Why I Am Not Baptist

[@lawrencejones4693]

I am an Anglican priest but grew up baptist. I wouls suggest looking deeper. The Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 was pre-revolution. There was a robust baptist presence in the colonies. It was a reformed baptist presence that came out of the Church of England. What many Baptists do not know about it is that it still used predominately BCP services as they were not and still are not, excepting infant baptism necessarily objectionalble to a baptist paradigm, that they drank wine in comminuion (grape juice was a later progressive movement thing) and they accepted pouring as a method of baptism. They aslo did not jettison the church fathers and bpatists of the era were not unknown to make the occasional appeal to church history for their arguments. Their issue was baptism and they thought that the baptism of infants was an innovation introduced by the later church ignoring the fact that 1 Corinthians 10 is rather explicit that God intends everyhone to be baptized. Of course, some of us Anglicans are not much better, the same passage also has God feeding Christ to the children too and we have many who would gladly die on the hill of denying children communion while at the same time claiming sola scriptura.

[@saintandrewsanglicannashvi3099]

Excellent! Thank you... The "3-streams" has been horrible in causing division in American Anglicanism. When in fact, there are MANY expressions & interpretations, yet few who seek a classical and "common" expression of Anglicanism. Unity is hindered in us running to our separate camps & planting our flags on our human preferences.

[@Captain_Autismo]

I always thought it was funny how Baptist are actually identified based on who they will not baptize lol

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@Captain_Autismo A Baptist response. If that is how Baptists are “largely known”, then sadly there are a large number of ignorant people out there who don’t know what they are talking about and should actually study Baptist history. Informed people know Baptists are known for a broad range of affirmations regarding the Christian faith. Sadly ignorant people are generally satisfied to remain ignorant and sadly in some cases bigoted.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Hey Joe Welby just resigned.

[@Young_Anglican]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty I saw!

[@VickersJon]

Oh wow

[@Bradford.C.Wallsbury]

What's the chances the next one is even more liberal

[@Manpayi]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty praise be to God

[@anycyclopedia]

@@Bradford.C.Wallsbury There is a higher chance for the next Archbishop of Cantebury to be a woman.

[@Joe10e84]

Baptist supporter here! Keep doing what you're doing. Much love. Edit: I think you should bring your views to Gavin Ortlund and talk them out. I think you could refine your arguments to be more precise.

[@AndrewRAMontgomery]

Ex anglican, now baptist. To be frank the reason I left the church of ireland was because I grew up in it and didn't hear the gospel. Simply put. I was saved outside the church and so moved on. Also it's going very liberal. Anyway I just wanted to say I have felt the presence of God in Communion and I didn't even realise that was the Baptist teaching. The infant baptism thing I need to look into more as it still just seems like a stretch, like the didache clearly shows full immersion was normative and expected but I suppose that doesn't exclude babies. Anyway thanks for your video

[@gamertag7676]

For me it was the opposite being a Baptist I never really agreed with the Baptist theology and never really liked the worship, to me it's too emotional and I want serious worship, no offense to you of course

[@AndrewRAMontgomery]

@gamertag7676 I think your baptist churches must be different than what I've experienced in Northern ireland. Here they are often accused of being dry, old fashioned and overly theological in that they don't address current issues. I would say that your issue isnt theology but just local preference. But maybe there was other things and if there is let me know as I want to hear other opinions. I would struggle to be anglican here mainly because of the absolute liberalism in the denomination, other stuff can be addressed but not the far left liberalism. From what I gather it has turned some congregations from serious into a hilarious joke. It's like a disease. Anyway, I'm looking at this because of recent church government issues, not because of this current trend of old fashioned churches being generated online. In 1000 years Big Eva mega churches will be traditional so I dont buy it. If it's the traditional Christianity why are the Jewish converts not flocking to anglicanism, catholicism and orthodoxy rather than evangelical churches? Surely they would recognize a tradition started in their own land!

