Another thing to note with Acts 2:38 is that the preposition behind "for" is εις, which is the same preposition that appears in Matthew 3:11 when John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto (εις) repentance." I'm not aware of anyone who says that the baptism of John was the instrumental cause of repentance. Clearly, he was baptizing people who were already repentant. So if εις doesn't mean that baptism caused repentance in Matthew 3:11, why is it insisted that baptism causes remission of sins in Acts 2:38?
@@Defender_of_FaithDon't really see how that verse is a counterpoint to the original comment. The word used there is "and." Be baptized AND wash away sins. It would be perfectly reasonable to understand that these two things are connected but not causally related. Also, "calling on His name" is absolutely a euphemism indicating those possessing saving faith. "Those who call on the name of the Lord" is commonly used throughout Scripture to that effect.
What people would say is that you have not really fully repented until you are baptized -- the baptism serves as a seal for repentance to make it full. I don't think that is controversial: what happens when you meet a Christian that "loves Jesus" but they are embarrassed to get baptized or "don't" feel like it? you call into question their convictions. -- -- -- -- I did a bit of research that I could into _Tevilah,_ or "Jewish Baptism," and I think it sheds light onto the Baptism "debates". First, Tevilah was not about spiritual cleansing, it was about outward cleansing*. Ritual purity has nothing to do with personal guilt or sin, though there can be a little overlap. The point is to make yourself clean enough so that you can be in the presence of a Holy God without scaring him away lest he be ritually defiled (or, as he is an all-consuming fire, his pure cleansing presence burning you away into nothing). Second, Tevilah was done by _just you, to you,_ and it was done multiple times a day or week as needed. By contrast, Christian baptism is done by another Christian, on behalf of Christ's authority, to you -- you cannot baptize yourself. Tevilah were originally probably simple baths done in "living water" (flowing water). You went to a creek, got some hyssop, and scrubbed yourself -- if it's not enough, sit on the bank, sponge, scrub, and scoop up water to pour over yourself to clean. At the advent of Alexander the Great's escapades into the Near East, Greeks brought with them the stone bathtub -- you sit in it, hot water pours into your bath from a tank from overhead and you sit in the water about true waist-deep. This changed the Jewish concept of cleanliness, and they began doing Tevilah similar to Greek baths. Religious Jews began worrying the sanctity of Tevilah would be confounded for the Greek bath, so they developed the _mikveh,_ which was a large, head-height deep vertical pool that they filled with water. Above it were tanks always filled with water taken from a stream. There were steps that led down to the bottom of the mikveh. All towns had to have at least 7 mikvehs. At this point, tevilah is now a ritual. There is no act of scrubbing. You strip naked in front of your friends, and you walk down standing up perfectly straight into the water until it covers your head, turn around, and immediately walk back out -- vertical immersion for a mere second. Tevilah was required of all male, female, slave, and child converts to Judaism by the 3rd c. BC. Jews even debated over whether or not Gentile men had to be circumcised being that tevilah was now required alongside circumcision. Many said only circumcision, many said both, and some said just Tevilah (the perspective Christians would adopt, showing it was already an opinion floating in Jewish circles). Children that were not old enough to perform Tevilah on themselves, the mother held them in her arms, and they went down into the water together. If a woman wanted to keep her slaves after conversion, she either had to do tevilah first or she had to hold them and they all go down at the same time so they all become Jews at the same time -- if the slave becomes a Jew first, then he is no longer technically the same person, and no longer her slave. The Didache prefers that you use living water for your baptism too -- in fact, that seems to be what the Early Church cared about most, but you see something interesting. You immerse; if not, you pour; if not, you sprinkle -- this is a practical concern about how much water you have. IIRC, and I can't source this part as I forgot to write it down, it seemed like I found where some Jews did allow pouring or sprinkling if you didn't have enough water for a full mikveh, and then some sects still didn't necessarily immerse. -- -- -- -- Now the Essenes did Tevilah a little different. They did not strip naked. Men wore a loin cloth that covered their full false-waist area, women wore a short dress with a bottom, but the _implications_ of Tevilah were different. Essenes believed that the only true Tevilah washed you both internally and externally. Bear in mind that Christ says you must not wash the outside of the cup, but the inside also -- they had a similar idea. They believed that when Tevilah was done in a _true heart of repentance,_ with true intent to change, then it energized the Tevilah and it was a true tevilah, and it made you ritually outwardly pure and washed you internally so that your inside was also ritually pure. This seems to be what John the Baptist believed, but that may be projection. -- -- -- -- I can source all of this except for the claim about women bearing their children down into the water (yet) -- I have heard a few scholars say that, and I respect them as they generally don't lie and one of them firmly believes infant baptism is blasphemy, so he isn't biased for it. I can source women bearing their slaves down into the water.
I believe it should be mandatory in all seminaries for all Protestant Pastors to study the history of the Church (without bias). Along with the studying of Scripture.
Also to make it mandatory to exercise discernment when reading history, and not read history so gullibly. There was a major rewrite of history that took place in the 4th century.
Agreed. Many people have converted to Catholicism because they have studied the early church. They have said "we" (Protestants) "do not practice our faith like the early Christians. Who does? The Catholics, especially the Eucharist".
One baptism for the remission of sins, except you get rebaptized five times through your life as you realise you never really believed right the first four times 😎
First, I along with everyone else on here agree that a series on the Apostles Creed would be amazing. Second, you have no idea how ideal the timing of this video was. I am baptist, have been all my life, and I have only in the last couple years been exposed to tradition, creeds, classical theology, the church fathers, etc. In that endeavor a number of things have actually strengthened in my faith, however the question of baptismal efficacy I have found my world a bit turned upside down and I'm still struggling through it. You have been hugely helpful as I wrestle through it all, so thank you. My concerns have not been completely solved yet but I believe I am closer than I was before.
If everyone gets to define the words of the Creed however they want, there is no point in having a Creed. Your points are interesting but neglect to address the most relevant question in this discussion: What did the men who gave us the Nicene Creed believe "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" means? I honestly don't care how 17th Century Baptists define baptismal regeneration (1,300 years after the fact). I don't care how the Westminster Divines defined it. I care about what the patristic "Framers" meant... because that's what I'm being asked to affirm in the Nicene Creed. Think of it this way: when a leftist judge takes an oath to "support, protect, and defend" the Constitution, he's committing a form of perjury because he fully intendeds to offend the "original intent" of those who drafted the document (like, for example, finding the right to an abortion within the text). Similarly, you don't get to claim creedal orthodoxy while simultaneously imposing your peculiar brand of sacramental theology upon the writings of the Nicene Council/fathers-- which we know they didn't hold.
I don’t understand how one can claim, in good faith, to be a Christian without affirming the Nicene Creed. In refusing to affirm it, they are separating themselves from the martyrs, confessors, and fathers, without whom the true faith doesn’t even exist.
@@geordiewishart1683 it’s hard for me to imagine someone claiming to be a Christian, yet also claiming that a foundational Christian doctrine is pagan.
What do you mean by "affirming" it? Are creeds a be all end all, or merely a starting point? The creeds can be useful teaching tools, but where do they stand as a piece of authority? As a Christian, we affirm many things, many things which are not found in the creeds. That's the problem.
@@joecoolmccall I’m not aware of anyone who believes that the Creed is all a Christian affirms. If I said something that suggests such, it was not my intent. The Creed contains objective facts concerning the Christian faith. It contains foundational, essential doctrines.
Or better yet, why did he not become Lutheran: the original and only true Protestant branch of the Reformation. All the rest are part of what’s known as “The Radical Reformation”. Speaking as a former Baptist.
When Lutherans say that a Cornelius situation is an exception, this is circumstantial. It is the exception because most Christians are baptized as infants. In the time of the Bible, most Christians are adult converts since it is the first generation of Christians. We do not mean it is a theological exception; it is an exception of circumstance. It is still the case today that adult converts are regenerated and converted prior to baptism and baptism acts as a sealing for them.
Yes. Is speaking of the Baptism of an adult convert as a seal of a prior regeneration and conversion from Johann Gerhard? I've read it somewhere, but cannot remember where. Perhaps it was Krauth quoting Gerhard...?
Thanks for sharing that. When I talk to Lutherans, I get different answers about this. Is there one authoritative or definitive position on this for Lutherans? Something in a statement of faith or confession you could point to?
I have heard Lutherans differ on this point from you, specifically the part about adults being regenerate prior to baptism. As I have come to understand typical Lutheran argument, it is the normative means for God to withhold the grace of regeneration until baptism, even for adults despite having faith prior. I think this is generally rooted in Luthers belief in infant faith and thus believing that for all, both infants and adults, first comes faith, then comes baptism, then comes regeneration. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't mean to be presumptuous assuming I, a baptist, have any place educating a Lutheran on Lutheran theology. This is just the way I have seen Lutheran theology portrayed and I would love to be corrected if I am wrong here.
And, even though adult converts come to faith before baptism, their baptism applies forgiveness of sins to their entire life, as it is the grace of Jesus’ death on the cross applied to their entire life. So we can say a baptism at 30 forgives the sins from birth to death, in the same way that we are forgiven from a death that happened 2000 years ago.
The Nicene is the central statement used by our private school to pre-qualify new student-families in addition to affirming participation in a gospel-centered church. We're a school with Evangelicals, Baptists, Bible Fellowship, Anglicans, and Catholics and others.
I think this is where Protestants go wrong in the book of Acts. Cornelius and his household received the Spirit to speak in tongues as a sign for Peter. If speaking in tongues = regeneration then that means the apostles were only regenerated at Pentecost. Scripture is full of moments when people receive the Spirit for gifts (strength, leadership, prophecy, tongues). So it’s a false equivocation to say Cornelius and his household were regenerated when they received the Spirit. The next chapter makes it clear that the purpose of this odd event was meant to be a sign for Peter, not the natural Ordo salutis.
Agreed. They were also still baptized right after this spirit baptism. If baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward change then why would the spirit baptism, (speaking in tongues which is arguably a greater outward demonstration) not have sufficed for Cornelius and his family. But instead they were still Baptized in water
Protestants don’t believe you are saved when you receive tongues. It is primarily Apostolic Pentecostals. Most other Pentecostals don’t believe it is the sign that saves you. Most other Protestants believe that tongues ceased in the first couple hundred years. And tongues are for today.
Every church in all history has practiced credo baptism, and all existing groups that would confess the catholic faith practice credo baptism. The issue is that rejection of infant baptism.
A Christian believer is someone who repents and gets baptized. That’s where the term believer’s baptism comes from. If you believe but refuse to obey Jesus by refusing to get baptized, then can someone say they are truly born again? I’m not including people who died before they could get baptized but only those who refuse.
Hey Gavin - are you planning on making a response to Trent’s video on this topic? Just watched it and I really think there needs to be some additional care to the topic.
