly attended a small baptist college. My training was of that “anti-historical and anti-creed” kind of mindset. I have been on an absolute church history BINGE for the last two years because of your channel and it has strengthened my faith, expanded my mind and enriched my view of the church. If Catholic and other apostolic churches have one good argument against Protestantism, and particularly Baptists, it is the lack of historical depth in our tradition. That struck a cord with me, to be honest. I questioned, is my doctrine new? Is this really what the apostles believed!? Your content has helped me to answer those questions. And for that, I cannot thank you enough. One request, that I think it pertinent to this topic. Would you mind looking into Baptist Landmarkism, books like the Trail of Blood, that claim the Baptist tradition goes back to the Apostles? I think this philosophy is indicative of modern baptists desiring historical depth but also desiring to be in the “oppressed” category and never the “oppressor.” It’s problematic to say the least, lol. Anyways, bring on the Nicene creed, love it.

[@tabandken8562]

Except his content is a distortion of the early Church. Read the Early Church Fathers yourself without his commentary of them in your mind. The Trail of Blood trys to find Apostolic Succession for Baptists by connecting the various unrelated heretical groups through the centuries and claiming they're all Baptists. Example Albigenses, Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more. The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics. Many of the groups believed in the Real Presence, the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin, regenerational baptism and the rest of Catholic dogma. Google Trail of Blood Catholic and find the site Catholicconvert and download the pdf article and read it. Or look up each of the groups mentioned in the Trail of Blood book yourself and see how unrelated they really are from Baptists and from each other.

[@edreinavarro8218]

Could you do a response to Trent Horn’s creed video?

[@DrGero15]

I was Born and raised Baptist and Baptists can't. It flatly teaches Water Baptismal Regeneration, that is what the authors meant it to teach when they wrote it, so I *would* argue that none of the Reformed/Calvinists/Puritans could honestly affirm it's plain meaning without adding some qualifier like "for the elect" or "spirit baptism", never mind Baptists who call Baptism an Ordinance and not a Sacrament. Baptists are the most Reformed of the Reformed branch of Christianity and Splitting Baptism into Water/Spirit like the Reformed do means that one has two Baptisms, and "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." and if you would say that someone who was born again in spirit, and thus has one half of baptism, would go to heaven if they died without the other half, you would also have to say that someone baptized in water, but not in spirit would also go to heaven, which no one I know of does. It is always the water side that is seen as non essential which I find to be tending Gnostic, and denies the words of our Lord Himself. The Reformed/Baptists could be defined as one who says the water isn't necessary, since the Sacramental Christians all say that the Spirit is necessary, but they also say water is necessary, whereas the Reformed/Baptist view is that water is optional for regeneration. The logical (and honest) thing to do is drop the title Sacrament and call it an Ordinance, which Baptists did. Redefining the meanings of words has the nature of dishonesty and is entirely unhelpful. I understand the desire to affirm the creed, but Baptist Theology (and all Reformed/Calvinistic actually) simply can't without tying itself into knots. I really personally dislike this bending and blending going on. You can't be a Roman Catholic and not believe in the Pope, you can't be an Arminian Confessional Presbyterian, you can't be a Lutheran and deny the real presence of the Lord in the bread and wine, and you can't be a Baptist and affirm Baptismal Regeneration. Words have meaning and it is becoming impossible to find a church that is, in fact, what they say they are. What is a Pentecostal who is cessationist? The Orthodox Creed you mention is a General Baptist ("Arminian") Confession of faith which could allow for a slightly more accepting view, however, the Nicene creed in the An Orthodox Creed isn't complete, it reads: The Nicene Creed. WE believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things Visible, and Invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten Son of the Father, that is the Substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God from very God, Begotten, not made, being of one Substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both the Things in Heaven, and the Things in Earth; Who for us Men, and for our Salvation, came down, and was Incarnate, he was made Man; he suffered, and rose the third Day, he ascended into the Heavens: He shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. Therefore they which say, there was a time when he was not, before he was begotten, or that he had his Beginning of nothing, or that he is of another Substance. Or Essence; or to be Convertible, or Mutable, these the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God, doth pronounce for Accursed. They saw the problems of the clause and dropped it. They had to change the Creed to include it.

[@toddvoss52]

Great point about this creed. It seems that maybe two of these Baptist confessions Gavin referenced cited the Nicene Creed rather than the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and thus skirted the baptism issue . It also skirted the one holy Catholic and apostolic church . That whole final paragraph that we recite was only set forth at Constantinople in 381.