[@petros810]

⁠​⁠@@AndrewRAMontgomeryThere liberal baptists here in the USA ( American Baptist denomination) and there conservative Anglicans here (acna, and continuing Anglicans) are conservative. The Baptist are an innovation of the 16th century. Their unique belief was believed n the first 1600 years. As fat Jewish converts are concerned, most come from secular background not from traditional Judaism. Also the dispensational theology amongst evangelicals is what attracts Jews to convert. It seems to Me that many of the messianic Jews seem to charismatic and not so much Baptist. But it is interesting that Joe himself is Jewish, and it was Anglicanism that attracted him.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Baptist response. FACTS TO PONDER. Baptists arrived in the American colonies from England and Wales beginning in the 1630s. Baptists founded the colony of Rhode Island. Some of the oldest universities in America were founded by Baptists (ie Brown University in Rhode Island). It has been estimated that immediately before the American Revolution there were 494 Baptist congregations in the colonies. 20 years later, in 1795, Isaac Backus estimated the number at 1,152. The majority of these were Reformed. Today Baptists are the largest non Roman Catholic tradition in America (with at least 70,000 congregations of all stripes as far as denominational affiliation). There are approximately 25 million Baptists in America. There are 100 million self identified as Baptist Christians in the world. Historic Baptists never taught pacifism. Baptists served in the parliamentary army during the English Civil War and in the Continental army during the Revolutionary War. Historic Baptist theological formularies teach the real presence in the sacrament of Holy Communion. It is also taught that the sacraments (baptism and Holy Communion) are a means of sanctifying grace (the understanding on the real presence is virtually identical to the 39 articles of Religion and the Westminster Confession). It is false to suggest Baptists don’t recognize the church offices of pastor or bishop and deacon. It is absolutely false that Baptists teach a person can appoint themselves into the pastoral office. To suggest otherwise is to display a lack of knowledge of historic Baptist theological formularies where these subjects are addressed in depth. It is also false to say historic Baptists had no appreciation for church history or the ecumenical creeds. Some of the finest scholarly works on Christian history were written by Baptist academics. There are several contemporary Baptist academics who have written excellent scholarly works on the church fathers. It is absurd and utterly false to suggest that Baptists have no authority structures and no theological guard rails and it is just one big free for all. Absolutely ridiculous to suggest that.

[@reecelastname1956]

I’m technically a Baptist, but at this point only because I think infant baptism is undeniably a later accretion and not found the Apostolic Church or the Scriptures. Otherwise I hold high views of the sacraments, high view of the office of presbyter, and love the liturgy of the classical BCP. I said the daily office for a while, and really pushed hard to name my daughter Evensong (wife vetoed repeatedly). But I just can’t get my mind to accept infant baptism. So this video probably isn’t about me, but just letting you know we exist.

[@dirtdiver4782]

Hey Young Anglican. I'm really enjoying your channel. I attend an ACNA church in the diocese of the Carolinas that has a mix of folks from various denominations. Our rector was my youth pastor at a non-denominational evangelical church and has since become a presbyter in the ACNA and led us to join him. I am certainly more open to high church concepts than many in my church. Do you have any thoughts on facilitating my church to embrace more historically Anglican practices? Additionally, what are your thoughts on an ACNA church that will likely never embrace vestements or other Anglican distinctives? Is there room in the ACNA for a lower church expression (retaining the BCP and theological commitments of the ACNA)?

[@Young_Anglican]

@@dirtdiver4782 there certainly is room for low church Anglicanism. But if you want more high church stuff there is nothing wrong with that.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

7:30 I actually wish Clement's writings were in the bible. How many heresies would that prevent?

[@hexahexametermeter]

I think that's precisely why by the grace of God it wasn't.

[@hexahexametermeter]