While I applaud the Baptists who are moving towards adopting the Creed, it is also fascinating how much of it seems to be cherry-picked, i.e., a this-but-not-that approach. If we look at those who wrote the Creed, the Church at that time, and the approach to Christianity in general, it is quite difficult to ignore that that they were Sacramental in their approach to the faith, specifically in the two areas of the baptism and the Eucharist. It's hard to miss that these two Sacraments were _transformative_ in nature; they weren't "symbols" in the modern sense of that term (symbols in the Classical sense, yes; not in the modern sense). They _did something_ to you. They weren't just "outward professions of faith," as the modern saying goes. The point being, why adopt the Creed and ignore the way the Creed-writers actually lived and behaved? Again, I encourage Baptists to move in that direction. They just need to _keep_ moving in that direction.
@@thadofalltrades well, the alternative to them being correct makes for a weird situation, but the assertion here somewhat misunderstands what I'm getting at. It's entirely possible that it's my fault for that, so I'll try to explain better. The point is not that the Creed writers were "infallible." That's not part of my comment, nor is it an underlying assumption or presupposition. Rather, it is that they lived life and understood reality in such a way that imparts meaning into the words of said Creed that are lost by those who do not share that understanding. To take the Creed and say, "yes, I affirm all these things," but not actually affirm them in the way that the writers did means that it is a modernized version, not beholden to any original meaning. This is a problematic position for adherents to _Sola Scriptura_ for numerous reasons, but also brings up more questions than it answers.
@@Gregorydrobny it's not problematic for sola scriptura because the idea is entirely biblical. We do this kind of thing for tons of biblical ideas. Understanding broadens and changes over time. There are lots of ideas of the church fathers had which were entirely wrong, but that doesn't change the fact they were church fathers. There should be no issue with looking back and affirming them for things they got right. Sola scriptura is not the Bible only, it's the Bible as the sole authority on issues of truth. Everything gets tested against what was transmitted in the Bible.
@@thadofalltrades it's problematic because it quickly becomes _Solo-Sola Scriptura_ for exactly the reasons described in my original comment. Does original intent of writings matter, or does only the modern context count, and who decides?
@@Gregorydrobny original context matters in determining what they intended for sure, but then that must be compared against the Bible. If their intent is biblically unsound then a modern understanding which corresponds more closely to the Scripture is appropriate. Our modem understanding cannot override Scripture, but it can override extra biblical statements if it's closer in meaning to the original deposit.
An important point often overlooked in Acts 2:38 is that repentance is mentioned prior to baptism. This would indicate that the individual must have made a statement of faith prior (or simultaneously) to the baptism. That matches the rest of the examples of baptism throughout the book of Acts. I relate the forgiveness of sin to the person repenting, and the baptism reflecting the spiritual reality that their sins have been washed away.
I love the idea of going through the apostles creed line by line. I’d watch. Currently and slowly reading Vermigli’s “Exposition on the 12 Articles of the Christian Faith.”
This video is on of the main reasons I left the Baptist church. Not confessional or creedal. No respect for the church’s fathers or the reformation. Too much individualism. In my 15 years at Baptist churches I never heard the nicene creed or apostles creed. Thanks Gavin for helping my Baptist brothers and sisters reclaim their roots!
Baptism by desire is a thing taught by the Church. Those over the age of reason, are baptized in desire, often long before they receive the Sacrament. God bless you Gavin, you seem like a genuine dude
Correct. Baptism of Desire and Blood are both taught, Saint Cyprian of Carthage Letter 72 to Pompey is quite clear on that . The Feast of the Holy Innocents, on the Liturgical calendar of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Assyrian Church of the East seems to have started in the early 400's.
10:07 Yes please on a series working through the creeds line by line. Especially if you can give suggestions / resources for explaining it to children. We homeschool and I have been looking for resources for working through the creeds like that, and haven’t found anything appropriately robust on content but simple enough for kids to understand.
I am very happy that most of your commenters found this video to be helpful. I, however, found it raised more questions than it answered. Please do a deep dive on "believers baptism," which is the position of my church.
I highly recommend the book Light from Light by Bishop Barron Word on Fire. As a Roman Catholic, I enjoy and learn from your videos. Also, we recite the Nicene Creed during Mass. Do Baptists acknowledge Catholic Baptism as valid ?
Hi friend. In general, Baptists view baptism as something believers do after coming to faith in the gospel. Therefore, Baptists encourage people who have been baptized as infants to be baptized again, including Catholics. If an adult is baptized into the Catholic faith, but later wants to join a Baptist church, the leadership of the church would want to ensure the person was baptized under a firm conviction in the gospel, and not for another reason (marriage, immigration documents, financial interest, etc).
I’ve struggled with the question “am I going to be damned?” as well of questions of how to understand baptismal regeneration. I’ve been a follower of Christ for a while now and the assurance and security of my salvation has been a large focus of mine for a while How can I reconcile this with the fact that church history for so long disagreed with the point that one could have assurance. I want to have a clear understanding of salvation and my relationship with Jesus (This has caused me some anxiety ) Thank you!
I think an analysis of the Nicene Creed might be a better idea. You could address how the Fathers at Nicea interpreted "one baptism for the remission of sins." Thanks, Gavin, for your charitable videos. On another point, would you consider a video critiquing Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary"? Thanks!
Look I was a SB. For over 40.yrs . I was raised in the Catholic Church. The Apostle Creed used to be in the Hymnal in the back. I can never remember it ever been recited. FYI.I returned to the Catholic Church . After the last split. 😊
Long time viewer here on my personal channel. I just made my first UA-cam video on this subject talking about the wording of the BFM2000. I think you’re right that Baptists have a better tradition than what’s commonly presented to people and even what’s stated in the BFM2000. I’m curious about what you think regarding the BFM calling the sacraments “acts of obedience” rather than “means of salvation” which you’d find in the Baptist Catechism. In my opinion, it’s a huge failure to make the distinction between law and gospel. I’d love to see the Reformed Baptists within the SBC address that even before revisiting the Creed (which I’d also love to see added). Anyways, thanks always for your channel. If been a huge help to me
Is there a book that has a list of early church writers that affirmed Christians were saved prior to baptism? I know Justin Martyr and Cyril of Alexandria were mentioned but I’m curious where I could read more about this. Thanks for the video
I was Born and raised Baptist and Baptists can't. It flatly teaches Water Baptismal Regeneration, that is what the authors meant it to teach when they wrote it, so I *would* argue that none of the Reformed/Calvinists/Puritans could honestly affirm it's plain meaning without adding some qualifier like "for the elect" or "spirit baptism", never mind Baptists who call Baptism an Ordinance and not a Sacrament. Baptists are the most Reformed of the Reformed branch of Christianity and Splitting Baptism into Water/Spirit like the Reformed do means that one has two Baptisms, and "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." and if you would say that someone who was born again in spirit, and thus has one half of baptism, would go to heaven if they died without the other half, you would also have to say that someone baptized in water, but not in spirit would also go to heaven, which no one I know of does. It is always the water side that is seen as non essential which I find to be tending Gnostic, and denies the words of our Lord Himself. The Reformed/Baptists could be defined as one who says the water isn't necessary, since the Sacramental Christians all say that the Spirit is necessary, but they also say water is necessary, whereas the Reformed/Baptist view is that water is optional for regeneration. The logical (and honest) thing to do is drop the title Sacrament and call it an Ordinance, which Baptists did. Redefining the meanings of words has the nature of dishonesty and is entirely unhelpful. I understand the desire to affirm the creed, but Baptist Theology (and all Reformed/Calvinistic actually) simply can't without tying itself into knots. I really personally dislike this bending and blending going on. You can't be a Roman Catholic and not believe in the Pope, you can't be an Arminian Confessional Presbyterian, you can't be a Lutheran and deny the real presence of the Lord in the bread and wine, and you can't be a Baptist and affirm Baptismal Regeneration. Words have meaning and it is becoming impossible to find a church that is, in fact, what they say they are. What is a Pentecostal who is cessationist? The Orthodox Creed you mention is a General Baptist ("Arminian") Confession of faith which could allow for a slightly more accepting view, however, the Nicene creed in the An Orthodox Creed isn't complete, it reads: The Nicene Creed. WE believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things Visible, and Invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten Son of the Father, that is the Substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God from very God, Begotten, not made, being of one Substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both the Things in Heaven, and the Things in Earth; Who for us Men, and for our Salvation, came down, and was Incarnate, he was made Man; he suffered, and rose the third Day, he ascended into the Heavens: He shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. Therefore they which say, there was a time when he was not, before he was begotten, or that he had his Beginning of nothing, or that he is of another Substance. Or Essence; or to be Convertible, or Mutable, these the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God, doth pronounce for Accursed. They saw the problems of the clause and dropped it. They had to change the Creed to include it.
Great point about this creed. It seems that maybe two of these Baptist confessions Gavin referenced cited the Nicene Creed rather than the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and thus skirted the baptism issue . It also skirted the one holy Catholic and apostolic church . That whole final paragraph that we recite was only set forth at Constantinople in 381.
@@toddvoss52 Exactly that, but the creed being discussed and that was motioned at the SBC, was the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed which everyone uses and calls the Nicene Creed. It seems to have the nature of dishonesty to say "I affirm the Nicene Creed" and to mean the one that no one uses anymore.
Perhaps you could do a video on justification versus regeneration? I’ve been toying with this for a couple of years now or roundabout, and I suspect there may be a difference. Perhaps there is a difference from when God declares you to be right and the beginning of the Lord, making us a new creation. If you think of Romans three, four and five, as justification, and chapter 6, as regeneration, and, the beginning of the process of sanctification, it may shed light on the baptismal question.
I'm a Presbyterian, and I learnt quite a few new things about Baptists from this video. I had no idea Baptists believe in 'sacraments' (I've only ever heard them talk about ordinances and even had few debate me on my sacramental views), and again I didn't realize that baptist DO believe in sacramental efficacy. I was always under the impression they took the Zwinglian view that the sacraments are exclusively memorial and symbolic.
They do take that view. I grew up in it. I don’t know a single Baptist that believes in anything sacramental or that anything on earth has any power. They reject the physical world entirely.
Thank you, Gavin, for your work. I believe you are making an important contribution to building the Kingdom of God. (I hope no one stumbles over that formulation - it is not meant as a subtle theological comment.) Anyhow, I want to comment on two things in this video. First, yes, please make a video on the Apostles Creed. I think it could be helpful to many. Second, I work within the small evangelical movement in Austria, which is strictly baptistic (not to be confused with the Evangelische Kirche, which is generally NOT evangelical). When you referenced the Anabaptists as a sociological rather than a theological term, I wonder if you were not limiting yourself too much to the North American context. Many Evangelicals in Roman Catholic central Europe feel a strong connection to the early Anabaptists - even if our direct roots come from a combination of German pietism and English and American baptistic traditions. Here in Austria the government recognized a group of baptistic churches for the first time in Austrian history only as recently as 2013 - we are officially call the Free Churches of Austria (Freikirchen in Österreich or FKÖ). This movement includes Baptists, Mennonites, some Pentecostals, and a new group called the Union of Evangelical Churches (BEGÖ), which is a uniquely Austrian denomination. When it comes the German speaking Europe, most church historians seem to conflate the German and Austrian situations and to ignore Austria's unique history in regard to evangelicals. I could go on, but I just want to encourage you to continue growing in your understanding of Protestantism and Evangelicalism outside of the NA context. Keep up the good work.
