Why Reformed Baptists are not Reformed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2024
- Here's a great Reformed Baptist channel: / @truthunites
Also, I should clarify that when I said we don't have Reformed Baptist Churches, I only meant in that particular city. There is a baptist city where we only have Baptists, no Presbyterians or anything other than Baptist. The purpose of this server is to showcase the beauty of each Christian tradition but also to display the unity they all have in Christ
Quotes from John Calvin:
"We must then really receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both."
- Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper
"How are these blessings [salvation] bestowed on us by Baptism? If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit."
- Geneva Catechism 331
Reformed are the friends we made along the way
😂
Are we predestined to be friends?
Beautiful
I was predestined to love this video
While I commend your enthusiasm, that is not how "predestination" is to be used. You distorted and gave into an error called "hyper-calvinism". You love this video because you love the scriptural truth through the help of the Holy Spirit...not "predestination".
@@thomasc9036 its just a little joke, but thanks for the info (i mean that non-sarcastically)
I used to be Presbyterian as well, but unfortunately my former church turned very woke, and so I wanted to turn to a church that better represented the Bible. I'm glad to know not all Presbyterians are like the ones that ran my church.
you shouldn't have run away
@@redeemedzoomer6053 you don’t know his individual circumstance. He might not be ready for that.
@@David-bh7hs we are called to do things we aren't ready for that's why we have Christ to lean on
@@redeemedzoomer6053they might’ve euthanized that dawg in him!
@@redeemedzoomer6053Why not? Why drink from the fount of bad theology?
I'm a Reformed Baptist. The 2LBC is a Reformed confesssion. Luther told Erasmus that the nature and relation of the will of man and the will of God was the "hinge" on which the Reformation turned. The central and primary distinctive of Reformed theology is Reformed soteriology and the 5 Solas. Reformed Baptists are Reformed in every way, descendents of Puritans from the church of England.
We don't and have never asked any other church whether we are Reformed, we don't need their permission or recognition. We live "semper reformanda," which is why we jettisoned the unbiblical notion of paedo-baptism.
Exactly! I'd argue we are even more reformed
As a Reformed Baptist....this video hurt my soul :D
I pray everyone has a blessed Pentecost Sunday
As a Baptist, I always found it weird when people say "Reformed Baptist" because of that point you made about us not really liking institutional approaches to faith and theology. Not to long ago I visited a Baptist Church where they were preaching that Catholicism is a cult. I've heard that said by a lot of Baptists actually. Mostly in smaller church settings where I doubt they have any understanding of theology or what the Catholic church teaches.
I also find that Baptist are more likely to say the line "Christianity is not a religion. It's a relationship with Christ." Not a fan of that belief. The word "Religion" is seen so negatively that we don't even want to say we are religious.
The main two beliefs that stand out about Baptist is how we handle Baptism, hence the name, and that we believe in the over simplified phrase "Once Saved Always Saved". I never liked that line either. Had a Church of God teacher tell me that Baptists teach that it's ok to live a sinful life because of this belief, which is not even true.
I thought the whole idea of "Reformed Baptist" just came from that belief that we kinda sorta share with Calvinists that you can't lose your salvation. I'm glad to have this closer look at the comparisons and differences because theology is far more complex and interesting than that. I'm still learning a lot about theology and these videos have been helpful.
I did take Theology in college and I'm convinced I had a bad teacher. He thought very highly of himself and looked down on a lot of the different beliefs. I don't get that same vibe from you. Starting this video, I thought "oh here we go. Dude is just going to trash Baptists." But no. You approached it logically and with respect. Like you understand why people believe in each of these different backgrounds and you believe the way you do based on your own extensive research and experiences. I respect that.
Hello Good evening to you, I just want to share my thoughts about the word you said you're not a fan of the word " Once saved always Saved". As a Bible Baptist we believe that once you received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior You become his Son and You will be Saved. Now to the statement you said that its just ok to live a sinful life because Salvation cannot be taken away from you. In short terms, Is a Backslide Person who lived a sinful life that was once a faithful man is still saved? Our pastor always said " The Big Question is.. did he really got saved?" Because a saved person is a Changed person. Since you became a child of God you now know whats wrong and what's not. A real saved person is a changef life th at dont want to sin. Although we're not perfect and sometimes sin but if we repent and ask forgiveness then Jesus Christ will forgive us. But remember once you sinned and ask for Forgiveness , a real saved person will do his best to change and not do that sin again out of Conscience from the Holy Ghost. So once saved always saved is not a ticket that after saved a person can live a sinful life then lets ask the question again did that person really got Saved? Im nor here to argue or debate but to just share my thoughts, I also want to learn something. Thank you and God bless you:)
Baptism = retard Christianity
I like to say "If Saved, always Saved."
I think it very belittling and of very poor faith in the Lord to think once He saves you, that He is going to fail. Once saved, youre saved, and your soul is transformed. The Lord is absolute.
You're videos have been the tipping point for me. For a long time I've been uncomfortable in my Baptist church. It's time for me to go. Thank you for explaining things in a way most can't seem too 😅
no problem! Is there a Presbyterian Church near you on this map?
www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1PNd_sJagci84PyKmGC6M5VJtaLMEWxg&ll=41.94524236701553%2C-87.83194475&z=18&entry=yt
@redeemedzoomer6053 only a first Lutheran 💀
There are Presby churches near me, but they need inspection.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 bro TWO of them have female pastors
Female pastor isn't a death sentence in itself.
@@ChristianEphraimsonyes it is
Something general I’d like to say as a Baptist turned Catholic.
Extreme literalism (except for “this is my body”, “this is my blood”, and sometimes Genesis 1) and general anti-institutionalism are the two greatest weaknesses of the Baptist tradition. Unfortunately, they are also at the core of many Baptists’ personal theology.
I am a Baptist (by conviction). I understand why you believe the anti-institutionalism is a weakness, but what exactly do you mean by "dispensationalism is a weakness"? Are you saying that covenant theology is superior? (At least, that's always been presented as the opposite of dispensationalism.) The parenthetical statement also confuses me: Baptists believe in symbolic communion, but what do you mean by Genesis 1?
I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic: I really am curious as to what makes it a weakness!
@@JohnDoe-xy2sj I... used the wrong word to describe the extremely literal take on the Bible many Baptists are familiar of. A take that excludes communion for all and Creation for some.