[@DrGero15]

@@toddvoss52 Exactly that, but the creed being discussed and that was motioned at the SBC, was the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed which everyone uses and calls the Nicene Creed. It seems to have the nature of dishonesty to say "I affirm the Nicene Creed" and to mean the one that no one uses anymore.

[@ForgivenbyChrist]

Great video! I would love to see you do a response video about the recent documentary “Once saved always saved”

[@Democracyofthedead]

The issue isn’t whether we can affirm OUR understanding of this section of the Creed, because of course one can. The issue is can you affirm what the bishops who wrote the Creed understood the section to mean. And Dr. Ortlund, unless you change your position, I do not believe you can.

[@stephaniehopkinsartist]

Thank you so much for your teaching on this topic.

[@criticalthinkingwjake]

You hammered the nail in the coffin when you said there are “weaknesses” amongst baptists in areas regarding history and confessions. Al Mohler said it 2 years ago that Baptists were confessional and almost no baptists had any idea what he was even saying. Its sad.

[@RL-tg6ds]

I’ve been saying this. Unfortunately church history in the SBC community goes back as far as Billy Graham. Our churches should spend less time “event planning” and more time studying the deep truths of the faith, including how Christ has built His church over the past 2000 years. I say, call Christians to a higher level of understanding.. stop simplifying the faith down to a kindergarten level.

[@criticalthinkingwjake]

The sbc church plant culture is largely to blame for this issue. They plant new hip churches a few short blocks away from decades established sbc churches INSTEAD OF working with those churches to find and fix the issues within them. The established churches are often so fixated on their committees and programs that they have forgotten what a church is, and on the flip side, the church plant is so focused on events and planning events that they don’t have any clue what a church is. So to your point, education, study and diligent effort recovering the lost ways of Christianity are essential to restoring, or reforming the church today. We need to quit focusing on the little cutsie tactics that we think are winsome and look back at the sufficiency of the gospel.

[@VickersJon]

I love the idea of going through the apostles creed line by line. I’d watch. Currently and slowly reading Vermigli’s “Exposition on the 12 Articles of the Christian Faith.”

[@mpprod6631]

Gavin, I really appreciate your videos as always. Your approach really displays the love of Christ with both authority and love intermingled in such a beautiful way. As to Baptismal regeneration from a Baptistic perspective, would it not be true to say baptism does save you, but what kind of baptism? It is our baptism or union with Christ that truly saves us. Our water baptism signifies that just as Abraham’s circumcision signified the covenant relationship with God that already existed. The circumcision simply recognized and bolstered the faith of Abraham in the relationship that already existed. So, in that sense, 1 Peter 3:21 is found vindicated. The water baptism is an outward verification of the inward change/baptism into Christ. So baptismal regeneration is true, but it is our true baptism into Christ. God bless brother!

[@charleskramer8995]

Not entirely. A covenant is a mutual relationship. Being circumcised is the response of the descendant of Abraham to God's offer of covenant. Those who refuse circumcision are to be cut off from the people of the covenant.

[@mpprod6631]

⁠@@charleskramer8995the abrahamic covenant along with the new covenant are both unilateral covenants. Meaning there were no stipulations placed on those God decided to have mercy on. It was a covenant given by God. This is demonstrated by God himself walking through the hewn in half animals while Abraham was sleeping. Also in Roman’s it is referenced that God is the covenant giver, but we are not covenant keepers. For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Romans 9:15, ESV) God made the covenant with Abraham with no stipulations on Abraham. The circumcision was given as a seal for the sign of the covenant, but not as a means to gain the covenant. The covenant already existed. The taking of the sign signifies the faith that is expressed in the covenant giver, but not everyone who receives the sign is saved. 1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (1 Corinthians 10:1-5, ESV) The sign itself does not save. It depends on God who has mercy. The ones who receive the covenant with faith are saved. The same with water baptism. It is not our water baptism that saves us, but our true baptism which is the New Covenant.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@mpprod6631 Baptism is how we are initiated into the Covenant. It is how we are incorporated into the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is how we are made a member of Christ’s Body, the church. Echoing comments here, can you find a single church father in the first thousand years of the faith who denies baptismal regeneration?