Say someone was baptized as an infant and throughout his or her life grew up in a credo-baptism church. This person participates in the church and believes/has faith in Jesus. If baptismal regeneration is untrue (baptism doesn’t actually have any saving efficacy in any manner), should this person get re-baptized?
This describes me pretty well, so hopefully you don’t mind my .02 on this. I was born and raised UMC and baptized as an infant. When I hit adulthood, I fell out of the practice of going to church. As the years passed, my life began to resemble an unbeliever more and more. I don’t say that to imply I never believed, because I am would say that I did. Ultimately, I felt that the Lord was calling me back to a relationship I wasn’t actively a part of anymore. I never really got deep into the Bible as a kid, but I have changed that, and found my way into a Baptist church since then. I struggled with the concept of being “re-baptized”. The thing that changed my position was Acts 2:38. If the correct response is to repent, believe, and be baptized, I can’t say that being baptized as an infant really qualified for me. I had no understanding of Jesus then, and I also lacked the capacity to repent. As a personal conviction, I decided that I should be baptized.
@@daninva6458 I appreciate you sharing your story! Thank you for that. I guess my question is just a little different. What if there is no “falling away” and no specific moment of “I must repent”?
I have just experienced the marvellous grace of Anointing (“Holy Unction”) at the local RC church. I’m left wondering why, when this - along with Confession - is as explicit as Baptism and Eucharist in the “Apostolic deposit”, so many churches which claim to follow that deposit like mine (Anglican), Presbyterian, Lutheran and a whole lot of others don’t practise these Sacraments???? Anglicans have them in the books but they are hardly ever used…..
Now I can get behind Gavin defending “Baptist beliefs”… He is a Baptist after all.… When he argues for “protestant beliefs” that’s when it gets dicey lol. For a “historical view” of Baptist church history you should check out ‘The Trail of Blood’ book.
its wrong to think a Baptist cannot defend Protestant beliefs, just as it would be to say a Catholic could not defend "Christianity" or an Eastern Orthodox Christian could not defend theism. There is nothing wrong with defending your broader identity.
quote any early church father who rejected infant baptism. Were they all wrong? then God didnt keep his promice of preserving true doctrine through the Church.
Let me preface by saying I do not in anyway want to be unkind or dismissive of those who advocate only for credo (believers) baptism. Having said that, modern American Evangelicals who support only Credo Baptism are outside of traditional christianity. Almost universally up until the time of the Reformation the Church, both East & West, taught "regenerative" Baptism, including for infants. During and immediately following the Reformation the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, condemned those Anabaptists who spoke against regenerative and specifically infant baptsim. My point is that modern American Evangelical Christianity, which descends from the Anabaptists, is outside traditional Christianity, and is in essence a "new" Branch within Christianity. This does not mean that all Chrisitans who support infant and regenerative Baptism agree precisely on what happens in baptism, but rather that modern American Evangelicals are not even in the discussion amongst those who follow biblical teaching on Baptism.
Have you seen the video “Calvin vs the Baptists”? It argues that the 17th century Baptists had some unfortunate similarities to the Anabaptists, such as a large emphasis on prophecies, particularly end-times prophecies that the world would end in 20 years or something. It gives various examples from primary sources, like writings from signers of the 2nd London Baptist Confession.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you also were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph.4:5-6
We can argue and disagree all day on nuanced interpretation. But at the end of the day, we can all agree we should have Faith in Jesus, Repent and be Baptized. Thats the beginning of the New Life. Why anyone would want to downplay such amazing gifts of God's Grace, I'll never understand.
Forgive me from the bottom of my heart but this really seems like retro actively forcing ones theology into what is clearly Catholic/Orthodox history. Gavin I love you, I know you mean well but let’s call a spade a spade.
But as Gavin points out, Baptists have historically believed in the creeds. His explanation of the Real Presence in the sacrament transformed my thinking about what takes place as we take the bread and the cup. This is not just a Catholic or Orthodox view and I, for one, long for the restoration of the historic Baptist faith.
True the Nicene Creed was created by the Catholic church to protect its members from false doctrines of heresies rampart at that time. It is a summary of belief of the Catholic Church.
@HiHoSilvey it seems like retro active forcing of theology simply because the historical Church Fathers of the Apostolic and Patristic age unilaterally affirm the Catholic/Orthodox view. I did not bring up the real presence- the point here is that Baptismal Regeneration was historically defined by the Church. The church fathers are clear here. It’s inescapable no matter how kind and holy Gavin is- he is amazing. But the truth is the truth no matter how much one wishes it were something different. Either Jesus and the Apostles botched this doctrine up so badly when they were teaching the flock that the whole Church unilaterally and immediately accepted a false teaching- or Gavin here, I humbly submit, even with all of his great attributes (he has many) is simply making a human mistake. God bless.
So, I didn't hear every word but are you really suggesting we define the word in a way that "we" can accept even if it's not what "they" meant and pretend we are in agreement? That's how the (small representation) of attendees at Nicea came to so-called "agreement" on homousia even though the disagreement came out in spades in days weeks years and decades following Nicea in ways that we sort of pretend didn't exist.
No christians historically believe what you belive prior to the 15th century dont you think its a problem that as a baptist you cannot find any creed or ecumenical council you can agree with fully without reintepreting their words.
Listening to this in light of your other videos, why not become a confessional Lutheran like Schooping did? He went from Orthodox to AnaBaptist to confessional Lutheran, why not follow his path given everything said here?
I'm a former Catholic turned Baptist. I'm now trending towards something like Lutheran because my options in the Baptist world seem to be 1) shallow generic evangelicalism that doesn't emphasise the forgiveness of sin and the grace of a loving and sovereign God, 2) Reformed theology, which I simply don't agree with due to limited atonement and the gross overemphasis on the 3rd use of the law. What I love about being Baptist is the simplicity and humility of the faith...but not if it becomes shallow and trite (not to mention, proud!). Personally, I'd rather see good teaching on Law and Gospel than the Nicene Creed, but anything that connects us back to the Reformation and the early church would be welcome.
Being in the church of Christ myself I hold myself to no creeds and no book but the Bible. However, I still read commentaries and the church fathers but I do so with the Bible right next to it because I view that Scripture has absolute authority over anything outside of Scripture because I believe that is how God intended it. Hopefully more dialogue will continue between all traditions and that we put the Scriptures first, May God bless you all! Great video Gavin!
@matthewthompson1942 respectfully, 1) it's self refuting as all church bodies must hold to statements of faith that reflect scripture 2) the creeds are just that
𝗡𝗢, 𝗕𝗔𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗛𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗗 The Southern Baptist Convention vote was more honest than this video, as they at least recognized that the phrase, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins" as a reference to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Dr. Ortlund's disregard for the historical and grammatical sense of the Greek, Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, is just as bad as William Lane Craig's heresy. And now, the Southern Baptists have basically declared publicly that they are not in line with historic Christianity. It would have been better if Dr. Ortlund just came out honestly by saying what he claims to say, that ONLY the Scriptures are infallible, and that the Creeds including the Nicene Creed, though an authoritative rule of faith, is NOT infallible and is mistaken when it declares, Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum, which is an objective expression of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Again, at least the Southern Baptist Convention has honestly confessed that they are divorced from historical Christianity and the historical-grammatical understanding of the Nicene Creed.
Although those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the Southern Baptist Convention, and apparently Dr. Ortlund himself, believes that Baptist theology is in agreement with the Nicene Creed, the Southern Baptist Convention was consistent in not adopting the Nicene Creed for two main reasons. First, Baptists as a whole do not believe in one universal Church but in several, distinct, independent, autonomous local "churches", thus denying the article "I believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal] and apostolic Church", for the very Council of Nicea denied the Baptist doctrine of local church autonomy. But most importantly, Baptists deny that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins, and could only adopt the Nicene Creed by twisting the meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism 𝙛𝙤𝙧 the remission of sins", into "I acknowledge one Baptism '𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇' the remission of sins", ignoring the fact that both before and after the Council of Nicea the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was widely acknowledged except by the Pelagians, and so to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian at best, which is why St. Augustine argued for baptismal regeneration to oppose Pelagianism, the idea that one can repent and turn to God without the need of grace. At the same time, those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the SBC when asked about the article on baptism replied, “Coming under the article on the Holy Spirit, this refers to baptism in the Spirit or regeneration, which occurs with faith. Water baptism is the outward confession of that prior inward reality”, thus denying that the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit is one baptism, calling them two distinct baptisms, and thus they do not really acknowledge “one baptism” but two. And the SBC, by not only not adopting the Nicene Creed, but also showing a willingness to twist the historical and grammatical meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins", has divorced itself from historic, Scriptural Christianity. And so, 𝐍𝐎, 𝐁𝐀𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃. ua-cam.com/video/kZsuuJUnwOM/v-deo.html
Thanks for your videos. The example of Queen Elizabeth's becoming queen was helpful. Please note though that her Accession day was the day her father the King died, February 6, 1952., while her Coronation day was over a year later in 1953.
If I should "oppose bad interpretations" that gives me too much authority and in my weakness I will adopt that which "I" want. Only the trinitarian God has the right interpretations on ALL scripture. Somewhere, somehow those interpretations around unclear, and yet vital, scripture need to be communicated to us in a clear and unambiguous way when serious question arise. This is the genius of the authority of the Pope and Magisterium who receive this truth through the Holy Spirit and dispense it out. Without this authority, we are on our own to "oppose bad interpretations" and are thus imputed with too much personal authority.
Baptist (by extension all Protestants ((Lutherans rightly teach Baptismal regeneration)) treat the Nicene creed like progressive handle the United States Constitution- a “living breathing document” that can be redefined into their own likeness. Protestants literally are redefining Nicene Creed to mean something different than authors that penned the Creed.
I think almost all protestant branches, at least in the US, have an issue with ignoring and forgetting church history. This is something the church needs to do better in teaching.
A series through the apostles creed would be amazing, esp if Dr. Ortlund included an introduction to its origins in the first video and then compared its wording to that of future creeds like the nicene as he went along.
Thought- I wonder if some of the difficulties with contemporary Baptist approval of the creed comes from the difference between American and English Baptists. Yes, Baptists in England have historically been confessional, but here in the US, much of Baptist evangelism was done by pastors ordaind with little to no formal education. American Baptists are not necessarily as confessional perhaps purely because they have only come to the same level of theological education as some of their counterparts in the last century. Historical and confessional studies are catching up after two centuries of underdevelopment. Thanks for helping make Baptists better at being Baptists!