Biblical ultraliteralism is the weakness I was addressing here because the Bible in many cases is written as either poetic description of reality or outright metaphor. This isn't to say that it is *never* a literal description of history. But to say that it is always a literal description of history comes with problems when the literal interpretation is contradicted by the sciences. The Baptist response of doubling down on Young Earth Creationism is not the cause but is certainly part of why Christianity is less attractive to modern society.
Dispensationalism has its own problems in that it causes Christians to obsess over protecting the geopolitical entity of Israel, rather than seeing the timeless beauty of the prophecies' relationship with he modern Church. Which is not only non-Christian but has at times been anti-Christian because the Christians in its part of the Levant tend to be Arabs, a people Israeli nationalists aren't keen on sharing a country with.
@@lesinge8868 Ah, I see what you mean; thanks for the clarification.
Jesus: *grabs bread "this is my body"
Catholic: WHAT THE... HOWDJA DO THAT :0!!!!
🤦
@@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850 I… genuinely have no idea what your point is.
As a Baptist who is currently studying at an SBC seminary, I would say that there is a shift in the newer generation to embrace historically Baptist principles that are more in line with the Reformed tradition and the magisterial Reformation. More of us now embrace many of the points of “SPACE” like spiritual presence, amilennialism, ecumenical creeds, and predestination which the previous generation who led the Conservative Resurgence did not always hold. Our seminaries now even embrace a certain strain of Covenantal theology called progressive Covenantalism, which is way too complicated to explain here.
Though I think you are right in saying that Baptist are not Reformed in the truest sense, I would also point out that it’s not historically accurate to say that Baptist emerged from Anabaptists and the radical reformation. Having read there writings, there are many things we do disagree with them on, specifically the idea that the church cease to exist for a millennia. Baptist tradition emerged from English separatism, with John Smyth and Thomas Helwys being the origins of the general Baptists and the JLJ church in Southwark, England being the origins of the particular Baptists.
Yeah I turned my head a bit when he said that Baptists didn’t start anywhere particular.
John Smyth started the Baptist tradition in a modern, recognizable sense.
Do you mean that we don’t affirm the church ceased to exist? It looks like you are saying we do affirm that 😅
I second all of what you said. These are all points I would’ve commented if you did not. Well done.
Except where you said the church ceased to exist 😂
Sorry, I meant to say disagree! Anabaptists tend to separate from society, and they believe the church was lost after Constantine came to power. These are things Baptist do NOT believe.
I made a typo. We DISAGREE with Anabaptists on many points.
theology and minecraft is a beautiful combination
As a reformed Baptist I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I’m sure it will spark many great conversations between me and my Presbyterian friends.
Funny to think I was a reformed Baptist only 2 months ago 🤣
In Brazil, the majority of "Reformed" groups that I participate in or know of are Baptist. In fact, one of the biggest Brazilian Christian UA-cam channels is known as "Dois dedos de teologia" and is recognized for spreading Reformed theology through the Brazilian internet. However, the most prominent Reformed preacher in Brazil is Agustus Nicodemus Lopes, who is a Presbyterian. I myself am from a technically Baptist denomination where the majority of pastors adhere more to Reformed theology than any other.
Yago não passa em todos os critérios do Zoomer, pois até onde eu sei ele não acredita em presencial espiritual de Cristo na Ceia do Senhor e na continuidade pactual (que implica no batismo de bebês). No livro que ele apresenta as "5 melhores bíblias de estudo" ele distingue 'calvinista' de 'reformado' como coisas diferentes, dizendo que "todo calvinista é reformado, mas nem todo reformado é calvinista" e ele diz que a Bíblia de Genebra ( a usada pelos Presbiterianos) tem o defeito de ser "reformada demais". Ele claramente usa o termo reformado no sentido que o Zoomer acusa ser errado, como se fosse sinônimo de crer na Predestinação, quando na verdade é e sempre foi historicamente associado ao sistema teológico de Calvino. Digo isso, mas eu também sou inscrito no canal do Yago e ele é uma das minhas maiores referências junto com o Nicodemus.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Ele disse num livro "todo calvinista é reformado, mas nem todo reformado é calvinista"? Nunca tinha me atentado que ele fez essa distinção. Mas eu notei que ele fez uma linha (discordância) na presença espiritual de Cristo na ceia em um dos vídeos.
Btw: Eu não espera escontrar um BR aqui kkk Você é de qual igreja irmão?
@@MrEliabe777 Vou ser batizado semana que vem na Igreja Presbiteriana do Brasil rs. Era ateu e fiquei quase 2 anos estudando sobre o cristianismo, lendo a Bíblia e frequentando a Igreja até que me converti.
Tem bastante brasileiro acompanhando o Zommer, quase sempre vejo algum aqui nos comentários rs.
Pelo visto, têm mais brasileiros nesse canal do que eu pensava
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Nossa mano! Glória a Deus pelo teu batismo. Que te Deus te auxilie na tua caminhada.
As a particular Baptist I would ask ,were the puritans reformed? The only reason I ask is because we come from them. I would also point out that the reason we don't have many Baptist countries we endured some pretty heavy persecution during the time of the Reformation.
Yes. The Puritans were very reformed. And so are Reformed Baptist. This UA-camr can’t figure out whether to be okay with Catholicism let alone what reformation is supposed to bring about. Guy put Aquinas in an A tier on his tier list. Meaning he thought Aquinas was a solid theologian. Aquinas holds Mary as Co Redemtrix, Mediator, Queen of Heaven etc. it’s legit blasphemy. So although this guy is solid with some of his stuff, he’s at least somewhat sympathetic to the Catholic church which means there is a massive blunder in his theology somewhere.
Lot to unpack here. First off I am relieved that, I, as a reformed baptist affirm SPACE and am therefore reformed, just with the sign of the covenant of Grace being rightly administered to those who believe as it has been extended beyond the borders of the people of Israel. Even Presbyterians affirm some discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, so this shouldn’t be an issue. Classical Reformed baptists affirm all of the rest of this, btw, Gavin has a video on spiritual presence as an example. Also you’re wrong that reformed baptists come out of the radical reformation. This is a common problem on this channel of lumping particular baptists and low church baptists more generally. I love you man, but I really hope you nuance this a bit more in the future.
Agreed. As a reformed confessional baptist. I can affirm all these things.
No.
@@johnking9161 dang, got me there
@@TheRoark I’m a man of few words.
