@TrueNation-fw2wo I do not believe it's required. Saved by Grace through Faith Alone but it is a means that should not be neglected Article 27: Of Baptism: Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. -Thirty-Nine Articles
Great video. This was one of the hardest parts to grasp when I became Anglican, coming from a Pentecostal background. I had come to the understanding before that baptism was a thing you did once you had done something. Studying reformed theology helped greatly in reversing my thought. Once you realize God is the only one doing all the work, baptism like all aspects of our Christian walk stops being about us, but about God's grace to us. Thanks for your continued ministry in these videos.
Thank you brother! Happy to hear that by God's grace your understanding changed on this issue as it did for me. I was baptized in a Pentecostal church too.
Thank you for this! As a baptist undergoing theological growth and change, this video was helpful. Baptism was the last theological holdout from fully embracing Anglicanism. I struggled with the BCP’s language regarding regeneration. By explaining that it is a “charitable assumption” made all the difference. I suspect that not all Anglicans believe this way (especially Anglo-Catholics).
This is the most thorough treatment of the traditional reformed view of Baptism I have seen. Though I disagree with parts as a Lutheran, I appreciate the great work you’ve put in here. Thanks.
Hi River, I recently became an Anglican (leaning more Orthodox Anglican like you, I think) and I was wondering what the differences were between an Orthodox Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Christian? Thank you for your videos, they have been a big help to me as I've recently exited Reformed Baptist over to Anglicanism.
The main differences are to do with our understandings of salvation and free will I'd say. Check out my videos on the Anglican view of Salvation and Free Will.
Slight note for those interested: River articulates the Reformed Anglican position on baptismal regeneration at 29:31, this is a position allowed by the Formularies and held by many early Anglican figures (Bp. Davenant, Abp. Ussher) and the charitable assumption is a common defense, this view is aligned with Reformed Doctrine of Perseverance of every Saint, which believes that all who are justified are necessarily elected to eternal life. The other common position amongst Anglicans, Baptismal Regeneration, holds that while Baptism does automatically regenerate, that Justification may be lost, as there are reprobates who can be justified only to fall away due to not being elect (this view is similar to the Strict Lutheran and Augustine's view of the matter, though the Lutherans would not use the term reprobate). Both of these views are monergistic and are allowed by the Article on Predestination and the clarification provided later by the Lambeth articles. It's a bit expensive, but Jay T. Collier's "Debating Perseverance" is a good overview of this subject.
@@catfinity8799 You’re correct. My point for bringing them up is that even the Lambeth articles, which are sometimes called overly Reformed/Calvinistic, (and while they certainly lean that direction, have some notable differences between themselves and, say, the Westminster Confession of Faith), don’t prescribe the Reformed view River articulates in this video. So anyone who disagrees with him on that subject should feel more than comfortable that their views are still acceptable within the framework of the 39 Articles, which are less strenuous than Lambeth.
Hello Rev. Devereux I am a person interested in Anglicanism and a recent convert of Anglicanism from USA. I am also part the Episcopal Fellowship for Renewal, which is a group dedicated to restoring the Gospel to the mainline Anglican denomination in the USA, which is the Episcopal Church. This group is sub-group part of the Anglican sub-group of the parent group which is called Operation Reconquista which is to restore the Gospel to all mainline protestant denominations not just Anglicanism. If you are interested in this I am more than welcome to.
The provisional nature of the New Covenant is key. Like all biblical covenants...baptism is conditional, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..." is the promise given in baptism: Meaning, the child must later...repent and have faith in Christ. With that confirmation, they complete, or realize, their baptism.
Hey River, watching this video for probably the third time lol. One question I am having trouble with is which view is truly THE Anglican view. I tend to really like the view you expounded on, and it seems that Cranmer held it as well. But other major influences, like Vermigli, Davenant, and Hooker (I believe) held a view much closer to the Roman Catholicism view, that baptism cleanses and regenerates the infant. How do you typically read these works? I would love to see a convo of you and Joe from Young Anglican talking about this! Thanks!