I like to think that I was on the "Baptists can't affirm the creed" train before it was cool, bc I did some collab content a few months ago before this all broke out, in the context of Christian Nationalism, and argued that those who opposed state involvement in the Church (esp. Baptists) would have had to oppose the Council of Nicaea, since that was an imperial organ imposed on (tho accepted by) the Church. What do you think about this doc?
I would make a distinction between the means by which a creed comes about vs. the content of the creed. Although we Baptists affirm the separation of church and state, that does not mean that everything that happens in the context of a church-state union must be rejected. So we can affirm it as a doctrinal standard. Nothing in the creed addresses church-state relations. I would try to think of an analogy but my brain is too tired at the moment.
so your saving you believe in baptism for the forgivness of sins. would your understanding be that by being baptised all your sins are forgiven past and future or just past?
I don't even think it's a question whether Christians (of any denomination) should uphold the Nicene Creed. AD 325 is super early. If you don't believe it then you are not following Christ in the way the early followers of Christ did. Especially as there was no formal canon of the Bible until a little later, AD 382.
Just like the man on the cross who did not have time to go get baptized yet Jesus said today you will be with me in paradise. I don’t understand why no one talks about this. Including you
I left the Texas Baptists, and I find myself defending them over this (not the first and probably not the last time I'll do so). All my theology and church history professors were adamant about "No creed but the Bible." They were opposed to the Baptist Faith and message, because the "confession" was to function too much like a creed in that it was requiring acquiescence. There was a strong division between confession and creed. As a result, they portrayed these confessions you listed as something different than creeds and used the fact that General Baptists were both the sizable majority for over a century and widely unitarian as an example of how broad baptists could be. Granted, much of this was the bad blood between the BGCT and the SBC, but it makes me more sympathetic to them rejecting creeds even if I affirm them now. It is a virtue to stick to one's principles and a vice to compromise them. I don't think they can affirm it institutionally even if there were no objections. Had they done so, it would have disappointed me.
Not really important, but it would be more accurate to use "synecdoche" for figurative language that uses the part for the whole (or the whole for the part). It can be considered a kind of metonymy, but metonymy is more generally defined as using one thing to refer to something related to it. For example, we often say, "The White House put out a statement." Well, the White House itself is the building, which did not put out a statement. Rather, someone who works for the presidential administration (possibly even working within the White House) put out a statement. That person is not the whole of which the White House is a part, and that person is not a part of the whole that is the White House (the building). But there is a locative relationship between the two.
Great video, it amazes me how deep the Cartesian division of reality has affected Evangelical theology. So much so that a corporeal sign given by God can have no real material effect in the view of some Baptist.
Hey Gavin, could you do a video about what are the "gates of Hades"? Our Catholic brothers and sisters often like to bring up that the Catholic Church is the one true Church because otherwise it would mean the gates of Hades prevaled against the Church founded on Peter. The possible issue i see with that understanding of Matthew 16 is this: If Jesus is talking about Peters confession of faith, then "gates of Hades" is literally refering to the "gate" which keeps the dead, dead. Not some force that reaches into this plane of a existence (my termonology there is not super well informed) so the phrase "gates of Hades" couldnt have anything to do with the visible instrtution of the Church, leaving it applicable only to the death and resurrection of Jesus and possibly by extention the invisible body of Christ(Church). That distinction even being true for Catholicism, because there are wolves in sheep clothing within the visible instetution who are overcome by the gates of Hades without Jesus. Thank you. P.s If not a video I would still love to somehow hear your thoughts on this matter. God bless!
As a Catholic I just wanted to point out that it's not just MT 16:18 that we use to prove that Jesus' Church can't teach error, but 1 Tim 3:15 as well when it states that the Church "is the pillar and foundation of truth." For if His Church can lie, then how could it be the pillar and foundation of truth? And if it lies even once, how could anyone know if it isn't lying again? The acceptance of error by Jesus' Church is the main reason why Protestantism is a non-starter for me.
@@ernie8869 Thank you for your input! There is definitely more discussion to be had on this matter and I will look into Timothy 3:15. I want to be clear that my reason for bringing up the possible issue in Matthew 16 isnt meant to be a "gotcha" nor to disprove the Catholic church. I want to do away with misconceptions that are all to common in both Catholic and Protestant circles, and follow Christ wherever he may lead me. I may be missing something obvious in the passage but it's better to ask than to just interpret it completely by myself, you know? I hold to Sola Scriptura, not Solo Alone-o 😆
@@justacameraman4900 Haha, I love it, Solo-alone-o!! I may borrow that line, but at least I'll admit that it's not something I thought up!! The interesting thing about interpreting the Bible is how do you determine whose interpretation is correct? Everyone will say that "scripture interprets scripture" and that they are interpreting correctly, but no one really knows. Another reason why the need for an infallible Church whoever that may be. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of Truth, not "truths." God bless you on your faith journey!!!
@@justacameraman4900 I'd say just follow the 'fruits' of the church. Find the church that does not sell itself to the modern world and you will find Christ there.
When the Holy Spirit appears above St. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ in the Jordan River and God the Father speaks, regenerative baptism is inaugurated and confirmed....Sacrament #1.
Why are we supposed to be Baptist but not southern Baptist but reformed? How do I pick the right protestant Church? Why can't I just be Catholic like everyone for the first 1000 years of Christianity?
That isn't true. Haven't you ever heard of the Church of Persia or the pope of Alexandria or the church of Ethiopia? Baptists historically have considered themselves to be catholic Christians, just like all protestants have historically. Don't make false historical claims.
@@TruthUnites there are 2 senses to each word. One is grammatical and the other is Christian. Grammatically orthodox means “right teaching” and catholic means “universal” in the Christian sense, they mean “right doctrine as inspired by the Holy Spirit” and catholic is pretty much the same. So when the Fathers write a creed they are referring to the actual, visible, physical institution that is Apostolic, Catholic, and Orthodox. But when Protestants want to adopt the creeds they import their definitions: (the universal church is invisible and orthodoxy is contained only within the scriptures) into the creed which betrays their context and the point of the creed.
_won't get a lot of views? who cares!_ The call is to *be faithful;* may the Lord bless your work. Don't be disappointed by the lack of reception - the *seeds that do sprout in good ground, yield in multiples of 30, 60, and 100.*
that southern baptists convention incident has grown popular, and it has been talked about within the orthodox church and i think catholic church since it happened, i love you i really do, but isnt this a little pathetic? the nicene creed came out before all the cannons of the bible was put together, yet you guys cant even agree on that? the creed? which was like the profession of the faith for every Christian for so long? This is why i started studying church history in 2023 from a protestant point of view, because u begin to realize how little protestants agree on things, its because you lack so many doctrines that were already preached for nearly 2,000 years. so many problems would be solved but because everyone can interpret scripture how ever they would lilke, what stops one baptist from saying "no" and the other from saying "yes"?
did you watch the video? Within the first 60 seconds I demonstrate that Baptists did not reject the Nicene Creed; rather, it was deferred to an executive committee.
Part of this is that SBC seminaries do not teach historical theology. Plenty of Church history. In 2021 I took the first historical theology class at Midwestern that they had. The sbc is shallow in Historical Theology sadly because the seminaries are lacking in it. Thankful for MBTS and Matthew Barrett tho for trying to change this!
As someone who believes in Baptismal regeneration. I have no problem believing that Cornelius' experience was normal. Its the normal experience of adult converts. Baptism saves, but its not the only thing that saves. Also, you very seriously misrepresented Cyril. His baptismal theology isn't modern catholic theology but it certainly qualifies as baptismal regeneration. He believed baptism of the spirit regenerated the spirit, while baptism in water regenerated the body.
1. If a verse is subject to misinterpretation, just say what it means. 2. “For” and the word translated “for” have a wide variety of possible meanings, including “because of.” Again, use a word consistent with explicit teachings, especially in Romans and Galatians. 3. Acts 2 is narrative, not doctrinal teaching; and the events happened at the beginning of a long learning curve. Using an extremely condensed command in a narrative to contradict doctrinal statements is dangerous. To avoid misinterpretation, base your message on doctrinal passages, not on narrative.
Another thing to note with Acts 2:38 is that the preposition behind "for" is εις, which is the same preposition that appears in Matthew 3:11 when John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto (εις) repentance."
I'm not aware of anyone who says that the baptism of John was the instrumental cause of repentance. Clearly, he was baptizing people who were already repentant. So if εις doesn't mean that baptism caused repentance in Matthew 3:11, why is it insisted that baptism causes remission of sins in Acts 2:38?
How then do you apply Acts 22:16
“Why is it insisted that baptism causes the remission of sins?”
Because the Bishops who wrote the Creed clearly taught that it did.
@@DemocracyofthedeadMark 1:1-8 could have something to do with it.
@@Defender_of_FaithDon't really see how that verse is a counterpoint to the original comment. The word used there is "and." Be baptized AND wash away sins. It would be perfectly reasonable to understand that these two things are connected but not causally related. Also, "calling on His name" is absolutely a euphemism indicating those possessing saving faith. "Those who call on the name of the Lord" is commonly used throughout Scripture to that effect.
What people would say is that you have not really fully repented until you are baptized -- the baptism serves as a seal for repentance to make it full. I don't think that is controversial: what happens when you meet a Christian that "loves Jesus" but they are embarrassed to get baptized or "don't" feel like it? you call into question their convictions.
-- -- -- --
I did a bit of research that I could into _Tevilah,_ or "Jewish Baptism," and I think it sheds light onto the Baptism "debates".
First, Tevilah was not about spiritual cleansing, it was about outward cleansing*. Ritual purity has nothing to do with personal guilt or sin, though there can be a little overlap. The point is to make yourself clean enough so that you can be in the presence of a Holy God without scaring him away lest he be ritually defiled (or, as he is an all-consuming fire, his pure cleansing presence burning you away into nothing).
Second, Tevilah was done by _just you, to you,_ and it was done multiple times a day or week as needed. By contrast, Christian baptism is done by another Christian, on behalf of Christ's authority, to you -- you cannot baptize yourself.
Tevilah were originally probably simple baths done in "living water" (flowing water). You went to a creek, got some hyssop, and scrubbed yourself -- if it's not enough, sit on the bank, sponge, scrub, and scoop up water to pour over yourself to clean.
At the advent of Alexander the Great's escapades into the Near East, Greeks brought with them the stone bathtub -- you sit in it, hot water pours into your bath from a tank from overhead and you sit in the water about true waist-deep. This changed the Jewish concept of cleanliness, and they began doing Tevilah similar to Greek baths.
Religious Jews began worrying the sanctity of Tevilah would be confounded for the Greek bath, so they developed the _mikveh,_ which was a large, head-height deep vertical pool that they filled with water. Above it were tanks always filled with water taken from a stream. There were steps that led down to the bottom of the mikveh. All towns had to have at least 7 mikvehs.
At this point, tevilah is now a ritual. There is no act of scrubbing. You strip naked in front of your friends, and you walk down standing up perfectly straight into the water until it covers your head, turn around, and immediately walk back out -- vertical immersion for a mere second.