As a 1689er, you’re spot-on. I wholly affirm his SPACE acronym as well. And yes, it infuriates me when we get lumped together with the Anabaptists and radical reformation folks. Like, tell me you’ve never truly studied the English reformation without telling me…. Our tradition is the result of Cambridge and Oxford-educated former high-church-men, who were reformed paedobaptists who recognized the need to further reform.
Brother, God bless you. The gatekeeper has spoken hehehe. Nice to hear your opinions, even when I don't agree with them. You have redefined the term reformed in a way no one has known before and invented a new acronym just to kick the reformed Baptists out of the reformed train. Amazing. See you in heaven! (or in this earth if God wills it that way)
The term “reformed baptist” only first widely occurs in the 1980’s. Baptists have redefined the term.
Pretty sure that Zwingli would not fit his definition, which is just insane. The lengths people go to when they want to play gatekeeper.
@@johnking9161the 1689 Baptist confession is very much theologically reformed. They even reformed to the point where they don’t practice Roman Catholic rituals. Some groups just couldn’t reform far enough to the Bible. 1689 Baptists are solid.
That's why I prefer the nomenclature "Particular Baptist" as is historically known
I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with my taxonomy but I use the term "Reformed Baptist" to describe credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and are covenantal. I use the term "Particular Baptist" mostly to describe credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and are dispensational. There is another category, which I belong to, which are credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and adhere to 1689 Federalism consistently. In other words, we believe the Mosaic Covenant was somewhat typological in nature - pointing backwards toward Eden and the covenant of works (Law), and pointing forwards to the New Covenant (sacrifices that pointed towards Christ and ultimate forgiveness- Grace).
I don't think most 1689 Federalists are consistent though because many still believe the Sabbath is binding except transferred to the first day of the week, and still believe the pope is the Anti-Christ.
I would share most of the beliefs of Reformed Baptists, minus their view of the Sabbath and the pope. It is true that a pope could be an anti-Christ, but I don't necessarily think the pope in 1689 or currently is the anti-Christ. And, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to consider the Lord's Day (Sunday) as a valid day of worship, but I don't think it is necessarily required in the same sense as the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath.
So, in other words, these taxonomies involve the person's view of covenantal versus dispensation versus 1689 Federalism, and how consistent the person is on their view of each of the aforementioned.
I use the phrase "Particular Baptist" to describe myself, though, and don't worry about all these details. General Baptists are those who believe in general redemption and Particular Baptists believe in particular redemption.
My objection to being called a Calvinistic Baptist is the association with Calvin, which can be viewed as cultlike, in that it focuses on the theology of one particular man, and I don't hold all the beliefs of Calvin.
How is viewing the Sabbath as binding or the pope as (an) anti-Christ antithetical to credobaptism?
@@JosephsCoat I was simply defining the difference between Particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists, and the differences I would have with Reformed Baptists as a Particular Baptists, although I agree with them on some points.
John Macarthur is not a reformed baptist (1689)
He certainly is of the Puritan and Reformed Baptist strain. The last Puritan Summit picked him as the main speaker. So, WRONG!
By JohnnyMac’s own admission, he’s a “leaky dispensationalist.”
@@brianrich7828 reformed baptists hold to covenantal theology whereas John Macarthur is a dispensationalist so no he is not a reformed baptist
Something to note about baptists.
There are Baptist universities and seminaries and things formed by baptist institutions. There are even some beautiful Baptist churches. However, you just don’t see that as much as you see us Catholics or you Presbyterians. This is in NO WAY an endorsement of Baptist theology, but I want to make sure we don’t straw man them. However, it would be right to say all non institutional churches hold to baptist theology, since non denominational churches are baptist churches in a former Pizza Hut essentially.
The architecture of churches are rather non essential really. I don’t look at a beautiful church and tie that to anything other than it being a pretty building.
@@brianrich7828 We don’t build strip malls for kings, we build castles, beautiful things.
Regarding church government (another video of yours): I agree, that Presbyterian polity is the best, and most close the the early church. My question would be how the PCUSA could have turned liberal if there is the council of presbyters, which would hold the individual church (and its leaders) accountable?
In the NT, 26/27 books warn heavily against false teachers. As Paul said "wolves in sheep's clothing", these false teachers are in disguise and they truly believe that they are "sheep". As much as elders/pastors try, it is difficult to identify these disguised "wolves".
It all starts with trying to be understanding and loving. However, these wolves abuse understanding and loving aspects of the Church to take advantage of it. The next thing you know, they are in the leadership positions of the denomination.
Average Tulip fan vs average Space enjoyer
Your knowledge and articulation is excellent.
This understanding that "baptism saves" is not reflected in John Calvin's Institutes or the WCF, unless I'm mistaken. You're the first Presbyterian I've heard who has said this. Baptism as a means of grace for the elect is certainly there, but I don't see any usage of the terminology that "baptism saves," probably due to the fact that this is going to be misunderstood; if you say "baptism saves," it sounds as if you're saying "baptism justifies," which we do not believe. It only "saves" in the sense that it is a means of grace and reflects our washing of sins. It sanctifies, yes, but it does not "save" in the sense the Lutherans (regeneration) or Roman Catholics assert. And absolutely, Christ's real spiritual presence is there in the Lord's Supper, but this is not the same as the Lutheran or Roman Catholic view, which assert his physical presence.
Really informative content brother. Thank you. God bless
I’d love to see a video about different Bible translations.
Hey, I found your channel somewhat recently and I've been loving your content. I'm a conservative Presbyterian, and I wanted to ask if there are any books that you would recommend on Reformed theology. Thanks!
"The Mystical Presence" by John Williamson Nevin
John MacArthur is not a Reformed Baptist. His church in non-denominational. He doesn't even prefer to call himself a Calvinist. Rather, he adheres to the "doctrines of grace" (or TULIP). Please do not think that he represents Reformed Baptists simply because he is a credo-Baptist and is also the most well-known "Calvinist." That he's a dispensationalist actually should give people pause, because we (Reformed Baptists) DO adhere to covenant theology. We ARE amillenialists (like me) and postmillenialists (like many). In the video, Redeemed Zoomer said that most people think the main difference between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians is our view of the sacraments. The reason for that is because it IS the main difference. Also, Redeemed Zoomer should be careful when saying that Presbyterians believe in "baptismal regeneration." They don't. Lutherans do. Yes, it is viewed as a seal for infants and as a replacement of the practice of circumcision. To say that it "regenerates" or "saves" is a misunderstanding of what Presbyterians in general believe. It is a seal and signifier of grace but doesn't actually save ex opere operato. I happen to like the Presbyterian view of the sacraments, but that is the main difference. All the other letters in his SPACE acronym would not place Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians too far apart, if at all. It's just the S, bro.