And I'm an Anglican BTW.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Baptist response. I have no desire to tell everyone they need to be Baptist. Just as there are true believers and true churches in the Baptist tradition, these can also be found in all Christian traditions. That being said, and in the interest of presenting the facts, the two original streams of the Baptist movement occurred in 17th century England not a century earlier in Switzerland and Germany. Do keep in mind that the term Baptist was a term of contempt applied to these Christians by the Anglicans. They did not originally call themselves Baptist. Anyway the two streams were particular (Reformed) and general (Arminian) and neither at the beginning knew of the other’s existence. The particulars were originally Congregationalists (Independents who practiced paedobaptism and were Reformed) who departed on friendly terms to practice credobaptism as Congregationalists. The generals were dissenters from the Church of England’s Arminian wing (several of their early leaders were former Anglican priests). All this to say that there is no organic connection with the continental anabaptists of a century earlier. In fact the first Baptists vehemently denied any connection in response to Anglicans who tried to smear them with the false label of anabaptist (and sadly this is still done in certain Anglican circles today, present company excluded I am sure). The first particular Baptists strongly identified with Protestantism especially Reformed Protestantism. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 in large portions of the document. is verbatim with the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1645. The only seeming connection with anabaptists is the issue of credobaptism. However anabaptist understanding of credobaptism differed significantly from those who came to be called Baptists especially the particular Baptists. Lutherans and Reformed while sharing paedobaptism have totally different understandings of what it means. The same can be said especially with the particular Baptists and Anabaptists. Particular or Reformed Baptist consider the sacrament of baptism to be a means of sanctifying grace. Baptism is God’s action to us not the other way around. Also the Ansbaptists were a diverse group with some being downright heretical. Baptists are orthodox and reject for example the heretical Christology found in some Anabaptist groups. Finally, the first century church practiced only credobaptism. Paedobaptism is strictly an historical development. Modern paedobaptists don’t even have unanimity on what it means. I am not saying that the Baptist tradition is perfect and free from problems and internal strife but we can say the same thing about Anglicans. I do not unchurch my paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ of whatever stripe. We are all one in Christ. To bad at least one post I’ve read by an Anglican suggests unchurching Baptists. Cheers!

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Too bad a lot of Particular Baptist adopted the Philadelphia Confession which is explicitly Memorialist. That, with credobaptism and the different version of Covenant Theology they have makes them imcompatible with any claim of being Reformed.

[@michaelg4919]

Thanks bro for setting the record straight! I am a general baptist and even we have confessions like the orthodox creed which says "Baptism is [...] a Sign of our entrance into the Covenant of Grace, and ingrafting into Christ, and into the Body of Christ, which is his Church And of Remission of Sin in the Blood of Christ" which is fully compatible with "sign and thing signified". God bless you! (edit: spelling)

[@couriersix7326]

"Finally, the first century church practiced only credobaptism" No it did not. We see explicit mentions of infants baptism as early as the 200s, and it was not considered a new practice. Also if we take what Polycarp wrote around 160 AD, "Eighty and six years have I served Him [Christ], and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?" we can see he considered himself a Christian since he was an infant, and Baptism is when you were made Christian. That would put his Baptism right in the first century. "Modern paedobaptists don’t even have unanimity on what it means" maybe post reformation, but for the first 1500 years of the church Baptismal regeneration was universally accepted. You can even see this in the early church arguments for credobaptism from people like Tertullian, that Baptism should be delayed as long as possible to forgive the most sins.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@michaelg4919 Glad to hear from you bro. I am Reformed Baptist but I love the Orthodox creed. I would call it mildly Calvinistic but that’s just my humble opinion. It doesn’t really matter. The Rev’d Thomas Monck’s mastery of the English language in writing his Orthodox Creed just blows me away.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@ The practice of infant baptism is not in the Bible. The theology supporting it might be but not the practice itself. By that I mean there is no description, mention or clear evidence of infants being baptised in the pages of the New Testament. In fact there are no mentions of infant baptism for at least 150 years after the resurrection of Christ and the first really clear mention of it (by someone who opposed the practice) was Tertullian around 200 AD. The great church historian Henry Chadwick thought that even at the time of Augustine in 387AD that, ‘it was still rather unusual for infants to be baptised.’ Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw offer a impressive and comprehensive study of the early church literature, tomb inscriptions and artwork in their book Baptism in the Early Church and clearly demonstrate that it wasn’t until sometime into the 4th century that infant baptism became the standard. Finally it needs to be remarked that the contention often found in modern literature, viz that adult baptism in the early church entailed a missionary situation, cannot be substantiated by the relevant patristic literature, since the transition from adult baptism to infant baptism occurred at a time when Christianity was already a widespread phenomenon in the ancient church. Therefore, it is also unsound to scrutinize the New Testament writings for allusions to infant baptism, since the latter involved a historical development.

[@MHall-qd4dn]

Why would an episcopal church be on RZs map of historic/conservative churches but not of the Anglican renaissance church?