Tevilah was required of all male, female, slave, and child converts to Judaism by the 3rd c. BC. Jews even debated over whether or not Gentile men had to be circumcised being that tevilah was now required alongside circumcision. Many said only circumcision, many said both, and some said just Tevilah (the perspective Christians would adopt, showing it was already an opinion floating in Jewish circles). Children that were not old enough to perform Tevilah on themselves, the mother held them in her arms, and they went down into the water together. If a woman wanted to keep her slaves after conversion, she either had to do tevilah first or she had to hold them and they all go down at the same time so they all become Jews at the same time -- if the slave becomes a Jew first, then he is no longer technically the same person, and no longer her slave.
The Didache prefers that you use living water for your baptism too -- in fact, that seems to be what the Early Church cared about most, but you see something interesting. You immerse; if not, you pour; if not, you sprinkle -- this is a practical concern about how much water you have. IIRC, and I can't source this part as I forgot to write it down, it seemed like I found where some Jews did allow pouring or sprinkling if you didn't have enough water for a full mikveh, and then some sects still didn't necessarily immerse.
-- -- -- --
Now the Essenes did Tevilah a little different. They did not strip naked. Men wore a loin cloth that covered their full false-waist area, women wore a short dress with a bottom, but the _implications_ of Tevilah were different.
Essenes believed that the only true Tevilah washed you both internally and externally. Bear in mind that Christ says you must not wash the outside of the cup, but the inside also -- they had a similar idea. They believed that when Tevilah was done in a _true heart of repentance,_ with true intent to change, then it energized the Tevilah and it was a true tevilah, and it made you ritually outwardly pure and washed you internally so that your inside was also ritually pure. This seems to be what John the Baptist believed, but that may be projection.
-- -- -- --
I can source all of this except for the claim about women bearing their children down into the water (yet) -- I have heard a few scholars say that, and I respect them as they generally don't lie and one of them firmly believes infant baptism is blasphemy, so he isn't biased for it. I can source women bearing their slaves down into the water.
I believe it should be mandatory in all seminaries for all Protestant Pastors to study the history of the Church (without bias). Along with the studying of Scripture.
That is exactly what seminaries do.
They do but Baptist seminaries gloss over 1,000 years of it
Also to make it mandatory to exercise discernment when reading history, and not read history so gullibly. There was a major rewrite of history that took place in the 4th century.
Agree. And let’s get Catholics to study actual history as well, instead of the “Catholic version” of history.
Agreed. Many people have converted to Catholicism because they have studied the early church. They have said "we" (Protestants) "do not practice our faith like the early Christians. Who does? The Catholics, especially the Eucharist".
Please make that series on the Apostles Creed, that would be awesome.
YES! Please do this. I would love it.
I would like a history of it, especially looking at the critical scholarship on it, going all the way back to Lorenzo Valla.
This would be AMAZING!!
The original unaltered Apostles Creed is the only legitamate statement of Christian faith.
My brother in Christ, I agree with your father. I would love the Dr. Ortlund word-by-word breakdown of the Apostles' Creed series.
Unfortunately, I have found many Baptists, including myself for a long time, have never heard of the Nicene Creed.
One baptism for the remission of sins, except you get rebaptized five times through your life as you realise you never really believed right the first four times 😎
probably because pastors see "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" and they prefer to keep anything catholic related outside their churches
So true. I believe it should be mandatory in all seminaries for all Prot Pastors to study the history of the Church...Foundation is utmost importance.
@@matthew_scarbrough No one understands in the beggining of anything. But time and studying and teachings reveals what things(spiritually) we done.
@@tymon1928 Ortlund is not your typical Protestant.
First, I along with everyone else on here agree that a series on the Apostles Creed would be amazing.
Second, you have no idea how ideal the timing of this video was. I am baptist, have been all my life, and I have only in the last couple years been exposed to tradition, creeds, classical theology, the church fathers, etc. In that endeavor a number of things have actually strengthened in my faith, however the question of baptismal efficacy I have found my world a bit turned upside down and I'm still struggling through it. You have been hugely helpful as I wrestle through it all, so thank you. My concerns have not been completely solved yet but I believe I am closer than I was before.
If everyone gets to define the words of the Creed however they want, there is no point in having a Creed. Your points are interesting but neglect to address the most relevant question in this discussion: What did the men who gave us the Nicene Creed believe "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" means? I honestly don't care how 17th Century Baptists define baptismal regeneration (1,300 years after the fact). I don't care how the Westminster Divines defined it. I care about what the patristic "Framers" meant... because that's what I'm being asked to affirm in the Nicene Creed. Think of it this way: when a leftist judge takes an oath to "support, protect, and defend" the Constitution, he's committing a form of perjury because he fully intendeds to offend the "original intent" of those who drafted the document (like, for example, finding the right to an abortion within the text). Similarly, you don't get to claim creedal orthodoxy while simultaneously imposing your peculiar brand of sacramental theology upon the writings of the Nicene Council/fathers-- which we know they didn't hold.
I don’t understand how one can claim, in good faith, to be a Christian without affirming the Nicene Creed. In refusing to affirm it, they are separating themselves from the martyrs, confessors, and fathers, without whom the true faith doesn’t even exist.
Many find the idea of the trinity to be pagan
@@geordiewishart1683then they are pagan because they affirm anti Christian ideas about God.
@@geordiewishart1683 it’s hard for me to imagine someone claiming to be a Christian, yet also claiming that a foundational Christian doctrine is pagan.
What do you mean by "affirming" it?
Are creeds a be all end all, or merely a starting point? The creeds can be useful teaching tools, but where do they stand as a piece of authority?
As a Christian, we affirm many things, many things which are not found in the creeds. That's the problem.
@@joecoolmccall I’m not aware of anyone who believes that the Creed is all a Christian affirms. If I said something that suggests such, it was not my intent. The Creed contains objective facts concerning the Christian faith. It contains foundational, essential doctrines.
The more I study church history the more I think "why on earth did Gavin go from Presbyterian to Baptist???" 🤔
He was a Presbyterian?
@@morghe321Baptised in the Church of Scotland no less.
His studies on credo-baptism led him to believe that the practice of baptizing infants is a development and that credo-baptism is the correct path.
Or better yet, why did he not become Lutheran: the original and only true Protestant branch of the Reformation. All the rest are part of what’s known as “The Radical Reformation”. Speaking as a former Baptist.
Because he found out that presbyterian covenant theology is false, and became a creedobaptist
When Lutherans say that a Cornelius situation is an exception, this is circumstantial. It is the exception because most Christians are baptized as infants. In the time of the Bible, most Christians are adult converts since it is the first generation of Christians. We do not mean it is a theological exception; it is an exception of circumstance. It is still the case today that adult converts are regenerated and converted prior to baptism and baptism acts as a sealing for them.
Yes. Is speaking of the Baptism of an adult convert as a seal of a prior regeneration and conversion from Johann Gerhard? I've read it somewhere, but cannot remember where. Perhaps it was Krauth quoting Gerhard...?
That is how Aquinas and many Catholics (including me) understand it as well. Adult converts are usually regenerated at conversion, infants at baptism.
Thanks for sharing that. When I talk to Lutherans, I get different answers about this. Is there one authoritative or definitive position on this for Lutherans? Something in a statement of faith or confession you could point to?
I have heard Lutherans differ on this point from you, specifically the part about adults being regenerate prior to baptism. As I have come to understand typical Lutheran argument, it is the normative means for God to withhold the grace of regeneration until baptism, even for adults despite having faith prior. I think this is generally rooted in Luthers belief in infant faith and thus believing that for all, both infants and adults, first comes faith, then comes baptism, then comes regeneration. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't mean to be presumptuous assuming I, a baptist, have any place educating a Lutheran on Lutheran theology. This is just the way I have seen Lutheran theology portrayed and I would love to be corrected if I am wrong here.
And, even though adult converts come to faith before baptism, their baptism applies forgiveness of sins to their entire life, as it is the grace of Jesus’ death on the cross applied to their entire life.
So we can say a baptism at 30 forgives the sins from birth to death, in the same way that we are forgiven from a death that happened 2000 years ago.
I discovered you channel today and can't stop watching. I looked you up, and saw we are both Covenant MDiv grads and Baptist. God bless you brother!
cool, glad to be connected!
Please do a video series on the Apostles' Creed as your dad suggested! That would be a wonderful resource for the Church
The Nicene is the central statement used by our private school to pre-qualify new student-families in addition to affirming participation in a gospel-centered church. We're a school with Evangelicals, Baptists, Bible Fellowship, Anglicans, and Catholics and others.
I think this is where Protestants go wrong in the book of Acts. Cornelius and his household received the Spirit to speak in tongues as a sign for Peter. If speaking in tongues = regeneration then that means the apostles were only regenerated at Pentecost. Scripture is full of moments when people receive the Spirit for gifts (strength, leadership, prophecy, tongues). So it’s a false equivocation to say Cornelius and his household were regenerated when they received the Spirit. The next chapter makes it clear that the purpose of this odd event was meant to be a sign for Peter, not the natural Ordo salutis.
Agreed. They were also still baptized right after this spirit baptism.
If baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward change then why would the spirit baptism, (speaking in tongues which is arguably a greater outward demonstration) not have sufficed for Cornelius and his family. But instead they were still Baptized in water
Protestants don’t believe you are saved when you receive tongues. It is primarily Apostolic Pentecostals. Most other Pentecostals don’t believe it is the sign that saves you. Most other Protestants believe that tongues ceased in the first couple hundred years. And tongues are for today.
Oh my. Both you and Trent within the same hour!
"believers baptism" is alien to the early church
Every church in all history has practiced credo baptism, and all existing groups that would confess the catholic faith practice credo baptism. The issue is that rejection of infant baptism.
A Christian believer is someone who repents and gets baptized. That’s where the term believer’s baptism comes from. If you believe but refuse to obey Jesus by refusing to get baptized, then can someone say they are truly born again? I’m not including people who died before they could get baptized but only those who refuse.
”Believers baptism only”*
@@Hadloc411 by believers baptism i mean the Baptist understanding of baptism and their rejection of baptismal regeneration
Do not interrupt your wayward brother when he’s doing something right. Baby steps.
YES, please do a series on The Nicene Creed breaking it down statement by statement, that would be incredible!!
I love your channel. Thank you for conveying ideas in such a clear and biblical language.
Thank you for your perspective Dr Ortlund! I was not aware of the history of the creeds with the Baptist church.
The idea about going through the Nicene creed sounds great!
Hey Gavin - are you planning on making a response to Trent’s video on this topic? Just watched it and I really think there needs to be some additional care to the topic.
Can we PLEASE get that series on the Apostles Creed? I bet it’d get more views than you’d think!
Amen. I am a Baptist Pastor with Reformed leanings from the Philippines
While I applaud the Baptists who are moving towards adopting the Creed, it is also fascinating how much of it seems to be cherry-picked, i.e., a this-but-not-that approach. If we look at those who wrote the Creed, the Church at that time, and the approach to Christianity in general, it is quite difficult to ignore that that they were Sacramental in their approach to the faith, specifically in the two areas of the baptism and the Eucharist.