Also, Redeemed Zoomer, if you're going to talk about who is "truly Reformed," don't begin the video by saying that "Calvinist" and "Reformed" are pretty much synonymous. Not in this type of video. People already are confused about the difference... and there is one.
We hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. If your church does not hold to either, you might be a Calvinist, but not be "truly Reformed."
I apologize for not making the distinction clearer between 1689 Baptists and TULIP Baptists like MacArthur. Certianly, 1689 is much closer to Reformed. However, there's a few reasons why it's still not the same.
One, 1689 Federalism is still different than Covenant Theology for the reason I explained in the video, because it still sees the Old Covenant and New Covenant as two different Covenants.
Two, if you read Calvin and Knox, and the Confessions/Catechisms they wrote, Presbyterians DO believe Baptism saves, just not ex opere operato like you said. I didn't say we believed in Baptismal Regeneration, I said Baptismal Efficacy, which is almost the same, except that Baptism only saves the elect. Westminster is a bit fuzzy on what Baptism does, which is why I think the Scots confession is a clearer expression of the Presbyterian view, but Westminster still calls the sacraments "means of salvation"
This is interesting. I’m Baptist myself but I find myself agreeing with it sympathizing with a lot of these SPACE points.
Spiritual Presence- The idea that the sacraments have spiritual saving power for only the elect does make some sense. My question is this, does this view hold that you need baptism and communion to be saved? Or just that these help with your sanctification and growth but that someone who was denied these maybe because on an early death can still be saved.
Predestination- No issue here, I hold to the five points of TULIP very strongly.
Amillennialism- As of now I lean more towards premillennialism but I must admit the Amillennial does seem to make a lot more sense. We are commanded to make the world a better place here and now and if this works were a sinking ship that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe I would understand Revelation better if I opened my mind ti this perspective. I’m curious though what do you think of the fact that the Bible says that there will be perilous times before the end comes? That seems hard to square with amillennialist views. If you have any book recommendations or if you’d be willing to explain this view in more detail or refer me to another video I’d greatly appreciate it.
Covenant Theology- I’d say this makes a lot more sense then dispensationalism. The Bible clearly tells us that even the Jews were saved by grace and not by their own good works. The idea that it’s always been a covenant of grace that was simply extended over time until it included all nations makes a lot of sense, it’s the idea of a progressive covenant thats still the same covenant it’s just improving overtime. I don’t really like the idea of infant baptism as I think you should make a personal decision to get baptized when you know you are saved but the idea of it in how you explained it does make sense. In my church we do baby dedications which are basically like infant baptisms in the reformed tradition without the actual baptism.
Ecumenical Creeds- As a Baptist I’m not actually familiar with the words of a lot of the creeds but based on what I have heard I take no issue with them. I think MacArthur is a good preacher for the most part but I wasn’t aware of the fact that he had so many heretical views and that is kind of disturbing. I don’t think you necessarily need to adhere to a creed to be saved, I’d say just truly accepting Jesus as lord and savior is what saved, but I think creeds are good and I don’t have an issue with them.
I also don’t like the anti-intellectualism of many Baptists and the hyper literalism also seems like a big problem. A lot of atheists who are former baptists or former evangelicals have a hyper literalist / hyper evaluation view of scripture and I think that’s a serious issue that comes from the issues within Baptist theology.
I am a Catholic. Thank you for helping me have a better understanding of reformed theology. The only knowledge I have from it are my many Reformed baptist which as you have said isn't really true reformed theology.
Could you please post your music that you always use? The ones you create, I mean. Its really good!
As a Presbyterian, could you cover the topic of predestination and divine election. Its an issue i struggle with and would like to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks!
Man I haven't been on the server in a week, I can only imagine how it's changed
Former Baptist. Should be in for a good video here.
I agree, as a 1689 baptist i would say though the 2nd London Baptists split off from the reformed tradition unlike the general baptists, there are important differences to keep at the forefront, specifically what a 1689 Federalist baptist and a Presbyterian mean by “covenant of grace” mean two different things, as well as the Presbyterian and dutch reformed view of the children of believers being included in the covenant by their parents faith, whereas the 1689 federalist will align more with the augustinian and Lutheran view that regeneration is necessary for membership in the new covenant
However, i would say for every reformed baptist church i’ve been to, it has held to the Presbyterian view of the Lords supper. Christ is Spiritually Present with us, and we are transcended before heaven Spiritually, which is why caution must be exercised as coming before God as His people with it carries both great hope as well as great condemnation depending on whether or not you’re living faithfully as a Repentant Christian in union with Christ.
A bigger difference i would emphasize (as i’m currently attendin a pca church while overseas) is church government, where reformed baptists align with the dutch reformed in that padtors are members of their own churches, compared to the PCA which has their pastors as members of the Presbytery.
As far as baptism as well, i hold that as a big difference, where Presbyterians equate circumcision and baptism as accomplishing the same thing, we do not. They’re related in the reformed baptist view, but not in the same way the reformed relate them.
All that being said, I fully understand Presbyterians calling us simply “confessional baptists” and i understand the impulse in some 1689 baptists to be insulted, however, videos like this really do help to point out the reasons why Presbyterians reject the title “reformed baptist” and open up clearer lines of communication between us.
As for shorthand between other denominations… “reformed baptist” is such a good shorthand i’m sorry but i will keep using it for now😂 love your channel
doesn’t the 1689 promote spiritual presence? Also memorialism is something we see in modern evangelism rather than historical Baptist theology. But yea, I agree that Reformed Baptists are more Baptist than reformed.
Eh, it doesn't have the part Westminster does about defining what a sacrament is, so it's usually interpreted as just symbolic
@@redeemedzoomer6053 baptist believe in pneumatic presence until 19th century when zwingli's views took hold. spurgeon believed is spiritual presences
@@redeemedzoomer6053 dude you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. We absolutely are in step with WCF on the Lord’s Supper.
“really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” -2LBCF XXX.7
@@redeemedzoomer6053 you’re either ignorant or dishonest. Please take this video down and correct it.
Sources for when/where John Macarthur said those things? And what did Voddie Bachaum say and source?