[@mpprod6631]

@@charleskramer8995 I’m not an expert on church history. I’m trying to be better I really am, but I do not know much about church fathers. Just trying to be honest. I like to think myself pretty proficient in my scriptural knowledge though. So I will address this question with scripture. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21, ESV) “Not as a removal of dirt from the body” what does that mean? This is not talking about physical water baptism because it specifically says that. This is talking about our union with Christ. Baptism is an initiation or immersion into and “resurrection of Jesus Christ” is really the action phrase in this verse. Because Christ was resurrected (which was really his vindication) you now have Victory. You are clothed in His righteousness. Your flesh has been crucified with Christ, and now Christ lives in you. These are all passive realities about your life given to you by God. he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5, ESV) Of course you get baptized as an expression of faith in the covenant giver. But the water baptism itself does not save you. It is an expression of faith, but not the means of salvation. Our means of salvation is our unity or baptism/immersion with Christ. He was our Passover lamb. He is eternal life. He is the resurrection. Because Christ lives, we now live. If you took Christ out of the equation, then you could baptize yourself a billion times and it wouldn’t make any difference. Christ IS salvation. Salvation is a reality given to you not earned. Just as the covenant was given to Abraham. He did not earn it.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@mpprod6631 We are creatures of body and spirit. It would hardly be surprising that our salvation would be accomplished by matter and spirit working together. In baptism, water and the Spirit combine to effectuate an interior change in the baptized by washing away sin and restoring us to the newness of life in Christ. It is not just being washed by water but the combination of water and the Spirit is what incorporates us into the death and resurrection of Christ for our salvation. In the first Chrisitan treatise on baptism, Tertullian write: “A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous…." and again: "Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed…." And again: "Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” Tertullian, On Baptism 1:1, 5:6, 7:2 [inter A.D. 200-206].

[@BarkotSentayehu]

AS and ex pentecostal now baptist I am glad u said what u said. I would like to hear you reply or rebuttal to Trent on this case it's crazy but he made a video about it

[@rsissel1]

I think an analysis of the Nicene Creed might be a better idea. You could address how the Fathers at Nicea interpreted "one baptism for the remission of sins." Thanks, Gavin, for your charitable videos. On another point, would you consider a video critiquing Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary"? Thanks!

[@joshuareeves5103]

Yes to all of this! There are too many things I want Gavin to do videos on because the Baptist tradition is starving for people like Gavin.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

"Physician, heal thyself" A reformist approach is just that. If your faith / doctrine is at odds with the fundamental meaning of the Nicene Creed, specifically baptismal regeneration, then it is mandatory that your faith doctrine be reformed to come back in line with original Christian orthodoxy. Those early church fathers who had the awesome opportunity to have studied directly under the apostles had the chance to ask these questions directly. Baptismal regeneration was unanimous among the church fathers.

[@MrBibliocentric]

What do you do with a quote like this from John of Damascus (late patristics)? “It does not behove us to delay baptism when the faith of those coming forward is testified to by their works. For he that cometh forward deceitfully to baptism will receive condemnation rather than benefit.” To me it sounds like he views baptism as something that is subsequent to-and not the cause of-faith.

[@kylejacobson9587]

@@MrBibliocentric Yes, and? Part of the problem is that what you mean by "regeneration" is the reformed definition, which is is distinct from what the early church meant by it. The reformed hold that faith must follow regeneration. Prior to Calvin and Zwingli this was not a view held by anyone within the church

[@MrBibliocentric]

@@kylejacobson9587 the quote from John of Damascus talks about when the faith of a person is attested to by good works. Whatever you are calling regeneration-faith, being alive spiritually, newness of life, etc.-the point of the quote is that this church father seems to have believed that spiritual life precedes (or at least can precede) baptism. The OP said baptismal regeneration is unanimous in the early church. This quote would seem to show otherwise. Doesn’t the phrase “faith attested to by good works” seem to be talking about a converted/regenerated person? Do we talk about unbelievers having “faith that is attested to by good works?”

[@kylejacobson9587]

@@MrBibliocentric There is no contradiction as far as I can see. The historic view is that one is capable of faith and good works even if not in a full state of grace.

[@MrBibliocentric]

@@kylejacobson9587 that’s not the Catholic view as far as I understand it. Grace is needed to even perform good works that merit salvation. So how could a person not in a state of grace perform good works? But here you have a patristic effectively saying “hey that person is performing good works and that shows that they have real faith, we should baptize them.” Which seems to be an example of someone from the early church who deviates from the unanimity that you are saying existed throughout church history.