[@jaema8281]

LENGTHY ARGUMENT ON CREDO/PAEDO BAPTISM BELOW I certainly think that the idea of "Bible only" gets glossed over and we move to arguing postions, but where is the warrant to abandon most of tradition anyways? This is certainly not what we see in Scripture with Christ mentioning the "Seat of Moses" and Jude mentioning the Book of Enoch, as well as St. Paul making several mentions of extra biblical hymns. Not only that, but we know that Paul and the like clearly taught other things orally (not to say they were inspired), and lastly, the entire NT is Christ starting his ministry and the Apostles then spreading these churches and training people to be ministers. How many times does Paul mention tutoring someone like Timothy? We talk about "only scripture" but where is the actual warrant for these things IN Scripture? Jesus rebukes traditions that are in contrast with the Scriptures, but as mentioned with the Seat of Moses and Enoch examples, even in the NT, prior to the church, traditions are maintained. Baptism isn't even formally mantioned in the scriptures until John the Baptist, but there was a clear understanding of what it was (that went beyond the Levitical mention of symbolic cleansing) prior to his arrival. Where is this approach of scripture as the only thing retained formally ever found in the Scriptures themselves? If we have to then, rely on external reasoning, as to why the position is held, whether through history or circumstance, you have failed the litmus test for your own system, and cannot falsify your presumption based on it's own standards (i.e self refuting). This is not a subjective decision for the sake of "subjective piety" or "playing it safe". If you create distinction between yourself and the rest of the entire Christian world based on doctrine, you need to justify that separation, lest you be complicit not only in schism, but also disobeying the commands of Christ. Again, this proof should be 1) Exclusively from Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. 2) If implicit, the proof should be MORE reasonable and clear than the doctrine of infant baptism. If infant baptism, despite it's endless proof texts, is not sufficient as an interpretation to hold despite having no efficacious harm, then there would need to be equal or greater proof of something that justifies the deviation of the entire Christian world for over 1000 years, and the vast majority of Christians for the last 400 years at least. Lastly, even if the given proof text was produced. I'd like to add that VS. things like Sola Fide, which are explicit in scripture, but also present in a fair number of church fathers throughout time and Sola Scriptura, which is implied in Scripture and seemingly held by multiple church fathers, the fundamental difference is that there is a complete lack of presence of this view on church and on the sacraments as a whole. So even then, if you could produce this scripturally exclusive proof; VS. the Classical Protestant who can prove the reasonability of their view through tradition throughout the Fathers, even if it's not majority on specific doctrines, the Baptist or Restorationist, after providing evidence, has to explain how their fundamental, tenet idea (Scripture is perspicuous enough to neglect tradition, due to Scripture sufficiency.) was not completely violated in itself by failing to be perspicuous for the last 1000 years, and still failing to be even a sizable portion of those believers. Why ought we trust this standard of scripture exclusive polity when the main argument for this standard failed itself for over a millenium? (Again, note the distinction of minority testimony for the classical Protestant view in history VS complete lack of testimony for the Baptist view. Again, what argument could we possibly have for this being the CLEAR reading of scripture? Especially considering through this view, not only did Christ's church immediately fall into error in regards to the sacraments. But the very people who are even mentioned in NT (Clement, Polycarp), being the first generation after the Apostles would have immediately fallen into error. Was the entire beginning of Christ's ministry so cosmologically oriented by providence, only to immediately err and fail literally not even a few decades after the NT? For the last time, even if this proof can be given, the explanation on why this standard on Scripture ought to be taken. If somehow it had failed in perspicuity for over a millenia, why would we trust this standard now?)

[@BobboBagginz]

I think your point on Pacifism is really interesting. Growing up Baptist, I did not meet many pacifists. It’s interesting how a denomination that does not hold to ecclesial authority loses its historical tenants.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Baptist response. Utter nonsense. You really need to do some serious study and get better informed.

[@BobboBagginz]

@paulsmallwood1484 The point was that the historical tenants of the Baptist denomination held to pacifism. As far as I am aware the SBC does not hold to pacifism, neither does converge. Now you are saying that I am totally wrong and uneducated. Can you point out why?

[@Joe10e84]

It's a common reaction of oppressed people to run to pacifism. Early Baptists were terribly mistreated (though, not to the degree of the Trail of Blood nonsense), so there were some who became pacifists. A short-term problem driven by the abuses of the Anglican Church.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@BobboBagginz if don’t accept your premise but I understand you wanting to use ecclesiology as an excuse for the waffling by some Baptist on doctrine (I don’t think it has anything to do with ecclesiology)”. I think it is even more interesting that some within Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism (especially Roman Catholicism) who tout their superior ecclesiological authority blatantly disregard their tenants and pump out all manner of heterodoxy.