Concerning John MacArthur, I am not his apologist. I am not dispensationalist; I am amillennial. However, I suspect MacArthur is more concerned with the idea that the virgin birth involved the creation of a god being, rather than the incarnation of the eternal Son of God. One issue he had in earlier years was that he held to incarnational sonship rather than eternal sonship...in other words, he believe the father-son relationship began when Christ became incarnate. Concerning the blood of Christ, I believe his point is that the substance of the blood and making contact with it in some way isn't what saves the person; it is the fact that Christ died a substitutionary death on the cross.
In my opinion, the governance structure of the Presbyterians made it easier for "progressivism" and wokeness to capture the institution. I doubt if I'll ever be involved in an organization like that for this reason.
Thanks for the reminder of why I’m not a Presby.
Dig the show tho
Sweet video! I’d love to see a video about how Classical Arminian theology is more reformed than John MacArthur’s theology (for example), as you say. 💯
I'm in no way shape or form a Calvanist (coming from a Pentecostal and than Baptist/Non-Denominational background), but I'm currently attending a Baptist church where all of the leadership would consider themselves Reformed. This video is the clearest and simplest explanation of Calvanism I've ever heard and has helped me understand more about what they believe and some of the debates they have about other points of Calvanism like the Ecumenical Creeds. Thank you!
Calvin*
I think we should stop calling them reformed baptist instead call them particular baptist!
Agreed
Did you hear about the Reformed Pastor who fell down a flight of stairs?
He got up and said, “Well I’m glad I got that over with.”
"30.7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible
elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by
faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally,
but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified,
and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of
Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but
spiritually present to the faith of believers in that
ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their
outward senses."
1689 Confession
4:46 this is also true of the Calvinist view of baptism (sorry to pick on you, Zoomer, it isn't personal. But this comment didn't sit well with me because of the irony).
Reformed on baptism: It actually saves!*
*if the individual in question actually gets saved later by having faith... or rather, if they were already saved before time began because they were predestined to have faith.
The Reformed view of baptism will require a huge amount of clever syllogisms to make any sense beyond "it's not symbolic when it's real, but most of the time it doesn't really count." And that's really not practically different than saying it's symbolic, since for many or even most of its recipients it doesn't save them at all. It's not a symbol for them because it doesn't symbolize anything; it's not a symbol for believers because it actually works on them.
It's the same kind of twisted logic that makes Perserverence of the Saints work. They can have all the fruits of the spirit, correctly recite and publically affirm Christian doctrine - but oops! It's actually effervescent grace and they're really just common vessels, designed for God's wrath! Perseverence of the Saints is identical in its practical implications to the Wesleyan or Arminian view of apostasy, without any actual explanation, given its presuppositions. The baptists actually get this one right with their OSAS view (although I personally am split between siding with them or Arminius.) I'm not a baptist. I used to be Presbyterian, in the PCA, perhaps you would call me Presbapterian for that, but I think the practical implications of a hard view of PSA and predestination are dangerously off-center. The only way to make it work is to affirm contradictions and hand-wave away the problems. God wants to save everyone, but he only died for some of them, because he designed the rest of them for use as firewood for the sake of his glory.
Again, it isn't personal - I've been deeply hurt by these ideas and I've received great healing coming out of them. Learning the real Biblical truth has set me free. It's been eye-opening and life-changing to realize that the bad feeling it alwqys gave me was actually just my good judgement, not rebellion against (an absolutely terrifying and arbitrary) God.
@RedeemedZoomer If one hols to the Savoy Declaration which is a Puritan Congregationalist confession, are they reformed even if they aren’t Presbyterian? They literally believe everything else you do except for church government.
At least you're up front about your biases, being the self-appointed gate keeper of Reformed Theology. Luckily, us Reformed Baptists have historical tradition to stand on. In sum, to be Reformed is to:
- Affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the supremacy and sovereignty of God in all things and sees God as actively involved in His creation, governing and overseeing all the affairs of men. cf. Psalm 115:3; Job 34:14-15; 37:6-13; Daniel 4:35.
- Affirm the utter dependence of sinful man, upon God, in all things, especially concerning salvation.
- Affirm the Doctrines of Grace (commonly referred to as Calvinism), which display God as the author of salvation from beginning to end.
The acrostic TULIP (which is a summation of the Canons of Dort) is the most familiar way of delineating the doctrines of Grace. TULIP is made up of 5 points, which are:
* T - Total Depravity
* U - Unconditional Election
* L - Limited Atonement
* I - Irresistible Grace
* P - Perseverance, and Preservation, of the Saints
- Creedal - To affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church.
The Apostles' Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Definition of Chalcedon
- Confessional - To affirm one, or more, of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church.
* The Westminster Standards
- The Westminster Confession of Faith
- The Westminster Longer Catechism
- The Westminster Shorter Catechism
* Reformed Baptist Standards
- 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
- The Baptist Catechism
- Orthodox Catechism
* The Three Forms of Unity
- The Belgic Confession of Faith
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Canons of Dordrecht
-The Savoy Declaration
- Covenantal - To affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. The Scriptures contain numerous examples of God "covenanting" with man, establishing and ordaining a variety of covenants.
- A high view of Scripture, in it's necessity, infallibility, sufficiency and internal consistency, and our dependence upon it to learn what God has revealed about Himself, His commands, and His way of salvation.
- A high view of the church in preaching (the exposition and application of God's Word), the ordinances, discipline, prayer, worship (Regulative Principal), fellowship, and evangelism, all encompassed in the keeping of the Christian Sabbath, commonly called the Lord's Day.
- A distinctly Biblical, Christian worldview that permeates all of life, a life lived in the world, but at the same time, a life not oriented to the world and it's standards, but oriented to God's Word
You spelled predestination wrong when you put up the space acronym but good video
As a reformed Babtist I agree with you that we’re not by definition reformed but I do believe in three and a half of SPACE.
I just realised you sound exactly like Whatifalthist
Zoomer, St. Thomas certainly believed in unconditional election, as most of the Catholics schools do (Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists, Suarists, although they differ a little bit among themselves). Irresistible grace is tricky, since we (Catholics and Protestants) usually signify different things by the word grace. But yes, he did believe that actual grace, the transient motion passively received by the will that elicits it to produce a supernatural salutary or meritorious act, was intrinsically efficacious (there are some disputes on this question among the Thomists, those who follow Zumel’s interpretation of St. Thomas instead of Bañez’s have a slightly different belief, but they still affirm grace’s infallible efficacy). Nonetheless, St. Thomas DID NOT affirm any other points of TULIP.