Thank you for this video, it helps to clarify things a lot more clearly than what I read from the presbyterian and dutch reformers. Can I ask what are some important theological books to read from the history of Anglicanism?
I'd read some of the Homilies, definitely the first 5 of the first book and then the Homilies on Whitsunday, Good Friday, and Sacraments from the second book.
Thanks for a good video that explains this matter very clearly in a condensed form! One thing I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain to me how to resolve this tension that I perceive: (a) On the one hand, you said that you believe that baptism does indeed bring the grace of regeneration, but it only brings it to all the elect. Significantly, this grace of regeneration offered in baptism must be accepted by faith by the elect to be effective. (b) On the other hand, you describe yourself as a Reformed Anglican, and in classical Reformed theology, regeneration precedes faith because it is such a change of a person's heart by a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit that a person gains the ability to turn his will toward God for the first time in his or her life. This begs the question: if, according to (a), the grace of regeneration must be received by faith in order to be effective, how does regeneration precede faith as described in (b)? Point (a) seems to abolish the classic Reformed definition of regeneration found in (b).
Not related to Baptism, but at a recent Salvation Army brass band concert, they opened in prayer and gave a not-awful twenty-minute word of exhortation at the interval, which is cool. The playing wasn't bad either. Edit: Related to Baptism: JC Ryle holds the same view about the charity of the prayer book's statement in Knots Untied. If you don't want to say the words of the prayer book, you are kind of saying that Christians can't trust God's sacraments which seems more injurious than the prayer book's words.
Hi River, can I ask you a question regarding the 1662 BCP liturgy for those of Riper years? t says that seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that these persons are now regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church how would u systemize this with the consideration that the adult was regenerated before receiving water baptism, perhaps regenerated many years prior to his water baptism, whereas the BCP says that he is regenerated after receiving water baptism? would u appeal to "mystery" for this issue since the The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”? Or is the prayer in the BCP of this part is meant to understood in a symbolic sense?
This was a very informative video. I do have one question. I am a Lutheran. I understood your view on Baptismal Regeneration when discussing whether or not regeneration is "automatic" at baptism. You said in effect only to the elect. However, when you discussed whether unbaptized babies go to heaven, I understood you to say, yes. You where speaking about a child born into the covenant. My question is if being in the covenant is the same as being regenerate. Are parents promised their children will be regenerated by virtue of the covenant? I hope this question is clear and that I didn't misstate your view. Thank you for your work. It is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your question, it is a very good one and will be helpful to discuss. Being in the covenant is not synonymous with being regenerate. All children of believers are automatically in the covenant (cf. Gen 17 ; Acts 2:38-39) but many do not end up believing in God's covenantal promises and so do not end up being regenerated or saved. However, a baby cannot reject the promises and so if they die in infancy, since they never opted out of the covenant or rejected the promises, they are regenerated and saved. Does that make sense?
Yes it does. However, if a baby can opt out of the covenant later, does that mean they were regenerate but later lost their regeneration? That sounds similar to Lutheran theology. That one can lose their salvation, if they wilfully reject saving faith. I understood Calvinism to reject the idea one can lose their salvation.
Is it possible that children of believers are part of the covenant and so regeneration is "automatic" even if not tied specifically to baptism, but an unbelievers child is not "automatically" regenerated, and therefore baptism does not guarantee regeneration? This is not my view, just mentioning it for discussion.
@@Robert-vv6qp no one who is regenerate can opt out of the covenant. What I'm saying is that if a child who is baptised dies we assume they are regenerate and elect, just as if a child later loses their faith we know they were not regenerated and aren't elect. Check out my reply to bane_questionmark as well
Based on your view of the relationship between regeneration and election, is your view similar to the Westminster Assemblyman Cornelius Burgess' view on baptismal regeneration? That is where I've landed after several years (that is, the regeneration of elect infants only).
