Explaining the Sacraments: Baptism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Baptism is one of the most important parts of the Christian life. In this video I hope to explain both the symbolic and actual significance of baptism. I understand there are some disagreements between different Christian denominations and I try to explain the places where my tradition differs, but generally try to keep the video fairly broad.
Young Anglican is just a hobby for a theology nerd. I do all of this in my spare time and don't have any relevant degrees in theology or philosophy, but hope that nonetheless my thoughts and knowledge still have a kind of value.
If you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my locals, and get early access to some of my videos:
younganglican....
I wish the memory of my baptism wasn't just being sat down by the Deacons before the service so they could emphasize how baptism was not a spiritual change, only a public display of faith. Oh, and someone stole my gameboy colour out of my church mailbox 😅
I'm really excited to be received into the Anglican church, hopefully some day soon.
This is the best video on baptism that I’ve seen on UA-cam. I love the connections to the significance of water in the Old Testament. Keep up the great videos man! 🙌
Thanks so much!
Love the illustrations hope to see more videos with this style in the future even if they take longer to make
Thanks so much! They do take a while lol
This was a really good video!! I'm so excited for my baptism lol
Thanks so much! And what a blessing!
A really great video, I hope God makes known your channel to the rest of youtube!
Hey Young Anglican, just found your channel and want to thank you because this video finally pushed me over the edge to get baptised in my church! I'm doing confession catechesis which is supposed to be leading up to it but i was always unsure of whether my faith was strong enough as a new believer. You explained it more clearly then anyone else up i spoke with up until now, the fact that Jesus did the work for us already gives me the comfort that i can actually go through with it sincerely. Thanks for making this, it means a lot.
Praise God! I am glad to hear it
Good video I was baptized as a methodist but I'm a non-denominational Protestant now can you do a video on Anglicanism and science? Someday? a lot of mathematicians Philosophers and scientists were Anglicans. ✝️. Start a Christian Golden age!
i love this drawn style of video! keep it up :)
Amen.
Excellent video! I’m curious if you believe in any form of substitutionary atonement?
Any form? Yes certainly. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" 2 Corinthians 5:21
Baptism confirms your thought believes into salvation through sincerity as confirmation to what was but your own mental activation.
People who are faithful but doubt their salvation remember that by faith were baptized. They are Christian.
Be at peace.
That's why i utterly uphold the doctrine of salve baptismus.
Or salvation by baptism. A act of faith.
People think conversion is exclusively "dear God im a sinner forgive me amen" and that is correct that salve oratio (salvation by prayer) saves, but not everyone who believes in Christianity knows how to pray.
But by faith their thoughts becomes loyal action to the saving grace of baptism.
And i utterly damn those who see no power in baptism to those who are faithful.
But also utterly damn force baptisms who think baptism is magic water. Because it destroys the understanding of divine grace. By faith.
Deathbed salvation is the exempt exception.
Thanks for the great video! Can you do one on "All Isreal will be saved"?
I talk about this in my "Why I am not Messianic Jewish" video, but the Church is Israel. St. Paul shows that God's Chosen people are not chosen ipso facto by blood (although it is a major element) by pointing out that Ishmael, despite being Abraham's son, was not Israel, and neither was Esau. Esau for example, rejects his birthright and gives it up to his younger brother, and there is no longer a sense in which he is within that chosen group any longer, as there is for Jacob (who literally becomes "Israel").
I felt like I was watching Young Orthobro rather than Young Anglican for a second. I would offer some pushback with how much your doctrine is being shaped by perceived typology. While typology has a place in hermeneutics, the usage can be abused as I believe we see in this video. We are only warranted to use typology when the scripture gives us warrant to make those connections. I’d love to see you and Redeemed Zoomer have a conversation on this topic, as I believed the Reformed perspective on Baptism answers these more precisely, especially as I don’t believe I heard anything about repentance or faith in regards to salvation in this video.
The Scriptures do give us this typology though. St. Peter makes the connection to Noah's Ark that I mention in the video and St. Paul connects Baptism to Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea in 1 Corinthians 10:2
@@Young_Anglican Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying all of your typology was being misused, the examples you gave in your reply are clear examples scripture explicitly tells us is typological. There were others in the video, that I thought were quite a bit of a stretch. Also, we have to be careful with our application of typology and the extent of our connections. The Roman church, for example, has built a huge defense of the papacy, based off of overly applied typology from Isaiah 22. I’m at work today, so I can’t give you more thoughtful response to this right now. I’m sorry.