I guess you weren't aware that Brown University was founded as a Baptist institution?
you're right, I didn't know that. I apologize
@@redeemedzoomer6053 no worries. I've just heard you say stuff in a few videos that implies that Baptists are somehow newer and less historic than Presbyterians and Methodists, but that's far from the truth!
Baptists have been in the US longer than both! Roger Williams, having been banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded the Rhode Island Colony to escape Puritan influence where he established the First Baptist Church in 1638.
The first Presbyterians didn't arrive until much later with the immigration of Scots-Irish settlers. And Methodists didn't even exist until well over 100 years after that -- Methodists don't even have an Ivy League school!
Henry Dunster, the first president of Harvard was Baptist! His views generated so much controversy that he was forced to resign the position and voluntarily exiled himself from the colony. @@redeemedzoomer6053
It would be best if you did a historical study on the term "reformed". When did reformed Christians begin to be called reformed? Historically, what does the term reformed even mean? you see, one can come up with a definition of reformed that leaves Presbyterians out. PCUSA is not reformed because it's not called reformed. Only Dutch reformed is really reformed.
If Non-denominationals are baptists with a lower case b, then Baptists are reformed with a lower case r.
As a member of a reformed university I can confidently say that this well intentioned gentleman has no clue what he is talking about. He cherry picked a few text and attributed it as Calvin’s theology. Calvin does not believe baptism saves. Look at Book 4 section 2 of Calvin’s institutes and it is clear. “nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.”
I don’t want to write a novel but all this stuff about Calvin is simply not true. Read the Institutes of The Christian Religion if you want to know about Calvin. He did not believe in Transubstantiation either for he says
“The second error which the devil has sown to corrupt this holy ordinance, is in forging and inventing that after the words are pronounced with an intention to consecrate, the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood. First of all, this falsehood has no foundation in Scripture.” “Therefore we conclude, without doubt, that this transubstantiation is an invention forged by the devil to corrupt the true nature of the Supper. So clearly he did not buy into this.
Anyway. Love you brother, just please be careful about the things you spread.
This is wrong for one central reason: Zwingli has pretty much always been called Reformed. The term "Reformed" has pretty much always been used to include Zwingli. And yet, Zwingli (famously) did not believe in any presence whatsoever in the Lord's Supper. So, maybe you want to say that Zwingli was not Reformed, but you are going against pretty much everything that the term Reformed means historically.
I thought Reformed was CCC - Calvinist, Coventantal and Confessional. Reformed Baptist churches do hold to all three of those.....
That standard for Reformed is completely arbitrarily and made up recently for the sole purpose of including Reformed baptists
Couldnt you say the same about SPACE then? That would make "Reformed" pretty subjective in the eyes of the beholder....
@@rsm1161 SPACE is a summary of the Reformed confessions. CCC isn’t really.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Thank you for taking the time. I love your videos. I will agree to disagree on this one.
yo Zoomer you should make shirts!
I think I will, haha
@@redeemedzoomer6053 that logo is fire
@@redeemedzoomer6053hey zoomer What do you think of the second council of Nicaea?
@@Zuperlion74 I don’t affirm it
@@redeemedzoomer6053Okay Redeemed Zommer😀🫡
9:00 yeeeeey. Looks like i'm not your only Hungarian fan:)
John Wesley wrote a great piece on this. He said
“Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off for lack of fruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book of life!
They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect such a great salvation”; … “look back” after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,” and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” And nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that “if any man draws back,” it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever “falls away into spiritual darkness,” he was never enlightened. In short: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it… May God save us from accepting a doctrine that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!”
~ John Wesley
As a Calvinist, I agree with every word he said. I do not believe Satan is strong enough to rip me out of the hand of Jesus Christ my savior.
"27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand".
@@jaihummel5057 Amen brother, that verse is referring to when we receive eternal life - we cannot be snatched out of the hands of Christ by the enemy! (which is why its talking about eternal life and then mentions that).
But consider these verses suggesting that Salvation can be backslidden from:
John 15:1-6 Abiding in the vine
Hebrews 10:26-29,
2 Peter 2:20-22
Galatians 5:1-4
Colossians 1:21-22 (if ye continue)
Acts 14:22 (if ye continue)
Romans 11:13-22 (continue in his kindness
Galatians 1:6 Removed from Him
Revelations 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:26, 3:5, 3:12, 2:21, 21:7
Hebrews 3:6, 3:14 3:12, 5:9
Hebrews 6:4-6
Mathew 5: 9-16
Mathew 7:21-23
Mathew 10:22, 24:13
1 Peter 4:17-18
2 Peter 1:3-12
2 Peter 2:1 (false prophets denying the Lord that brought them)
1 Timothy 1:18-20 (shipwrecked faith)
1 Timothy 4:1 (departing from the faith, you can’t depart somewhere you’ve never been)
1 Timothy 4: 14-16 (if this is what happens by doing these things, what happens if we don’t?)
2 Timothy 2: 10-12
1 John 2: 22-29
2 John 1:8-9 (brutal!)
James 1: 12-16
James 5:19-20 (can’t argue with these warnings of enduring)
1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (Paul afraid he would be cast away)
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Mathew 25:1-13 (wise and foolish virgins)
Luke 15:11-32 (prodigal son)
Parable of the sower
Mark 4: 1-20, Mathew 13: 3-23 Luke 8:4-15
A truly saved person can of course back-slide and live in worldliness, for decades even, the real difference is that God will bring them back via repentance and discipline.
And hence comes the doctrine of election, which lots of Arminians vehemently hate. Wesley is both right and wrong at the same time.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 I have seen that sometimes happen, and sometimes not happen.
@@Jackoooloop9456 So Arminians never back-slide?
You should do a video on whether or not a churchgoers can go to a church where they don't agree with the main points of the denomination. For example, I am a Baptist. However, all of my local baptist churches are FAR gone (liberal). I actually like and appreciate my local calvinist church, however I can't get on board with the predestination. What do I do?
Agree with predestination 😂 but seriously look into it on your own I think you'll find you agree.
@@elijahbrenyo4912 since this comment i've already appreciated the other aisle of the argument, but yeah... the predestination is still questionable.
I am a 1689ner that goes to a Heidelberg church. As long as the primaries are taught correctly, the secondary topics can differ and still be a great church to attend.