[@TheApologeticDog]

Great video!

[@longllamas]

I'm a Presbyterian, and I learnt quite a few new things about Baptists from this video. I had no idea Baptists believe in 'sacraments' (I've only ever heard them talk about ordinances and even had few debate me on my sacramental views), and again I didn't realize that baptist DO believe in sacramental efficacy. I was always under the impression they took the Zwinglian view that the sacraments are exclusively memorial and symbolic.

[@carterwoodrow4805]

Read the 1689 LBC and 1646 LBC baptists affirm the sacraments

[@carterwoodrow4805]

@@PisslopWhoCaresuh in a baptist, I believe baptism saves, and Christ is truly present in the supper. 1689 LBC

[@jd3jefferson556]

Baptism by desire is a thing taught by the Church. Those over the age of reason, are baptized in desire, often long before they receive the Sacrament. God bless you Gavin, you seem like a genuine dude

[@palermotrapani9067]

Correct. Baptism of Desire and Blood are both taught, Saint Cyprian of Carthage Letter 72 to Pompey is quite clear on that . The Feast of the Holy Innocents, on the Liturgical calendar of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Assyrian Church of the East seems to have started in the early 400's.

[@Parks179-h]

Apostles creed series, please!

[@ProtestantismLeftBehind]

No Protestant can claim to accept and believe the Nicene Creed and remain Protestant. The terms and explanations sit in a context among a people who were bishops, presbyters, deacons, who sat in Ecumenical Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, and produced the Creed, which is binding on the human conscience, is authoritative, and infallible. The one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as defined by the writers, not modern Protestants, is something different from what any Protestant accepts. For to accept it as it is truly is to cease to be Protestant. To redefine it is dishonest. To cherry pick it is Protestant, but you don’t have that right to usurp someone else’s Creed. It’s not as if the early Church doesn’t still exist, but it exists in Orthodoxy.

[@BBTechBreakdown]

Looked up the "Orthodox Radicals" book and it's $150 😭

[@jty1999]

Might be worth it! I broke the bank on some Lexicons and cant say I regret it

[@lufknuht5960]

Nothing more than BELIEVE is essential to remission of sins. "To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins. EVERYON WHO BELIEVES! EVERYONE.

[@bryanlovesjesus2204]

How do you say this but just (maybe) ignore Acts 2:38, 22:16 ? Lol.

[@markbarber1756]

Apostles creed series sounds great to me!

[@maxxiong]

I have heard of some people saying that the grammar of Acts 2:38 can be read in a way to only attach "for the forgiveness of sins" to repentance, and if that is the case, the Nicene creed would not be using biblical language. I used to think this was possible, but no longer do because the early church can read Greek better. Also I wonder if the "Baptists are not protestant" type voices are common in the SBC? Some of these people also think the church is only local so would also have a problem with the "one holy catholic apostolic church" part.

[@jadtucker1972]

If Baptism is what truly saves, then why did the early church wait to baptize "hearers" for 3 years while they were being taught? It is clear that there were a group of believers called "hearers" who attended the assemblies, but were not yet baptized so they were not allowed to remain in the assembly while the baptized believers received communion. To me, this is a clear practice that shows that baptism and the Eucharist wasn't considered essential for salvation. The alternative explanation is that the Church was very callous towards the eternal souls of the hearers to risk their eternal damnation by delaying baptism and receiving of the Eucharist. Which one is it?

[@kilroywashere9678]

“Hearers” is just another term for catechumen, people that are learning about the faith and preparing for baptism.

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

the underlying problem here is the Protestant understanding of salvation. Baptism is how you become a member of the body of Christ. It saves you by accepting God's grace through his forgiveness. But ultimate eternal salvation is a process. You pick up your cross every day and persevere in the faith. The sacraments guide us in that by keeping us aligned with God's plan for our salvation.

[@jadtucker1972]

Baptist’s use different language. Salvation - I was saved. Sanctification - I am being saved. Glorification - I will be saved. So if a new believer/hearer is still learning through catechesis and suddenly dies before completing baptism, are they saved? I would say yes based on what I’ve read in scripture and early church history. Ultimately, God knows our hearts. We see the fruits. He sees the root.

[@bigfootapologetics]

The third-century debates on whether or not to baptize infants immediately after birth or eight days after birth (as with circumcision) provide a pretty resounding answer that baptism was not some sort of formality, but considered essential for the washing away of sins.