I think a person can have full assurance as a Calvinistic anglican. Its very simple, the scripture out lines how we can know we are elect and how we can know we are not. The only reason the arminian disregards this is because rather than trusting God’s word, they trust more, their own works.
First, really appreciate this channel, and like that you clarified God saves both through the Word and baptism, which is why Cornelius’s experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism doesn’t contradict the Spirit normally being received through baptism. As for some critiques regarding regeneration: The Lutheran position is one of trusting that God will deliver on His promise in baptism, it's an act of faith, not works. It doesn't depend on us. If one day I stop trusting in what God has done and walk away from the faith, that doesn't negate the objectivity of the promise, it just means I willingly rejected it. This presentation also seemed to ignore the many places in scripture where it indicates the Holy Spirit can be resisted. Finally Reformed theology in general fails for me as it forces one to say that God doesn't sincerely offer salvation to all and that no matter where I am in my current faith journey, (inward feelings or outward works) I can’t rule out the possibility that I am not elect and have been condemned to hell from all eternity. In my view, this negates any assurance one can have from looking to baptism under a reformed paradigm as I can't be sure the promises apply to me. Thanks again for this channel and looking forward to any interaction.
I would say that all Christians will have the same issue regarding the possibility of not being elect, Lutherans included. And the idea in Lutheranism that faith can be lost and must be maintained, naturally leads to a certain degree of effort on your part for salvation.
@@newkingdommedia9434 The only "effort" in the Lutheran understanding is confidence in the promises of God which I would call faith. Per Lutheranism, God helps bolster our faith by continuing to freely offer Himself and His forgiveness to all through baptism, absolution, and the Eucharist. I would also of course say the possibility of falling away is a clear teaching of scripture but I'm sure you are already well-versed in the arguments.
@@felixiusbaqi Yeah I know the arguments. Often with these discussions we end up just rehashing the same arguments that have been made by men much greater than ourselves time and time again through history. Btw, I don't think our disagreements are particularly important and I consider Lutherans to be fully my siblings in Christ.
How do we feel when a minister wrongly quotes the formula and says "in the name of the father, in the name of the son, and in the name of the holy spirit?" I've seen it done multiple times and I know the person isn't trying to be heretical, but it is. And do we assume that baptism is valid regardless of the ministers mistake?
Great question. I may be wrong about this, and may change my mind, but atm I'd say it's still a valid baptism because the Church organization itself has the correct understanding and that minister himself just so happened to be an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about. To say his stupidity invalidates the baptism could be seen as Donatist. But I have also seen this happen and I was infuriated.
@@newkingdommedia9434 I think I lean the same way too and assume the Lord is gracious to the parents and child being baptized. But I don't know how to address it with the minister because it comes across as me being the liturgy police. But it does really bother me when priests treat the liturgy and the ministering of God's sacraments lightly and without reverence. Unfortunately, it's the only Anglican parish in my city that isn't unorthodox in its moral teachings (its acna).
@@benson0509 I know exactly what you mean. I never brought it up with the minister when I heard it but just quietly seethed. If I lived again I would say something though and just gently explain that to say "the name" before each Person undermines the fact that they are all One.
That could also be a case for corrective/conditional baptism, acknowledging that the formula is questionable but not rejecting efficacy confidently, rather, cautiously correcting any error that *may* have occurred
Is it valid if the minister embellishes the formula, in the name of our wonderful Father and Jesus his dear son and of the glorious Holy Spirit? It infuriated me and if I was the father I would have demanded a re-do.
Mark 16:16 “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved...” notice how Jesus uses the article “and” which clearly indicates BOTH faith AND baptism are required for salvation. Not an option for salvation. Crystal clear.