I personally do not agree with the Calvinistic belief of Predestination. Read Jeremiah 18 and look into Romans 8:29 (I need to aswell) but I think you'll find Jeremiah 18 very interesting because it puts a whole new perspective on the Potter and the Clay in Romans 9
I think you lost me at "Mary is the mother of God". I get the logic that being the mother of Jesus it follows that Jesus was God, but obviously God created Mary. I don't say things like Mary is the mother of God because for many it uplifts Mary to a position that she isn't, which is how you get worship like Catholicism. You can't be the mother of an omniscient and eternal being who is the beginning and the end. You CAN, however be the mother of his fleshly vessel in order to walk among us without killing us; as he did in Jesus Christ who is 100% man and 100% God. Aside from that great video, thanks for the clarification.
Would it be a heresy if you were to claim that Mary isn’t divine? Not saying that she isn’t holy, or that she isn’t the mother of god. Simply arguing that Mary is fully human and nothing more. Nothing less.
That's what all Christians believe. None of them, not even Catholics, believe Mary is divine. "Mother of God" does not state Mary is divine, it states JESUS is divine, because Jesus is God and Mary is His mother
As a Baptist my church don’t consider ourselves reformed, we do share some things with the reformed people like the view of predestination and the idea that you can’t loose your faith (unless you willfully abandon the faith, but like you falling to temptations and looking at naked women online won’t result in you needing to be saved again), we absolutely do not believe in pedobaptism or baptism saves.
Reformed baptist here and I hold to all five points of SPACE, yet I disagree with Presbyterians on infant baptism.
does your church hold to all 5 points? what about your denomination?
@@redeemedzoomer6053
Yes and yes
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 what denomination
@@redeemedzoomer6053
1689 Reformed Baptist
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Reformed Baptist like I initially stated...
as a Presbyterian do you believe baptism saves?
What is your favorite Bible translation, Zoomer? I know most of the mainline churches use the NRSV (as well as many Catholics from what I understand), but the “Reformed” Baptists and more conservative people (thought not so conservative that they’re KJV only) swear by the ESV nowadays. I personally have no problem with translations like the NIV and NLT and often read them if I’m not doing deep study. Do you like or dislike when the text is translated to be gender neutral?
NIV Is the example of bad Translation
Gender is a problem with the NIV And NLT
Lol I think the people complaining about the plots in the midst of your talk is hilarious.
3:16 Not exactly. While the general view of the sacraments (specifically the bread and cup) within the Baptist Church has typically just been symbolic, plenty of Reformer Baptists do believe it is more than just that. So to say that we don’t is a little broad to say the least.
Baptist is the best
Oh I’d say confidently that 1689 Baptists are far more reformed. People should look into what reformed means. They’re so reformed that they got rid of the remnants of the paganism that others continued to keep from the Catholic church. The Puritans had the right idea and were going strongly in the right direction. Reformed Baptists have a strong Puritan lineage. A strong Biblical lineage. Even following the Biblical model for Baptism. The others kept the Roman Pagan tradition version of it. Does that make Presbyterians not truly reformed? Or. It Christian? No! Through history some of the most solid Christians came from the Presbyterian branch. As well as the Anglican Branch. But then again, the person who thinks Reformed Baptists aren’t reformed also considers Aquinas to be a solid Theologian. Aquinas is a trash tier super Catholic theologian. So I’m not surprised one bit.
They are not only NOT Reformed, they are also covenant breakers because they refuse to apply the sign and seal of the covenant upon their children as a sign of faith in God's promise that His Kingdom is extended not only upon the believer but to his subsequent children/seed. They sin because they neglect the ordinance to baptize. Such is not a secondary issue. Someone in sin is to be avoided and not at all to break bread with. I pray that those who hold to Biblical soteriology repent and baptize their children accordingly.
Reformed Hell burns with charcoal, but Reformed Baptist Hell burns with natural gas.
So you believe you have to work for your salvation... hate to tell you but if you have to repent of childish things such as slothfulness and video games... the reformed never live out the double standard they place on other people.
What would you say of the position that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are separate covenants that have both always been there. That the New Covenant is redemptive in nature, while the Old Covenant is prophetic and educational in nature: before the New Covenant was made plain by the ministry of Christ, it foretold, in some sense, the New Covenant, faith in that prophecy was the point of access to the New Covenant for those under the Old who could not see the New Covenant clearly. It also provides a framework for the New Covenant to be explained and preached. The Old Covenant is communal in nature, the New is individual. The promises in scripture apply both temporally to the Jews and eternally to the Church and to the believer. Romans 2 explains how the two interact, both reward and punishment are apportioned "first to the Jew, then to the Gentile".
Is Methodism/Wesleyianism considered reformed?
They branched from Anglicanism, so no.
Protestant lore 🍿
I don't think that covenant theology being the only difference means that the church is not reformed. I am reformed Baptist and this is the only theological difference in which we differ from reformed Presbyterian. I genuinely am curious how this does not make us reformed.
15:25 hey so if someone can help me out with this it would be great. So I’ve recently started doing a deeper dive into the church and trying to find out what denomination I should go with ( coming from a non-denominational household) now while watching this video I thought that all that was being said was stuff that I believe up until the time stamp I left above 👆 I’ve never seen Mary as more then the women who gave birth to Jesus, is it a Hearsay to think this way? If so how should I change it? Thanks
She's the woman to gave birth to Jesus, who is GOD. So that makes her the Mother of God
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Indeed but that doesn't make her divine, just the one lucky enough to be chosen by God.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 would that give her like divine authority or is she just a regular woman?
@@sportstable4472 She can be more than a "regular women" and yet does not have divine authority.
As a Reformed Baptist, we exist. "Reformed" ISN'T just TULIP, as you said. It isn't just Calvinism. Calvinism =/= Reformed. When will people get this...? You literally say in your video that Reformed Theology ISN'T just Calvinism, yet you somehow twisted your own words and say that it IS?
Do you believe in the real presence in Holy Communion?
@@mmtoss6530 No. Even the apostles who first took Communion didn't believe the bread and wine were ACTUALLY God's flesh and blood. Jesus HIMSELF cleared this up by expanding upon what He said and cleared up how it's his SPIRITUAL body and blood. A metaphor, if you will.
Communion is SYMBOLICALLY God's body and blood, NOT literally.
@@RespiteofChampions The Reformed view is real spiritual presence, meaning we really do receive Christ’s body and blood, but spirituality, not carnally.
@@mmtoss6530 Which is exactly what I believe, yes.
@@RespiteofChampions ok, thanks for the clarification.