@@chadsteven9334 no problem! I was just trying to let you know where I think the scripture does warrant this typology, because I agree that other apologists take it too far without scriptural warrant
Baptism is not with literal water, just as communion is more about fellowship, and not as Catholics believe we undertake the literal flesh of Christ. The sacraments are merely symbolic, just as the Tabernacle and priests were symbols (shadows) of what was in Heaven.
The _only_ requirement to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ, that he is our salvation by substitution...he died in our place, to pay the ransom for our sins. And, having satisfied God's law, that the wages of sin is death, Jesus, sinless, died as our sin offering. And now, recognizing that he paid our debt, we are "born again", to walk in the way of the Holy Spirit (sanctification).
Again, the _only_ thing which saves is faith in Jesus Christ...there are no "and"s added onto it. It's not a Christ+ thing at all.
When Jesus said to the people to be baptized, he meant that people live as though their sin has been cleansed. Jesus is the living water, and his Spirit will cleanse you and counsel you, in sanctification (becoming holy). There is no need of a literal baptism: a good example was the thief who died on the cross near Jesus, who was saved by faith alone... _without_ a water baptism.
My concern with this way of thinking is that Christ simply commanded us to do baptism, and St. Peter literally said baptism saves us. Where in Scripture does it say that Baptism is not with literal water? It feels dangerous to dismiss a commandment of God.
Additionally,
The theif of the cross is actually not an exception to baptism's salvific role, but an explanation of it.
Thief: Has faith and dies with Christ = saved.
Average Christian: Has faith and participates in Christ's death through baptism = saved.
(See: Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12)
The pattern of scripture is repent and be baptized. If infants cannot repent, why baptize them? Also, what of infants who grow up to be unbelievers? If Baptism saves, then it failed to save that infant turned unbeliever later in life.
This is a good question. When the Apostles in Acts say "Repent and be baptized" they are always speaking to audiences who, by nature of understanding human language are recieving the instruction to repent in order to be baptized. Infant baptism supporters would say the same thing to crowds of sinners. Our direct instructions from Christ on "who" to baptize are "the nations". Nations include babies. Without any clarifications in Scripture not to babtize babies (even in instances like numerous household baptisms where we might expect such a clarification if one was necessary) fulfilling Christ's command to baptize all nations includes baptizing babies. We even know from the story of John the Baptist "jumping" in his mother's womb, that babies are capable of recieving God's grace, and that because we are all born sinners, babies are in need of God's grace in baptism which is "for the remission of sins." That is why to baptize them.
@@Young_Anglican but scripture says that baptism saves. There are countless people who were baptized as infants who are now either atheist or pagan. Atheists and Pagans are not saved. I acknowledge that this even happens with those who were baptized as adults. If Baptism saves then it should actually do that. I go to an Anglican Church mind you. But there is so much evidence stacked against infant baptism that it makes sense why many stopped practicing it. Even the 39 articles affirm that we are not to practice or treat as doctrine what is not found in scripture. Also, “repent and be baptized” and “repent in order to be baptized” are the same thing are they not?
@@Scantbracelet Well I totally disagree that repent and be baptized is the same as repent in order to be baptized. If I gave you a grocery list and said "get apples and bananas" and there were no bananas at the store you could still get apples and vice versa. It is just two instructions side by side. We have to do both. And no one who wants to repent will be stopped from repenting (to those who knock the door will open) so practically with adult baptisms no one should be baptized if they refuse to repent, this is why in Anglican adult baptisms you have to renounce Satan publically. Baptism saves as a means of union with Christ, which sanctifies us and sanctification is a necessary element of salvation. But justification is also a necessary element of salvation and depends on faith. So someone who is baptized but loses their faith, is no longer justified and so their baptism no longer sanctifies or saves them. As you pointed out this applies to both children who are baptized and adults. Additionally the official Anglican position is the baptism of infants, as established by Article 27, and while the 39 Articles agree all doctrines pertaining to salvation must be proved by scripture (Article 6), this does not give every parishioner the ability to object to the practices of the Church that are being proved from Scripture but that the parishioner just simply disagrees with. Article 34 explicitly says that "Whosoever, through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly". If you consider yourself to be accord with the 39 Articles infant baptism is the required position. If you don't that's fine and we can get back to what Scripture has to say about this issue, but I thought it was worth while to explain
I don’t think water Baptism is a legitimate ritual today. It was only sanctioned by God during the early Church age (before the canon was completed) to foreshadow the reality of the Holy Spirt who performs an actual or real baptism on the believer the moment he accepts Christ as savior. The Holy Spirt is the administrator of divine baptism while water baptism is merely a ritual used to reveal/foreshadow historical reality. Once the reality is fulfilled, ritual becomes obsolete. Same reason why we don’t perform animal sacrifices as was done during Old Testament: the reality of incarnate Jesus Christ has arrived and salvation is completed.