Every baptism in the book of Acts was baptized in the name of the Trinity because that is What Christ commanded them to do. When we read in acts “Baptised in the name of Jesus” the greek is not saying that when they are baptized the baptizer said “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.” What the greek is indicating is that they were baptized IN RELATION TO aka IN THE NAME OF Jesus. In other words, they were baptized in such a way that they were identified with Christ ergo In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Do unbaptized babies who have Christian parents go to heaven because their parents planned on baptizing them but they died beforehand? Or is it just the fact that they are Christians. My initial reaction is to go to Baptists because they don't really ever plan on baptizing their children unless the kids make a personal choice in the future
The answer that I think would be more in line with the Fathers and Reformers (not that they all thought this) would be that if the parents *intended* to baptise the child then they are still saved (baptism of intent) but I personally take this further and say that simply by being the child of Christians (even heterodox ones like baptists) they are saved, as they are holy.
I remember hearing Lutherans talk about views in the lutheran reformers that unbaptized children of Christians are saved for what it's worth. I cant recall the source but im sure there were some on the reformed side.
Credobaptists' position can be understood as "delaying the baptism until they can make a profession of faith". We can see this in the writing of St. Gregory Nazianzen where he advised to wait until the child is about 3 years old, when they can speak and make profession of faith.
Per what you said earlier, wouldn't the salvation of baptized infants who die very young depend on whether they are elect? However, you say at 1:08:46 that the salvation of baptized deceased infants is "certain". The caveat is given that they must have died before they "commit actual sin", but that may carry a problematic view of sin. We all are conceived and born in sin, and have sin in our hearts long before we ever perform any action which human beings could identify as sin. It seems the logic could be carried forward to say that not only unbaptized babies but even babies born to non-elect parents could be saved as they had yet to "commit actual sin", I assume you wouldn't claim that to be true. Maybe the statement that it was totally certain is another charitable assumption, which given the topic is understandable. Still I think the distinction needs to be made, that salvation requires the will and work of God which He is free to perform or not to each and every person, including babies who have yet to outwardly sin. It's not that I think there is no hope for babies who die very young including in the womb, but Scripture simply doesn't tell us about the topic and I must refrain from saying their salvation is certain or anything close due to my own desires.
I believe that if God has chosen to take away the earthly life of a believer's child then we can have confidence that He has elected that child for salvation. This is where reprobation comes into play. As I said in the video, the children of believers are automatically in the covenant from birth and are thus headed to salvation but some of those children are predestined to damnation and will therefore come to "opt out" of the covenant, whereas children who die in infancy didn't get the chance to opt out and so we can have confidence that they are not reprobates.
@@TrueNation-fw2woThe Bible doesn’t tell us if the thief was baptized or not. And for someone claiming they don’t believe scripture you sure are ignoring the fact that scripture says several things save us. These would include, the Holy Spirit, The Word of God, Faith, Grace, Repentance and Baptism. They are the tools that God uses to save. But it is Christ and Christ alone at the end of the day.
We can see God's omnipresent bearded face because Jesus lives up to his promise John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them is the one who loves me. My father will love them. I too will love them and SHOW myself to them. " Show is ἐμφανίσω (emphanisō) in the original Greek, which means "to make visible.". I have been able to see Jesus's omnipresent bearded face since I started obeying him in 2002. I have thousands of examples on my UA-cam channel.
My son will be receiving baptism soon in Anglican church. Keep in prayers 🙏
Do you think baptism is required for salvation?
@TrueNation-fw2wo I do not believe it's required. Saved by Grace through Faith Alone but it is a means that should not be neglected
Article 27: Of Baptism: Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
-Thirty-Nine Articles
@@byFaithJustified Are you Anglican or Lutheran?
Great video. This was one of the hardest parts to grasp when I became Anglican, coming from a Pentecostal background. I had come to the understanding before that baptism was a thing you did once you had done something. Studying reformed theology helped greatly in reversing my thought. Once you realize God is the only one doing all the work, baptism like all aspects of our Christian walk stops being about us, but about God's grace to us. Thanks for your continued ministry in these videos.
Thank you brother! Happy to hear that by God's grace your understanding changed on this issue as it did for me. I was baptized in a Pentecostal church too.
Best simple explanation of the reformed view of baptism and the sacraments I've seen. Thank you!