Huh, funny. I've always used "reformed baptist" as a way to say "liberal baptist", as opposed to "conversavtive baptists". Guess I have been using the term wrong lol
I am trying to figure out what tradition to be in, and I agree with most of what ive learnt about the Presbyterians, but i very much struggle with the idea of pedobaptism. What are y'all's recommendations?
Watch Dr. Jordan B. Cooper's latest video on why Infant Baptism is the Biblical teaching!
@@redeemedzoomer6053it’s Biblical! No mention of it in the Bible or example. It’s a Roman Catholic tradition that our Presby brethren couldn’t reform away from.
What do you think of the united church. They are pretty big where I'm from. As I understand it they are a combination of several Methodist and Presbyterian churches, although I'm not a member myself.
what country are you in? Cuz United Church means different things depending where you are
@Redeemed Zoomer I'm Atlantic Baptist (so im from Atlantuc Canada). The United church is very big here so I was surprised it wasn't included on your server or any videos. I was actually baptised as a baby in a united church before my family converted when I was little.
@@captaincouchpotato7374- I’m in Canada, too. The United Church was a major denomination here, but it was one of the first to go incredibly liberal, with women ministers, same sex marriage, etc. - it even has one pastor who is an atheist! Now its membership is tiny, soon it will have no congregations at all, so it has been knocking down its churches and building subsidized housing instead. When a denomination throws out the Bible, people go elsewhere.
@@nikmonk1098 i knew they were woke, but the nearest town to me has 3 united churches, 1 episcopal, and 1 Catholic so I thought they were going strong
I am sort of finding myself in confusion. I agree that we are in the kingdom of God right now, but I also believe that there is at least a semi-literal millennium, even though I think of myself as a Presbyterian, yet to come. My basis for this is that it says in the ESV Bible, Revelation 20:2-3 that " And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be released for a little while." But Paul mentions Satan having put a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7), which most biblical scholars believe is some kind of spiritual or mental temptation. But if Satan was bound and unable to deceive anymore when Jesus died and was resurrected, how can he afflict Paul? Also, Amillennialism puts the Tribulation and Millenial kingdom into the same period, but the two are completely different in nature. The literal approach also seems better in some verses because of 2 reasons. First, it will allow allegorical meaning when it is apparent. Second, all allegorical meanings are based on literal meanings. This doesn't mean that I am a Dispensationalist, because I do think Israel had its chance, and half of Revelation is symbolic, not literal. I am open to taking suggestions on why this is wrong or right from the Redeemed Zoomer and other fellow believers. To the glory and praise of God our Father!
Whenever the topic of the last supper comes up, I just simply ask how can we eat slavery.
Dude, I don't see how you can reason that because the law had babies circumcised that baptism would require babies as well. Even though circumcision was made null and unnecessary according to paul, and never is baptizing a baby referenced. In what way are these connected. This logic could say baby having communion. I didn't hear any biblical coorelation.
I’m Lutheran and I’m very surprised with what I’m hearing. It sounds quite similar to what I believe.
Can you make an apologetics video for things like LGBT, abortion, etc.?
Yall are the ones that reformed everything except actually baptizing and still do that the catholic way.
So I'm curious, I consider myself a reformed presbyterian, but I've been wondering about the line "Baptism saves", does that mean that we are not saved by faith alone? In which case how do you explain the thief on the cross being saved?
Because what this guy is preaching is not theologically correct… Calvinist’s are wrong, reformed beliefs are wrong. My friend, you are saved by FAITH alone, baptism is not a new covenant, it is a command to stand up and be bold in publicly being “symbolically washed clean”. At the time, Rome made baptism illegal for people, so Jesus was trying to say that He who truly wants to follow me and count the cost, needs to be baptised as obedience to Christ.
@@Jackoooloop9456 okay but then how do you explain the verse 1 peter 3:21?
@@ChristianTheorys 8 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Firstly, read the whole context of the verse. It is a parallel to the Genesis floods, by which the world was wiped out bar 8 people whom God Almighty saved. Now, being submerged in water is a way to be in good conscience with Christ.
A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptised because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptised that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
Baptism alone doesn't save and I think you can make it into heaven without it. However if Jesus says to be baptized then I would strongly recommend it. what I think is that saints who are within the covenant and are willingly not get baptized are putting an unnecessary barrier between themselves and God. We are saved by faith alone and baptism is an affectional work of faith.
@@elijahbrenyo4912 That makes a lot of sense, thank you! God bless
When are you going to drop the discord server 🔥🔥
Hm
Interesting.
I am looking for some anwers.
What about Charismatic question? Can a truly Reformed be a Continuationist and for instance pray in tounges?
I mean if you're REALLY reformed on all those other issues and belong to a Presbyterian church, I guess? But if you're part of a charismatic church you can't be reformed
Yes if you are Presbyterian :)
i guess reformed christianity is so cool everyone tries to be one
So basically if I agree with 3 of the SPACE. So does that make me a. Reformed Baptist
I’m on PS4 is there way I could join this server?
Bro, I'm doctrinally presbyterian and know reformed baptist guys who believes in real presence but deny infant baptism, this doesn't make them non - reformed
Do they ACTUALLY believe we receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper like the Reformers did?
Not sure that God would want us to eat him ceremonialy. Sounds like crazy human talk. Jesus was not a " literal" as in talked in direct objective ways, person in many examples as he talked in parables all the time. Not to mention so many pharisees always questioned his stuff by taking his words too literal.
@@redeemedzoomer6053yes dude. Goodness, you could’ve at least read our confession before making yourself look foolish on the internet.
“really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” -1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Ch XXX.7
Could you make a video on why you're not a presuppositionalist?
19:58 baptist here anyone claiming were of the anabaptists is wrong and needs to apologize to the latter
You, quite frankly, need to better study the history of the English Baptist Separatists. We are a result of the Calvinistic English reformation. As a 1689er, I affirm Spiritual Presence, Predestination, Postmillennialism, Covenant theology, and the historic Creeds. And to take this one step further, I affirm that one cannot fall away from the Covenant of Grace-an even more “Calvinistic” view than paedobaptists themselves hold to.
You can hold to the 1689 Confession, but you are not reformed. There is no less or more reformed, as if it was a sliding scale, it is a denomination of Churches that hold to the 3FU or WCF. Brother, you are consistent to call me unbaptized as I am consistent to call you a member of a false church.(Belgic Confession 29)
What’s your opinion on James White