[@jadtucker1972]

@@bigfootapologetics so the church was putting the catechumens eternal salvation at risk by delaying then? I don’t believe the idea of purgatory had been introduced yet in 2nd and 3rd century or am I wrong. Even purgatory is deemed to be the fires of hell but only for a finite period of time. Just seems to be less consistency in when and how baptism was performed during the Ante-Nicene period than with the Eucharist, for example. Seems to have developed over time with different traditions. I just don’t see a clear picture of “this is how it was always done”.

[@RevDonBaker]

Long time viewer here on my personal channel. I just made my first KZbin video on this subject talking about the wording of the BFM2000. I think you’re right that Baptists have a better tradition than what’s commonly presented to people and even what’s stated in the BFM2000. I’m curious about what you think regarding the BFM calling the sacraments “acts of obedience” rather than “means of salvation” which you’d find in the Baptist Catechism. In my opinion, it’s a huge failure to make the distinction between law and gospel. I’d love to see the Reformed Baptists within the SBC address that even before revisiting the Creed (which I’d also love to see added). Anyways, thanks always for your channel. If been a huge help to me

[@wareaglejf]

"What we think it means..." There's your problem Dr. Ortlund. Protestants will always re-interpret the Scriptures and Creeds in order to shoehorn your theological presuppositions in.

[@Mic1904]

Quick reminder - everything you believe and everything you ever will believe are based on theological presuppositions which, ultimately, you have personally had to choose.

[@wareaglejf]

@@Mic1904 Correct. Dr. Ortlund chooses to ignore the presuppositions of the Creed's authors in favor of his preferred presuppositions that allow for his relatively modern theological innovations.

[@Mic1904]

@@wareaglejf Sounds like a Catholic then!

[@wareaglejf]

@@Mic1904 I'm not Roman Catholic and neither were Athanasius or the Cappadocian Fathers.

[@marksmale827]

I have just experienced the marvellous grace of Anointing (“Holy Unction”) at the local RC church. I’m left wondering why, when this - along with Confession - is as explicit as Baptism and Eucharist in the “Apostolic deposit”, so many churches which claim to follow that deposit like mine (Anglican), Presbyterian, Lutheran and a whole lot of others don’t practise these Sacraments???? Anglicans have them in the books but they are hardly ever used…..

[@markrome9702]

Do you still think these confessional Protestants agree on the essentials?

[@TruthUnites]

I never actually said that, but yes, its true -- part of what the Baptist confession I quote here says so as well, if you watch the video. Of course, individual groups can fall away from the confessions, just as can happen in other traditions.

[@markrome9702]

@@TruthUnites The fact is, you do not believe "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" the way the church believed it when the Nicene Creed was formulated. In the same way, the essentials you claim are agreed upon by the various Protestant groups are interpreted very differently between each, relegating the agreement to mere lip service.

[@SaltyCalvinist]

Having spent my whole life in baptist circles, and also having family in the Mennonite church, it seems to me that regardless of their origination, the average baptist church has a lot more in common with anabaptists than reformed churches. That's actually one reason why I have become Presbyterian, because as I have become Reformed over time, I have spent more and more time butting heads with Baptists about very basic reformed ideas, not even the sacraments, and their arguments have been basically identical to the arguments I hear from Mennonites

[@matthewthompson1942]

Being in the church of Christ myself I hold myself to no creeds and no book but the Bible. However, I still read commentaries and the church fathers but I do so with the Bible right next to it because I view that Scripture has absolute authority over anything outside of Scripture because I believe that is how God intended it. Hopefully more dialogue will continue between all traditions and that we put the Scriptures first, May God bless you all! Great video Gavin!

[@Convexhull210]

I do think the Church of Christ's view of no creeds and confessions is deeply problematic

[@matthewthompson1942]

@@Convexhull210 how so?

[@Convexhull210]

@matthewthompson1942 respectfully, 1) it's self refuting as all church bodies must hold to statements of faith that reflect scripture 2) the creeds are just that

[@matthewthompson1942]

@@Convexhull210 must hold according to whom?

[@Convexhull210]

@matthewthompson1942 scripture itself I would argue lays creeds early on and those later creeds are reflections of the earlier ones

[@jamesdan9439]

I would love (as many others, I'm sure) for you to do a video on a breakdown of each line of the Apostle's Creed!