Thank you!
Thank you for this! As a baptist undergoing theological growth and change, this video was helpful. Baptism was the last theological holdout from fully embracing Anglicanism. I struggled with the BCP’s language regarding regeneration. By explaining that it is a “charitable assumption” made all the difference. I suspect that not all Anglicans believe this way (especially Anglo-Catholics).
Great video! Thoroughly reformed and biblical explanation! We should do a podcast together.
-Fr. Seth Williamson
This is the most thorough treatment of the traditional reformed view of Baptism I have seen. Though I disagree with parts as a Lutheran, I appreciate the great work you’ve put in here. Thanks.
Thank you!
You’re an excellent teacher bro, God has blessed you. Thanks for your work!
Thank you brother! May God bless your ministry.
@@newkingdommedia9434 thank you bro😁
Hi River, I recently became an Anglican (leaning more Orthodox Anglican like you, I think) and I was wondering what the differences were between an Orthodox Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Christian? Thank you for your videos, they have been a big help to me as I've recently exited Reformed Baptist over to Anglicanism.
The main differences are to do with our understandings of salvation and free will I'd say. Check out my videos on the Anglican view of Salvation and Free Will.
This is absolutely incredible. Thank you for uploading this. Perfectly explained and executed.
Thank you!
Slight note for those interested: River articulates the Reformed Anglican position on baptismal regeneration at 29:31, this is a position allowed by the Formularies and held by many early Anglican figures (Bp. Davenant, Abp. Ussher) and the charitable assumption is a common defense, this view is aligned with Reformed Doctrine of Perseverance of every Saint, which believes that all who are justified are necessarily elected to eternal life. The other common position amongst Anglicans, Baptismal Regeneration, holds that while Baptism does automatically regenerate, that Justification may be lost, as there are reprobates who can be justified only to fall away due to not being elect (this view is similar to the Strict Lutheran and Augustine's view of the matter, though the Lutherans would not use the term reprobate). Both of these views are monergistic and are allowed by the Article on Predestination and the clarification provided later by the Lambeth articles.
It's a bit expensive, but Jay T. Collier's "Debating Perseverance" is a good overview of this subject.
The Lambeth Articles were never adopted by the Church of England, nor by GAFCON. Only the Church of Ireland accepted them.
@@catfinity8799 You’re correct. My point for bringing them up is that even the Lambeth articles, which are sometimes called overly Reformed/Calvinistic, (and while they certainly lean that direction, have some notable differences between themselves and, say, the Westminster Confession of Faith), don’t prescribe the Reformed view River articulates in this video. So anyone who disagrees with him on that subject should feel more than comfortable that their views are still acceptable within the framework of the 39 Articles, which are less strenuous than Lambeth.
@@ahumblemerchant241 Yeah, the 39 Articles were meant to be a via media between the Reformed and Lutherans, so they didn't go too hard on election.
Hello Rev. Devereux I am a person interested in Anglicanism and a recent convert of Anglicanism from USA. I am also part the Episcopal Fellowship for Renewal, which is a group dedicated to restoring the Gospel to the mainline Anglican denomination in the USA, which is the Episcopal Church. This group is sub-group part of the Anglican sub-group of the parent group which is called Operation Reconquista which is to restore the Gospel to all mainline protestant denominations not just Anglicanism. If you are interested in this I am more than welcome to.
The provisional nature of the New Covenant is key. Like all biblical covenants...baptism is conditional, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..." is the promise given in baptism: Meaning, the child must later...repent and have faith in Christ. With that confirmation, they complete, or realize, their baptism.
Hey River, watching this video for probably the third time lol. One question I am having trouble with is which view is truly THE Anglican view. I tend to really like the view you expounded on, and it seems that Cranmer held it as well. But other major influences, like Vermigli, Davenant, and Hooker (I believe) held a view much closer to the Roman Catholicism view, that baptism cleanses and regenerates the infant. How do you typically read these works? I would love to see a convo of you and Joe from Young Anglican talking about this! Thanks!