It's hard to miss that these two Sacraments were _transformative_ in nature; they weren't "symbols" in the modern sense of that term (symbols in the Classical sense, yes; not in the modern sense). They _did something_ to you. They weren't just "outward professions of faith," as the modern saying goes. The point being, why adopt the Creed and ignore the way the Creed-writers actually lived and behaved?
Again, I encourage Baptists to move in that direction. They just need to _keep_ moving in that direction.
Because the creed writers were not infallible. Was their understanding fully correct?
@@thadofalltrades well, the alternative to them being correct makes for a weird situation, but the assertion here somewhat misunderstands what I'm getting at. It's entirely possible that it's my fault for that, so I'll try to explain better.
The point is not that the Creed writers were "infallible." That's not part of my comment, nor is it an underlying assumption or presupposition. Rather, it is that they lived life and understood reality in such a way that imparts meaning into the words of said Creed that are lost by those who do not share that understanding. To take the Creed and say, "yes, I affirm all these things," but not actually affirm them in the way that the writers did means that it is a modernized version, not beholden to any original meaning.
This is a problematic position for adherents to _Sola Scriptura_ for numerous reasons, but also brings up more questions than it answers.
@@Gregorydrobny it's not problematic for sola scriptura because the idea is entirely biblical. We do this kind of thing for tons of biblical ideas. Understanding broadens and changes over time. There are lots of ideas of the church fathers had which were entirely wrong, but that doesn't change the fact they were church fathers. There should be no issue with looking back and affirming them for things they got right. Sola scriptura is not the Bible only, it's the Bible as the sole authority on issues of truth. Everything gets tested against what was transmitted in the Bible.
@@thadofalltrades it's problematic because it quickly becomes _Solo-Sola Scriptura_ for exactly the reasons described in my original comment. Does original intent of writings matter, or does only the modern context count, and who decides?
@@Gregorydrobny original context matters in determining what they intended for sure, but then that must be compared against the Bible. If their intent is biblically unsound then a modern understanding which corresponds more closely to the Scripture is appropriate. Our modem understanding cannot override Scripture, but it can override extra biblical statements if it's closer in meaning to the original deposit.
An important point often overlooked in Acts 2:38 is that repentance is mentioned prior to baptism. This would indicate that the individual must have made a statement of faith prior (or simultaneously) to the baptism. That matches the rest of the examples of baptism throughout the book of Acts. I relate the forgiveness of sin to the person repenting, and the baptism reflecting the spiritual reality that their sins have been washed away.
I love the idea of going through the apostles creed line by line. I’d watch. Currently and slowly reading Vermigli’s “Exposition on the 12 Articles of the Christian Faith.”
Fun video…complex issue to wrestle with. I love the idea of the creed deep dive.
This video is on of the main reasons I left the Baptist church. Not confessional or creedal. No respect for the church’s fathers or the reformation. Too much individualism. In my 15 years at Baptist churches I never heard the nicene creed or apostles creed. Thanks Gavin for helping my Baptist brothers and sisters reclaim their roots!
They're not 'church fathers' though, they're dead Christians, assuming they were saved.
Council of Nicea was chaired by the papal legate, who began proceedings by reading a letter from the Pope.
Nope. Watch the videos on this channel showing the actual history of the slow rise of the bishop of rome.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 You deny Hosius was the Pope's representative at Nicea?
Baptism by desire is a thing taught by the Church. Those over the age of reason, are baptized in desire, often long before they receive the Sacrament.
God bless you Gavin, you seem like a genuine dude
Correct. Baptism of Desire and Blood are both taught, Saint Cyprian of Carthage Letter 72 to Pompey is quite clear on that . The Feast of the Holy Innocents, on the Liturgical calendar of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Assyrian Church of the East seems to have started in the early 400's.
10:07 Yes please on a series working through the creeds line by line. Especially if you can give suggestions / resources for explaining it to children.
We homeschool and I have been looking for resources for working through the creeds like that, and haven’t found anything appropriately robust on content but simple enough for kids to understand.
I am very happy that most of your commenters found this video to be helpful.
I, however, found it raised more questions than it answered.
Please do a deep dive on "believers baptism," which is the position of my church.
I'm trying to do the dishes while listening to this but I keep having to put stop and make note of a book that I want to read 😅
I highly recommend the book Light from Light by Bishop Barron Word on Fire. As a Roman Catholic, I enjoy and learn from your videos. Also, we recite the Nicene Creed during Mass. Do Baptists acknowledge Catholic Baptism as valid ?
Hi friend. In general, Baptists view baptism as something believers do after coming to faith in the gospel. Therefore, Baptists encourage people who have been baptized as infants to be baptized again, including Catholics. If an adult is baptized into the Catholic faith, but later wants to join a Baptist church, the leadership of the church would want to ensure the person was baptized under a firm conviction in the gospel, and not for another reason (marriage, immigration documents, financial interest, etc).
I’ve struggled with the question “am I going to be
damned?” as well of questions of how to understand baptismal regeneration.
I’ve been a follower of Christ for a while now and the assurance and security of my salvation has been a large focus of mine for a while
How can I reconcile this with the fact that church history for so long disagreed with the point that one could have assurance. I want to have a clear understanding of salvation and my relationship with Jesus
(This has caused me some anxiety )
Thank you!
I think an analysis of the Nicene Creed might be a better idea. You could address how the Fathers at Nicea interpreted "one baptism for the remission of sins." Thanks, Gavin, for your charitable videos. On another point, would you consider a video critiquing Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary"? Thanks!
Yes to all of this! There are too many things I want Gavin to do videos on because the Baptist tradition is starving for people like Gavin.
Could you do a response to Trent Horn’s creed video?
Look I was a SB. For over 40.yrs . I was raised in the Catholic Church.
The Apostle Creed used to be in the Hymnal in the back. I can never remember it ever been recited. FYI.I returned to the Catholic Church . After the last split. 😊
Long time viewer here on my personal channel. I just made my first UA-cam video on this subject talking about the wording of the BFM2000. I think you’re right that Baptists have a better tradition than what’s commonly presented to people and even what’s stated in the BFM2000. I’m curious about what you think regarding the BFM calling the sacraments “acts of obedience” rather than “means of salvation” which you’d find in the Baptist Catechism. In my opinion, it’s a huge failure to make the distinction between law and gospel. I’d love to see the Reformed Baptists within the SBC address that even before revisiting the Creed (which I’d also love to see added). Anyways, thanks always for your channel. If been a huge help to me
Apostles creed series sounds great to me!
Is there a book that has a list of early church writers that affirmed Christians were saved prior to baptism? I know Justin Martyr and Cyril of Alexandria were mentioned but I’m curious where I could read more about this. Thanks for the video
I was Born and raised Baptist and Baptists can't. It flatly teaches Water Baptismal Regeneration, that is what the authors meant it to teach when they wrote it, so I *would* argue that none of the Reformed/Calvinists/Puritans could honestly affirm it's plain meaning without adding some qualifier like "for the elect" or "spirit baptism", never mind Baptists who call Baptism an Ordinance and not a Sacrament. Baptists are the most Reformed of the Reformed branch of Christianity and Splitting Baptism into Water/Spirit like the Reformed do means that one has two Baptisms, and "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." and if you would say that someone who was born again in spirit, and thus has one half of baptism, would go to heaven if they died without the other half, you would also have to say that someone baptized in water, but not in spirit would also go to heaven, which no one I know of does. It is always the water side that is seen as non essential which I find to be tending Gnostic, and denies the words of our Lord Himself. The Reformed/Baptists could be defined as one who says the water isn't necessary, since the Sacramental Christians all say that the Spirit is necessary, but they also say water is necessary, whereas the Reformed/Baptist view is that water is optional for regeneration.
The logical (and honest) thing to do is drop the title Sacrament and call it an Ordinance, which Baptists did. Redefining the meanings of words has the nature of dishonesty and is entirely unhelpful. I understand the desire to affirm the creed, but Baptist Theology (and all Reformed/Calvinistic actually) simply can't without tying itself into knots. I really personally dislike this bending and blending going on. You can't be a Roman Catholic and not believe in the Pope, you can't be an Arminian Confessional Presbyterian, you can't be a Lutheran and deny the real presence of the Lord in the bread and wine, and you can't be a Baptist and affirm Baptismal Regeneration. Words have meaning and it is becoming impossible to find a church that is, in fact, what they say they are. What is a Pentecostal who is cessationist?
The Orthodox Creed you mention is a General Baptist ("Arminian") Confession of faith which could allow for a slightly more accepting view, however, the Nicene creed in the An Orthodox Creed isn't complete, it reads:
The Nicene Creed.
WE believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
Visible, and Invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only begotten Son of the Father, that is the Substance of the Father, God of
God, Light of Light, Very God from very God, Begotten, not made, being of
one Substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both the
Things in Heaven, and the Things in Earth; Who for us Men, and for our
Salvation, came down, and was Incarnate, he was made Man; he suffered,
and rose the third Day, he ascended into the Heavens: He shall come to
judge both the Quick and the Dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost.
Therefore they which say, there was a time when he was not, before he was
begotten, or that he had his Beginning of nothing, or that he is of another
Substance. Or Essence; or to be Convertible, or Mutable, these the Catholick
and Apostolick Church of God, doth pronounce for Accursed.
They saw the problems of the clause and dropped it. They had to change the Creed to include it.
Great point about this creed. It seems that maybe two of these Baptist confessions Gavin referenced cited the Nicene Creed rather than the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and thus skirted the baptism issue . It also skirted the one holy Catholic and apostolic church . That whole final paragraph that we recite was only set forth at Constantinople in 381.
@@toddvoss52 Exactly that, but the creed being discussed and that was motioned at the SBC, was the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed which everyone uses and calls the Nicene Creed. It seems to have the nature of dishonesty to say "I affirm the Nicene Creed" and to mean the one that no one uses anymore.
Perhaps you could do a video on justification versus regeneration? I’ve been toying with this for a couple of years now or roundabout, and I suspect there may be a difference. Perhaps there is a difference from when God declares you to be right and the beginning of the Lord, making us a new creation. If you think of Romans three, four and five, as justification, and chapter 6, as regeneration, and, the beginning of the process of sanctification, it may shed light on the baptismal question.
Very helpful
What was the book on Baptist history he recommended?
I would watch a series of videos on each phrase of the Apostle’s Creed.
Great video!
stoked for the apostles creed!
I'm a Presbyterian, and I learnt quite a few new things about Baptists from this video. I had no idea Baptists believe in 'sacraments' (I've only ever heard them talk about ordinances and even had few debate me on my sacramental views), and again I didn't realize that baptist DO believe in sacramental efficacy. I was always under the impression they took the Zwinglian view that the sacraments are exclusively memorial and symbolic.