[@BobboBagginz]

@@Joe10e84 Thank you for this. Pacifism being a short term solution for the Baptist church is not something I have heard of before. I will look into this validate, but thank you for answering my question.

[@oofaloofa]

My biggest gripe is 'Reformed' baptist. It's an oxymoron

[@ronalddelavega3689]

No it isn't there is such a thing as Fee Will Baptists which are Arminian

[@reformedcatholic457]

Exactly. The reformers wouldn't be thinking they're reformed view of the Sacrament of holy baptism, rejection of creeds, Christology etc...

[@oofaloofa]

@@ronalddelavega3689 reread the comment smartass

[@SpooonCar]

I know zoomer said that, but let’s be real, if reformed Baptists aren’t real, then neither are Reformed Anglicans, yet people never punch the other way. I don’t care regardless, but the inconsistency is frustrating.

[@oofaloofa]

@@SpooonCar I don't watch retardedzoomer. It literally is just a fact. Reformed anglicans wrote the Westminster Confession, so if you don't consider that reformed than we have a problem

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

My issue with the Baptist theology/leaders I’ve seen is their smug anti-intellectualism, lack of good backing from church history and a general obnoxiousness coming from a severe lack of self awareness. Most individual Baptists I meet are great people though; it’s the denomination I find irritating.

[@jockchicken3595]

Wow. Lord have mercy if we don’t have a valid Eucharist.

[@baldrbraa]

12:50 Why the US army?

[@jdk36]

I am curious of your thoughts on pacifism and how the early church especially the apostolic and ante-nicene fathers viewed killing even in military service as sin.

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

That’s kind of a debated point between historians, actually. It’s been increasing common to argue that there was no consistent ante-nicenan objection to military service, though many fathers did object, for various reasons. It’s been a fight that been going on for years.

[@lifelinesoutreach]

Are you Born Again and have the Holy Spirit? How do you know?

[@BobboBagginz]

How was Synod?

[@Young_Anglican]

@@BobboBagginz Good

[@traviswilson36]

@@Young_Anglican Wow fascinating. Truly an inspirational response that motivates me and countless others to attend. Thank you.

[@BobboBagginz]

@@traviswilson36 If I was to take a guess, Young Anglican is going to make a video on Synod. I think he said good, because he doesn’t want to get into things on it prior to then, or create a discussion about a singular diocese. Also I only asked to help get the algorithm going, so a good was sufficient to me.

[@E-pistol]

The Bible is a Catholic book ❤

[@KnightFel]

Yes, just not Roman Catholic.

[@E-pistol]

@KnightFel , We conquered rome. We are the same Catholics before and after, try again.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Yeah and you sacked Constantinople. Shame on you.

[@reformedcatholic457]

I'm what you call an Anglo- Lutheran I'm mixed between Anglican and Lutheran. I saw the lack of theological continuity between the Baptist tradition and the reformers and the church fathers. Baptists have very little in common with the Reformation and the church of the fathers i'd say if you don't desire to theologically connect with the church of the past then your church is invalid and bringing in innovations to the church that men made up thinking it's sound in their eyes. In in saying that they're our brothers but a church without a historically sound confession is open to heresy such as Nestorianism learning from the past and to connect with it has value.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Worship usually consists of a quick prayer a bunch of guitar strumming and a long sermon. Little actual scripture. The soterology is primarily decision based. They don't have a covenantal view of baptism so that is also going to be decision based for adults only. And the use plastic shot glasses in communion which makes me nauseous. LOL

[@Manpayi]

The fact Baptists don't know the Nicene Creed is enough for me. It's such a perfect expression of Christian belief

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

"We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptists deny that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

[@Manpayi]

@ yep. Which puts them at odds with all the Church fathers and all the teaching of the early Church. I always enjoy getting lectured to by them about how "Constantine" established the "Roman" Church. Baptists are the least knowledgeable of all Christian denominations regarding the history of their faith. Frankly, it's obnoxious that as an Anglican I'm lumped in with them.