Thank you for this video, it helps to clarify things a lot more clearly than what I read from the presbyterian and dutch reformers. Can I ask what are some important theological books to read from the history of Anglicanism?
I'd read some of the Homilies, definitely the first 5 of the first book and then the Homilies on Whitsunday, Good Friday, and Sacraments from the second book.
This was unbelievably good - I need to read/watch some more 😀
Thanks for a good video that explains this matter very clearly in a condensed form!
One thing I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain to me how to resolve this tension that I perceive:
(a) On the one hand, you said that you believe that baptism does indeed bring the grace of regeneration, but it only brings it to all the elect. Significantly, this grace of regeneration offered in baptism must be accepted by faith by the elect to be effective.
(b) On the other hand, you describe yourself as a Reformed Anglican, and in classical Reformed theology, regeneration precedes faith because it is such a change of a person's heart by a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit that a person gains the ability to turn his will toward God for the first time in his or her life.
This begs the question: if, according to (a), the grace of regeneration must be received by faith in order to be effective, how does regeneration precede faith as described in (b)? Point (a) seems to abolish the classic Reformed definition of regeneration found in (b).
Not related to Baptism, but at a recent Salvation Army brass band concert, they opened in prayer and gave a not-awful twenty-minute word of exhortation at the interval, which is cool. The playing wasn't bad either.
Edit: Related to Baptism: JC Ryle holds the same view about the charity of the prayer book's statement in Knots Untied. If you don't want to say the words of the prayer book, you are kind of saying that Christians can't trust God's sacraments which seems more injurious than the prayer book's words.
Hi River, can I ask you a question regarding the 1662 BCP liturgy for those of Riper years?
t says that seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that these persons are now regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church
how would u systemize this with the consideration that the adult was regenerated before receiving water baptism, perhaps regenerated many years prior to his water baptism, whereas the BCP says that he is regenerated after receiving water baptism?
would u appeal to "mystery" for this issue since the The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”? Or is the prayer in the BCP of this part is meant to understood in a symbolic sense?
This was a very informative video. I do have one question. I am a Lutheran. I understood your view on Baptismal Regeneration when discussing whether or not regeneration is "automatic" at baptism. You said in effect only to the elect. However, when you discussed whether unbaptized babies go to heaven, I understood you to say, yes. You where speaking about a child born into the covenant. My question is if being in the covenant is the same as being regenerate. Are parents promised their children will be regenerated by virtue of the covenant? I hope this question is clear and that I didn't misstate your view. Thank you for your work. It is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your question, it is a very good one and will be helpful to discuss.
Being in the covenant is not synonymous with being regenerate. All children of believers are automatically in the covenant (cf. Gen 17 ; Acts 2:38-39) but many do not end up believing in God's covenantal promises and so do not end up being regenerated or saved. However, a baby cannot reject the promises and so if they die in infancy, since they never opted out of the covenant or rejected the promises, they are regenerated and saved. Does that make sense?
Yes it does. However, if a baby can opt out of the covenant later, does that mean they were regenerate but later lost their regeneration? That sounds similar to Lutheran theology. That one can lose their salvation, if they wilfully reject saving faith. I understood Calvinism to reject the idea one can lose their salvation.
Is it possible that children of believers are part of the covenant and so regeneration is "automatic" even if not tied specifically to baptism, but an unbelievers child is not "automatically" regenerated, and therefore baptism does not guarantee regeneration? This is not my view, just mentioning it for discussion.
Humble Merchant has a comment on this video that relates to this topic as well.
@@Robert-vv6qp no one who is regenerate can opt out of the covenant. What I'm saying is that if a child who is baptised dies we assume they are regenerate and elect, just as if a child later loses their faith we know they were not regenerated and aren't elect. Check out my reply to bane_questionmark as well
Based on your view of the relationship between regeneration and election, is your view similar to the Westminster Assemblyman Cornelius Burgess' view on baptismal regeneration? That is where I've landed after several years (that is, the regeneration of elect infants only).