Read the 1689 LBC and 1646 LBC baptists affirm the sacraments
They do take that view. I grew up in it. I don’t know a single Baptist that believes in anything sacramental or that anything on earth has any power. They reject the physical world entirely.
@@SarahB012 in a baptist, I believe baptism saves, and Christ is truly present in the supper. 1689 LBC
Thank you, Gavin, for your work. I believe you are making an important contribution to building the Kingdom of God. (I hope no one stumbles over that formulation - it is not meant as a subtle theological comment.) Anyhow, I want to comment on two things in this video. First, yes, please make a video on the Apostles Creed. I think it could be helpful to many. Second, I work within the small evangelical movement in Austria, which is strictly baptistic (not to be confused with the Evangelische Kirche, which is generally NOT evangelical). When you referenced the Anabaptists as a sociological rather than a theological term, I wonder if you were not limiting yourself too much to the North American context. Many Evangelicals in Roman Catholic central Europe feel a strong connection to the early Anabaptists - even if our direct roots come from a combination of German pietism and English and American baptistic traditions. Here in Austria the government recognized a group of baptistic churches for the first time in Austrian history only as recently as 2013 - we are officially call the Free Churches of Austria (Freikirchen in Österreich or FKÖ). This movement includes Baptists, Mennonites, some Pentecostals, and a new group called the Union of Evangelical Churches (BEGÖ), which is a uniquely Austrian denomination. When it comes the German speaking Europe, most church historians seem to conflate the German and Austrian situations and to ignore Austria's unique history in regard to evangelicals. I could go on, but I just want to encourage you to continue growing in your understanding of Protestantism and Evangelicalism outside of the NA context. Keep up the good work.
Say someone was baptized as an infant and throughout his or her life grew up in a credo-baptism church. This person participates in the church and believes/has faith in Jesus. If baptismal regeneration is untrue (baptism doesn’t actually have any saving efficacy in any manner), should this person get re-baptized?
This describes me pretty well, so hopefully you don’t mind my .02 on this. I was born and raised UMC and baptized as an infant. When I hit adulthood, I fell out of the practice of going to church. As the years passed, my life began to resemble an unbeliever more and more. I don’t say that to imply I never believed, because I am would say that I did.
Ultimately, I felt that the Lord was calling me back to a relationship I wasn’t actively a part of anymore. I never really got deep into the Bible as a kid, but I have changed that, and found my way into a Baptist church since then. I struggled with the concept of being “re-baptized”.
The thing that changed my position was Acts 2:38. If the correct response is to repent, believe, and be baptized, I can’t say that being baptized as an infant really qualified for me. I had no understanding of Jesus then, and I also lacked the capacity to repent. As a personal conviction, I decided that I should be baptized.
@@daninva6458 I appreciate you sharing your story! Thank you for that.
I guess my question is just a little different. What if there is no “falling away” and no specific moment of “I must repent”?
I have just experienced the marvellous grace of Anointing (“Holy Unction”) at the local RC church.
I’m left wondering why, when this - along with Confession - is as explicit as Baptism and Eucharist in the “Apostolic deposit”, so many churches which claim to follow that deposit like mine (Anglican), Presbyterian, Lutheran and a whole lot of others don’t practise these Sacraments????
Anglicans have them in the books but they are hardly ever used…..
I couldn’t find that quote by St. Cyril of Jerusalem-I looked at the citing but I couldn’t find it there. May I ask where you got it from?
Now I can get behind Gavin defending “Baptist beliefs”… He is a Baptist after all.… When he argues for “protestant beliefs” that’s when it gets dicey lol. For a “historical view” of Baptist church history you should check out ‘The Trail of Blood’ book.
its wrong to think a Baptist cannot defend Protestant beliefs, just as it would be to say a Catholic could not defend "Christianity" or an Eastern Orthodox Christian could not defend theism. There is nothing wrong with defending your broader identity.
@@TruthUniteswhat are your thoughts on ‘The Trail of Blood’ Baptist Church history publication?
quote any early church father who rejected infant baptism.
Were they all wrong? then God didnt keep his promice of preserving true doctrine through the Church.
Let me preface by saying I do not in anyway want to be unkind or dismissive of those who advocate only for credo (believers) baptism. Having said that, modern American Evangelicals who support only Credo Baptism are outside of traditional christianity. Almost universally up until the time of the Reformation the Church, both East & West, taught "regenerative" Baptism, including for infants. During and immediately following the Reformation the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, condemned those Anabaptists who spoke against regenerative and specifically infant baptsim. My point is that modern American Evangelical Christianity, which descends from the Anabaptists, is outside traditional Christianity, and is in essence a "new" Branch within Christianity. This does not mean that all Chrisitans who support infant and regenerative Baptism agree precisely on what happens in baptism, but rather that modern American Evangelicals are not even in the discussion amongst those who follow biblical teaching on Baptism.
Have you seen the video “Calvin vs the Baptists”? It argues that the 17th century Baptists had some unfortunate similarities to the Anabaptists, such as a large emphasis on prophecies, particularly end-times prophecies that the world would end in 20 years or something. It gives various examples from primary sources, like writings from signers of the 2nd London Baptist Confession.
Looked up the "Orthodox Radicals" book and it's $150 😭
Might be worth it! I broke the bank on some Lexicons and cant say I regret it
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you also were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph.4:5-6
We can argue and disagree all day on nuanced interpretation. But at the end of the day, we can all agree we should have Faith in Jesus, Repent and be Baptized. Thats the beginning of the New Life. Why anyone would want to downplay such amazing gifts of God's Grace, I'll never understand.
Forgive me from the bottom of my heart but this really seems like retro actively forcing ones theology into what is clearly Catholic/Orthodox history. Gavin I love you, I know you mean well but let’s call a spade a spade.
But as Gavin points out, Baptists have historically believed in the creeds. His explanation of the Real Presence in the sacrament transformed my thinking about what takes place as we take the bread and the cup. This is not just a Catholic or Orthodox view and I, for one, long for the restoration of the historic Baptist faith.
True the Nicene Creed was created by the Catholic church to protect its members from false doctrines of heresies rampart at that time. It is a summary of belief of the Catholic Church.
@HiHoSilvey it seems like retro active forcing of theology simply because the historical Church Fathers of the Apostolic and Patristic age unilaterally affirm the Catholic/Orthodox view. I did not bring up the real presence- the point here is that Baptismal Regeneration was historically defined by the Church. The church fathers are clear here. It’s inescapable no matter how kind and holy Gavin is- he is amazing. But the truth is the truth no matter how much one wishes it were something different.
Either Jesus and the Apostles botched this doctrine up so badly when they were teaching the flock that the whole Church unilaterally and immediately accepted a false teaching- or Gavin here, I humbly submit, even with all of his great attributes (he has many) is simply making a human mistake.
God bless.
So, I didn't hear every word but are you really suggesting we define the word in a way that "we" can accept even if it's not what "they" meant and pretend we are in agreement? That's how the (small representation) of attendees at Nicea came to so-called "agreement" on homousia even though the disagreement came out in spades in days weeks years and decades following Nicea in ways that we sort of pretend didn't exist.
No christians historically believe what you belive prior to the 15th century
dont you think its a problem that as a baptist you cannot find any creed or ecumenical council you can agree with fully without reintepreting their words.
Listening to this in light of your other videos, why not become a confessional Lutheran like Schooping did? He went from Orthodox to AnaBaptist to confessional Lutheran, why not follow his path given everything said here?
I'm a former Catholic turned Baptist. I'm now trending towards something like Lutheran because my options in the Baptist world seem to be 1) shallow generic evangelicalism that doesn't emphasise the forgiveness of sin and the grace of a loving and sovereign God, 2) Reformed theology, which I simply don't agree with due to limited atonement and the gross overemphasis on the 3rd use of the law.
What I love about being Baptist is the simplicity and humility of the faith...but not if it becomes shallow and trite (not to mention, proud!).
Personally, I'd rather see good teaching on Law and Gospel than the Nicene Creed, but anything that connects us back to the Reformation and the early church would be welcome.
Being in the church of Christ myself I hold myself to no creeds and no book but the Bible. However, I still read commentaries and the church fathers but I do so with the Bible right next to it because I view that Scripture has absolute authority over anything outside of Scripture because I believe that is how God intended it. Hopefully more dialogue will continue between all traditions and that we put the Scriptures first, May God bless you all! Great video Gavin!
I do think the Church of Christ's view of no creeds and confessions is deeply problematic
@@Convexhull210 how so?
@matthewthompson1942 respectfully, 1) it's self refuting as all church bodies must hold to statements of faith that reflect scripture 2) the creeds are just that
@@Convexhull210 must hold according to whom?
@matthewthompson1942 scripture itself I would argue lays creeds early on and those later creeds are reflections of the earlier ones
Random question. If God created us through evolution, do you think he did that with angels too?
They can - if they change and qualify some things.
𝗡𝗢, 𝗕𝗔𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗛𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗗
The Southern Baptist Convention vote was more honest than this video, as they at least recognized that the phrase, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins" as a reference to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Dr. Ortlund's disregard for the historical and grammatical sense of the Greek, Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, is just as bad as William Lane Craig's heresy. And now, the Southern Baptists have basically declared publicly that they are not in line with historic Christianity.
It would have been better if Dr. Ortlund just came out honestly by saying what he claims to say, that ONLY the Scriptures are infallible, and that the Creeds including the Nicene Creed, though an authoritative rule of faith, is NOT infallible and is mistaken when it declares, Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum, which is an objective expression of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Again, at least the Southern Baptist Convention has honestly confessed that they are divorced from historical Christianity and the historical-grammatical understanding of the Nicene Creed.
Although those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the Southern Baptist Convention, and apparently Dr. Ortlund himself, believes that Baptist theology is in agreement with the Nicene Creed, the Southern Baptist Convention was consistent in not adopting the Nicene Creed for two main reasons.
First, Baptists as a whole do not believe in one universal Church but in several, distinct, independent, autonomous local "churches", thus denying the article "I believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal] and apostolic Church", for the very Council of Nicea denied the Baptist doctrine of local church autonomy.
But most importantly, Baptists deny that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins, and could only adopt the Nicene Creed by twisting the meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism 𝙛𝙤𝙧 the remission of sins", into "I acknowledge one Baptism '𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇' the remission of sins", ignoring the fact that both before and after the Council of Nicea the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was widely acknowledged except by the Pelagians, and so to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian at best, which is why St. Augustine argued for baptismal regeneration to oppose Pelagianism, the idea that one can repent and turn to God without the need of grace.
At the same time, those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the SBC when asked about the article on baptism replied, “Coming under the article on the Holy Spirit, this refers to baptism in the Spirit or regeneration, which occurs with faith. Water baptism is the outward confession of that prior inward reality”, thus denying that the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit is one baptism, calling them two distinct baptisms, and thus they do not really acknowledge “one baptism” but two.