[@therightduck6258]

We have actually read history books that aren’t solely about American history. And we do have churches that affirm it in it’s entirety. But unfortunately, a lot of Baptist churches do have a problem of being overtly skeptical of a lot of things, including history and philosophy. It’s a shame.

[@Weavileiscool]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7there is *a* way to harmonize it, but it’s not very good

[@ronalddelavega3689]

​@@therightduck6258yea some non USA have the Nicene . But even if he Free Will Baptist are basically acredal, that is basically they don't have a formal creed

[@help-vh1hn]

my family is baptist and I was raised presbyterian but now I have found the anglican truth

[@HolyAdonis]

because its not a good idea to let Pastor Jim-bob make up everything based on his own personal interpretation of scripture.

[@EcclesiaInvicta]

Because it's Heterodox

[@traviswilson36]

Like your mom

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Baptist response. Utter nonsense and to suggest otherwise shows either a complete ignorance of the Baptist tradition or some kind of anti Baptist animus. Besides this is rich coming from someone in the Anglican Communion in which Justin Welby is a prominent figure.

[@EcclesiaInvicta]

​@@traviswilson36 No, my mom ain't a Baptist. Looks like Baptists can't argue but only result to insult. Heterodox grindset right here.

[@ministeriosemmanuel638]

@@paulsmallwood1484 As a former Baptist, who knows well their theology and history, I can say there are a lot of heterodox doctrines Baptist believe in.

[@EcclesiaInvicta]

​@@traviswilson36 Nah, my mom ain't a Baptist.

[@hismajesty6272]

Because I want to baptize my infants.

[@ronalddelavega3689]

Well I am not a Baptist. Having been used be for some years back when I converted I am not a Baptist misiblu coz they are mostly Calvinists, dissed other denominations constantly hog me nistries whenever they are basically co-ercer into doing ministry work with others OSAS and failure to disciple. However since you ARE dissing Baptists, I think is fair why, in spite of you guys being formally Liturgical , which I love, I could not ever possibly be Anglican or worse Episcopalian. One you are Calvinists which is bad enough, but then you don't have the theological GUTS to actually defend Calvinism by really spelling out your Calvinist convictions. En you baptized infants ignoring that Jesus Himself, famously said, that those who BELIEVE and are baptized will be saved. Which unless you believe that a babe can actually repent make moral judgments & discern right from wrong they cannot believe since belief requires moral judgement and informed choice. & If you do You should talk to you babies and ask them to learn and sing hymns, read the Bible dress and go to potty by themselves.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

A reason I'm not Baptist is because I see faith and grace as action, cooperation and participation in God's sacraments, Not void belief, even the demons believe and tremble. To be Baptist is to give the kingdom of heaven to demons. Salvation is by faith through grace, That doesn't mean by belief through Christ's free pleasure, But by this analogy it's lunging off a leap of faith in a cliff and that your father is graceful enough to bring a trampoline, So too as faith we take action in Baptism and lords supper, as means of grace which God works his salvation out of. Here are Bible verses showing sacraments as tools for salvation: Baptism 1. Romans 6:3-4: Baptized into Christ's death, raised to new life. 2. Galatians 3:26-27: Baptized into Christ, clothed with Him. 3. 1 Peter 3:21: Baptism saves, appealing to God. 4. Matthew 28:19: Baptize, teach, observe all commands. 5. Acts 2:38: Repent, baptized, receive Holy Spirit. Communion/Eucharist 1. Matthew 26:26-28: Christ's body and blood, forgiveness. 2. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: Participating in Christ's body. 3. John 6:53-58: Eating Christ's flesh, drinking His blood. 4. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: Communion, remembering Christ. Sacraments and Salvation 1. Titus 3:5-7: Saved by grace, renewed by Holy Spirit, justified. 2. Ephesians 5:25-26: Cleansed by water, sanctified. 3. Hebrews 10:22: Hearts sprinkled, bodies washed. Old Testament Prefigurations 1. Exodus 12:13: Passover lamb, salvation. 2. Leviticus 16:30: Atonement, cleansing. Key Verses 1. "Baptism saves" (1 Peter 3:21). 2. "Participating in Christ's body" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Baptist response. Utter nonsense and uninformed slander. Baptists have never taught “void belief”.