Yes it is indeed!
I think a person can have full assurance as a Calvinistic anglican. Its very simple, the scripture out lines how we can know we are elect and how we can know we are not. The only reason the arminian disregards this is because rather than trusting God’s word, they trust more, their own works.
Are you a priest or deacon? I appreciate your clear teaching.
First, really appreciate this channel, and like that you clarified God saves both through the Word and baptism, which is why Cornelius’s experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism doesn’t contradict the Spirit normally being received through baptism.
As for some critiques regarding regeneration:
The Lutheran position is one of trusting that God will deliver on His promise in baptism, it's an act of faith, not works. It doesn't depend on us. If one day I stop trusting in what God has done and walk away from the faith, that doesn't negate the objectivity of the promise, it just means I willingly rejected it. This presentation also seemed to ignore the many places in scripture where it indicates the Holy Spirit can be resisted. Finally Reformed theology in general fails for me as it forces one to say that God doesn't sincerely offer salvation to all and that no matter where I am in my current faith journey, (inward feelings or outward works) I can’t rule out the possibility that I am not elect and have been condemned to hell from all eternity. In my view, this negates any assurance one can have from looking to baptism under a reformed paradigm as I can't be sure the promises apply to me. Thanks again for this channel and looking forward to any interaction.
I would say that all Christians will have the same issue regarding the possibility of not being elect, Lutherans included. And the idea in Lutheranism that faith can be lost and must be maintained, naturally leads to a certain degree of effort on your part for salvation.
@@newkingdommedia9434 The only "effort" in the Lutheran understanding is confidence in the promises of God which I would call faith. Per Lutheranism, God helps bolster our faith by continuing to freely offer Himself and His forgiveness to all through baptism, absolution, and the Eucharist. I would also of course say the possibility of falling away is a clear teaching of scripture but I'm sure you are already well-versed in the arguments.
@@felixiusbaqi Yeah I know the arguments. Often with these discussions we end up just rehashing the same arguments that have been made by men much greater than ourselves time and time again through history. Btw, I don't think our disagreements are particularly important and I consider Lutherans to be fully my siblings in Christ.
How do we feel when a minister wrongly quotes the formula and says "in the name of the father, in the name of the son, and in the name of the holy spirit?" I've seen it done multiple times and I know the person isn't trying to be heretical, but it is. And do we assume that baptism is valid regardless of the ministers mistake?
Great question. I may be wrong about this, and may change my mind, but atm I'd say it's still a valid baptism because the Church organization itself has the correct understanding and that minister himself just so happened to be an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about. To say his stupidity invalidates the baptism could be seen as Donatist.
But I have also seen this happen and I was infuriated.
@@newkingdommedia9434 I think I lean the same way too and assume the Lord is gracious to the parents and child being baptized. But I don't know how to address it with the minister because it comes across as me being the liturgy police. But it does really bother me when priests treat the liturgy and the ministering of God's sacraments lightly and without reverence. Unfortunately, it's the only Anglican parish in my city that isn't unorthodox in its moral teachings (its acna).
@@benson0509 I know exactly what you mean. I never brought it up with the minister when I heard it but just quietly seethed. If I lived again I would say something though and just gently explain that to say "the name" before each Person undermines the fact that they are all One.
That could also be a case for corrective/conditional baptism, acknowledging that the formula is questionable but not rejecting efficacy confidently, rather, cautiously correcting any error that *may* have occurred
Is it valid if the minister embellishes the formula, in the name of our wonderful Father and Jesus his dear son and of the glorious Holy Spirit? It infuriated me and if I was the father I would have demanded a re-do.
Did Jesus also baptize the children he welcomed and blessed?🤔
No... and???
Mark 16:16 “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved...” notice how Jesus uses the article “and” which clearly indicates BOTH faith AND baptism are required for salvation. Not an option for salvation. Crystal clear.