And the SBC, by not only not adopting the Nicene Creed, but also showing a willingness to twist the historical and grammatical meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins", has divorced itself from historic, Scriptural Christianity.
And so, 𝐍𝐎, 𝐁𝐀𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃.
ua-cam.com/video/kZsuuJUnwOM/v-deo.html
I love you Gavin
Thanks for your videos. The example of Queen Elizabeth's becoming queen was helpful. Please note though that her Accession day was the day her father the King died, February 6, 1952., while her Coronation day was over a year later in 1953.
If I should "oppose bad interpretations" that gives me too much authority and in my weakness I will adopt that which "I" want. Only the trinitarian God has the right interpretations on ALL scripture. Somewhere, somehow those interpretations around unclear, and yet vital, scripture need to be communicated to us in a clear and unambiguous way when serious question arise. This is the genius of the authority of the Pope and Magisterium who receive this truth through the Holy Spirit and dispense it out. Without this authority, we are on our own to "oppose bad interpretations" and are thus imputed with too much personal authority.
Baptist (by extension all Protestants ((Lutherans rightly teach Baptismal regeneration)) treat the Nicene creed like progressive handle the United States Constitution- a “living breathing document” that can be redefined into their own likeness.
Protestants literally are redefining Nicene Creed to mean something different than authors that penned the Creed.
Many Anglicans affirm baptismal regeneration. There are even Reformed types who are moving towards it.
If you want a breakdown of the the Apostle's Creed, see Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism.
I think almost all protestant branches, at least in the US, have an issue with ignoring and forgetting church history. This is something the church needs to do better in teaching.
A series through the apostles creed would be amazing, esp if Dr. Ortlund included an introduction to its origins in the first video and then compared its wording to that of future creeds like the nicene as he went along.
Informative and interesting overiew. Thank you.
Thought- I wonder if some of the difficulties with contemporary Baptist approval of the creed comes from the difference between American and English Baptists. Yes, Baptists in England have historically been confessional, but here in the US, much of Baptist evangelism was done by pastors ordaind with little to no formal education. American Baptists are not necessarily as confessional perhaps purely because they have only come to the same level of theological education as some of their counterparts in the last century. Historical and confessional studies are catching up after two centuries of underdevelopment. Thanks for helping make Baptists better at being Baptists!
I like to think that I was on the "Baptists can't affirm the creed" train before it was cool, bc I did some collab content a few months ago before this all broke out, in the context of Christian Nationalism, and argued that those who opposed state involvement in the Church (esp. Baptists) would have had to oppose the Council of Nicaea, since that was an imperial organ imposed on (tho accepted by) the Church. What do you think about this doc?
I would make a distinction between the means by which a creed comes about vs. the content of the creed. Although we Baptists affirm the separation of church and state, that does not mean that everything that happens in the context of a church-state union must be rejected. So we can affirm it as a doctrinal standard. Nothing in the creed addresses church-state relations. I would try to think of an analogy but my brain is too tired at the moment.
Could you do a video on your understanding of the “eternally begotten” phrase in the creed?
Why should Gavin's view of 'eternally begotten' be better than that of the Church Fathers?
It means the son came out of the father from all eternity
so your saving you believe in baptism for the forgivness of sins. would your understanding be that by being baptised all your sins are forgiven past and future or just past?
I don't even think it's a question whether Christians (of any denomination) should uphold the Nicene Creed. AD 325 is super early. If you don't believe it then you are not following Christ in the way the early followers of Christ did. Especially as there was no formal canon of the Bible until a little later, AD 382.
Just like the man on the cross who did not have time to go get baptized yet Jesus said today you will be with me in paradise. I don’t understand why no one talks about this. Including you
Brilliant, thank you
I left the Texas Baptists, and I find myself defending them over this (not the first and probably not the last time I'll do so).
All my theology and church history professors were adamant about "No creed but the Bible." They were opposed to the Baptist Faith and message, because the "confession" was to function too much like a creed in that it was requiring acquiescence. There was a strong division between confession and creed. As a result, they portrayed these confessions you listed as something different than creeds and used the fact that General Baptists were both the sizable majority for over a century and widely unitarian as an example of how broad baptists could be. Granted, much of this was the bad blood between the BGCT and the SBC, but it makes me more sympathetic to them rejecting creeds even if I affirm them now.
It is a virtue to stick to one's principles and a vice to compromise them. I don't think they can affirm it institutionally even if there were no objections. Had they done so, it would have disappointed me.
Not really important, but it would be more accurate to use "synecdoche" for figurative language that uses the part for the whole (or the whole for the part). It can be considered a kind of metonymy, but metonymy is more generally defined as using one thing to refer to something related to it.
For example, we often say, "The White House put out a statement." Well, the White House itself is the building, which did not put out a statement. Rather, someone who works for the presidential administration (possibly even working within the White House) put out a statement. That person is not the whole of which the White House is a part, and that person is not a part of the whole that is the White House (the building). But there is a locative relationship between the two.
Great video, it amazes me how deep the Cartesian division of reality has affected Evangelical theology. So much so that a corporeal sign given by God can have no real material effect in the view of some Baptist.
Hey Gavin, could you do a video about what are the "gates of Hades"? Our Catholic brothers and sisters often like to bring up that the Catholic Church is the one true Church because otherwise it would mean the gates of Hades prevaled against the Church founded on Peter. The possible issue i see with that understanding of Matthew 16 is this:
If Jesus is talking about Peters confession of faith, then "gates of Hades" is literally refering to the "gate" which keeps the dead, dead. Not some force that reaches into this plane of a existence (my termonology there is not super well informed) so the phrase "gates of Hades" couldnt have anything to do with the visible instrtution of the Church, leaving it applicable only to the death and resurrection of Jesus and possibly by extention the invisible body of Christ(Church). That distinction even being true for Catholicism, because there are wolves in sheep clothing within the visible instetution who are overcome by the gates of Hades without Jesus.
Thank you.
P.s If not a video I would still love to somehow hear your thoughts on this matter. God bless!
As a Catholic I just wanted to point out that it's not just MT 16:18 that we use to prove that Jesus' Church can't teach error, but 1 Tim 3:15 as well when it states that the Church "is the pillar and foundation of truth." For if His Church can lie, then how could it be the pillar and foundation of truth? And if it lies even once, how could anyone know if it isn't lying again? The acceptance of error by Jesus' Church is the main reason why Protestantism is a non-starter for me.
@@ernie8869 Thank you for your input! There is definitely more discussion to be had on this matter and I will look into Timothy 3:15. I want to be clear that my reason for bringing up the possible issue in Matthew 16 isnt meant to be a "gotcha" nor to disprove the Catholic church. I want to do away with misconceptions that are all to common in both Catholic and Protestant circles, and follow Christ wherever he may lead me. I may be missing something obvious in the passage but it's better to ask than to just interpret it completely by myself, you know? I hold to Sola Scriptura, not Solo Alone-o 😆
@@justacameraman4900 Haha, I love it, Solo-alone-o!! I may borrow that line, but at least I'll admit that it's not something I thought up!! The interesting thing about interpreting the Bible is how do you determine whose interpretation is correct? Everyone will say that "scripture interprets scripture" and that they are interpreting correctly, but no one really knows. Another reason why the need for an infallible Church whoever that may be. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of Truth, not "truths." God bless you on your faith journey!!!
@@justacameraman4900 I'd say just follow the 'fruits' of the church.
Find the church that does not sell itself to the modern world and you will find Christ there.
When the Holy Spirit appears above St. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ in the Jordan River and God the Father speaks, regenerative baptism is inaugurated and confirmed....Sacrament #1.
Superb!
Please make a series on apostles creed
Thank you
Why are we supposed to be Baptist but not southern Baptist but reformed?
How do I pick the right protestant Church? Why can't I just be Catholic like everyone for the first 1000 years of Christianity?
That isn't true. Haven't you ever heard of the Church of Persia or the pope of Alexandria or the church of Ethiopia? Baptists historically have considered themselves to be catholic Christians, just like all protestants have historically. Don't make false historical claims.
If you mean RC, you can't, because the RCC strayed further and further from the original, New Testament Christianity.
If you have to clarify “lower case o orthodox or lower case c catholic” it’s not orthodox or catholic.
why is that? Truly curious.
@@TruthUnites there are 2 senses to each word. One is grammatical and the other is Christian. Grammatically orthodox means “right teaching” and catholic means “universal” in the Christian sense, they mean “right doctrine as inspired by the Holy Spirit” and catholic is pretty much the same. So when the Fathers write a creed they are referring to the actual, visible, physical institution that is Apostolic, Catholic, and Orthodox. But when Protestants want to adopt the creeds they import their definitions: (the universal church is invisible and orthodoxy is contained only within the scriptures) into the creed which betrays their context and the point of the creed.
yeah I don't see why it follows we cannot clarify the grammatical sense by indicating a lower case first letter.
@@TruthUnites do you believe Catholics are Christian?
_won't get a lot of views? who cares!_
The call is to *be faithful;* may the Lord bless your work. Don't be disappointed by the lack of reception - the *seeds that do sprout in good ground, yield in multiples of 30, 60, and 100.*
that southern baptists convention incident has grown popular, and it has been talked about within the orthodox church and i think catholic church since it happened, i love you i really do, but isnt this a little pathetic? the nicene creed came out before all the cannons of the bible was put together, yet you guys cant even agree on that? the creed? which was like the profession of the faith for every Christian for so long? This is why i started studying church history in 2023 from a protestant point of view, because u begin to realize how little protestants agree on things, its because you lack so many doctrines that were already preached for nearly 2,000 years. so many problems would be solved but because everyone can interpret scripture how ever they would lilke, what stops one baptist from saying "no" and the other from saying "yes"?
did you watch the video? Within the first 60 seconds I demonstrate that Baptists did not reject the Nicene Creed; rather, it was deferred to an executive committee.
Short answer is no. Unless they change the definition of "I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sin."
Part of this is that SBC seminaries do not teach historical theology. Plenty of Church history. In 2021 I took the first historical theology class at Midwestern that they had. The sbc is shallow in Historical Theology sadly because the seminaries are lacking in it. Thankful for MBTS and Matthew Barrett tho for trying to change this!
As someone who believes in Baptismal regeneration. I have no problem believing that Cornelius' experience was normal. Its the normal experience of adult converts. Baptism saves, but its not the only thing that saves. Also, you very seriously misrepresented Cyril. His baptismal theology isn't modern catholic theology but it certainly qualifies as baptismal regeneration. He believed baptism of the spirit regenerated the spirit, while baptism in water regenerated the body.
1. If a verse is subject to misinterpretation, just say what it means.
2. “For” and the word translated “for” have a wide variety of possible meanings, including “because of.” Again, use a word consistent with explicit teachings, especially in Romans and Galatians.
3. Acts 2 is narrative, not doctrinal teaching; and the events happened at the beginning of a long learning curve. Using an extremely condensed command in a narrative to contradict doctrinal statements is dangerous. To avoid misinterpretation, base your message on doctrinal passages, not on narrative.