25:15 baptism and faith not in conflict
Interesting though in Acts of the Apostles no one was ever baptised in the name if the Trinity.
Every baptism in the book of Acts was baptized in the name of the Trinity because that is What Christ commanded them to do. When we read in acts “Baptised in the name of Jesus” the greek is not saying that when they are baptized the baptizer said “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.” What the greek is indicating is that they were baptized IN RELATION TO aka IN THE NAME OF Jesus. In other words, they were baptized in such a way that they were identified with Christ ergo In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Thats nonsense. There is not one verse in Acts that says anyone was baptised in the name of the Trinity.
Do unbaptized babies who have Christian parents go to heaven because their parents planned on baptizing them but they died beforehand? Or is it just the fact that they are Christians. My initial reaction is to go to Baptists because they don't really ever plan on baptizing their children unless the kids make a personal choice in the future
I know you were just expressing your opinion on the matter since the formularies don't address it, but I was just wondering what you thought
The answer that I think would be more in line with the Fathers and Reformers (not that they all thought this) would be that if the parents *intended* to baptise the child then they are still saved (baptism of intent) but I personally take this further and say that simply by being the child of Christians (even heterodox ones like baptists) they are saved, as they are holy.
@@newkingdommedia9434 that makes sense. Thank you. Great video btw
@@Ian-iy7sl Thank you!
I remember hearing Lutherans talk about views in the lutheran reformers that unbaptized children of Christians are saved for what it's worth. I cant recall the source but im sure there were some on the reformed side.
Credobaptists' position can be understood as "delaying the baptism until they can make a profession of faith". We can see this in the writing of St. Gregory Nazianzen where he advised to wait until the child is about 3 years old, when they can speak and make profession of faith.
Wow. This is a brain dead comment
@ScribeOfBoom ???
Per what you said earlier, wouldn't the salvation of baptized infants who die very young depend on whether they are elect? However, you say at 1:08:46 that the salvation of baptized deceased infants is "certain".
The caveat is given that they must have died before they "commit actual sin", but that may carry a problematic view of sin. We all are conceived and born in sin, and have sin in our hearts long before we ever perform any action which human beings could identify as sin. It seems the logic could be carried forward to say that not only unbaptized babies but even babies born to non-elect parents could be saved as they had yet to "commit actual sin", I assume you wouldn't claim that to be true.
Maybe the statement that it was totally certain is another charitable assumption, which given the topic is understandable. Still I think the distinction needs to be made, that salvation requires the will and work of God which He is free to perform or not to each and every person, including babies who have yet to outwardly sin. It's not that I think there is no hope for babies who die very young including in the womb, but Scripture simply doesn't tell us about the topic and I must refrain from saying their salvation is certain or anything close due to my own desires.
I believe that if God has chosen to take away the earthly life of a believer's child then we can have confidence that He has elected that child for salvation. This is where reprobation comes into play. As I said in the video, the children of believers are automatically in the covenant from birth and are thus headed to salvation but some of those children are predestined to damnation and will therefore come to "opt out" of the covenant, whereas children who die in infancy didn't get the chance to opt out and so we can have confidence that they are not reprobates.
Baptism saves? Have you ever heard about the thief on the cross?
They just disbelieve the Bible
@@TrueNation-fw2woThe Bible doesn’t tell us if the thief was baptized or not. And for someone claiming they don’t believe scripture you sure are ignoring the fact that scripture says several things save us. These would include, the Holy Spirit, The Word of God, Faith, Grace, Repentance and Baptism. They are the tools that God uses to save. But it is Christ and Christ alone at the end of the day.
We can see God's omnipresent bearded face because Jesus lives up to his promise John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them is the one who loves me. My father will love them. I too will love them and SHOW myself to them. " Show is ἐμφανίσω (emphanisō) in the original Greek, which means "to make visible.". I have been able to see Jesus's omnipresent bearded face since I started obeying him in 2002. I have thousands of examples on my UA-cam channel.
Demonically possessed
River you are not an Anglican. You are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.