What you advocate is heretical. It is ancient heresy of Gnosticism in which the material world is considered evil. Biblical and historical Christianity teaches that God uses both the material and the spiritual world together. The incarnation itself is the preeminent event in history to show this. For you to say that water baptism is not needed today is your own novel opinion that runs counter to scripture and the churches universal witness for the last 2,000 years. Even those who have baptist understanding of baptism would utterly reject what you say hear. I hope and pray that for the sake of your soul you renounce such a position. I realize my words are strong but truth and love compels me to respond. 13:28
🔥
What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptized but still got to heaven.
Firstly, he obviously had no opportunity to be baptized, and so God didn't expect him to. (And is also before Jesus's atoning sacrifice and the following Great Commission to baptize all nations after Jesus's Resurrection). Additionally, God is not bound to the sacraments but the sacraments are bound to God by His promise. He can do whatever He wants and is always looking for excuses to have mercy on us. But this is not an excuse to avoid His commandments to be baptised, or to deny the promise of remission of sin in and through baptism. I hope this was helpful.
@@Young_Anglican Acts 10:34 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Why would the thief be exempt from doing the thing that gets them to heaven. Couldn’t you make that case for a lot of people. God is a just God and he will judge according to their condition in sin. Obviously he could do whatever he wants but that would go against his nature if he fair and just.
Romans 10:13 KJV
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
If baptism took you to heaven this verse would be a contradiction. Also, baptism was done before Jesus’ atonement on the cross for our sins. So it wouldn’t need his death on the cross.
Romans 4:5 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
What’s needed for us to enter heaven is righteousness. We receive that righteousness not by the world we do but by the faith we put in Christ.
Salvation is by grace through faith; plus nothing, minus nothing.
How do you know he wasn't baptized? Nowhere in the Bible did it say that the thief on the cross wasn't baptized
@@urielherrera4801 Faith has implications. We agree that we are saved by faith. But faith isn't just an assent to God. Hebrews 11 says that Noah was saved by faith. But since Noah had faith in God, he built the Ark. Thats because Noah's faith in God, as Hebrews makes clear MEANS that he trusts God's promises. So when God says he is going to flood the earth, and gives you instructions on how to build a boat to survive it, the faithful will build an Ark. The same is true when God commands us to be baptized in the Great Commission for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:37-38). St. Peter literally says Baptism now saves us just like Ark. A good theological framework includes all of the data about faith, but doesn't just ignore the Bible's high view of baptism because of our justification by faith. Faith has entailments. It always has and always will.
This is just another cult ritual that has no meaning in reality. Getting your head drenched in water is nothing but symbolism. It is an indoctrination into a religious cult that believes in magic and fantsy.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.
This takes this passage out of context. The Corinthians are literally boasting about WHO baptized them. Paul thanks God that in this instance he didn't baptize any of the boasters, because in this instance he was not sent to baptize.
@@Young_Anglican the ending half of those verses is Ephesians 2:8-9. "Not of works, lest any man should boast." is Ephesians 2:9
@@duudairsoft Sorry if it seemed like I didn't address that, hopefully I can clarify my stance. I would definitely agree we are saved by our faith, which is a gift of God, and not because of our works. The Sacraments being the means of grace which facilitate our salvation doesn't contradict this because they are the very promises of God. Noah was saved by God and not himself because God is the one who warned him of the flood and gave him the instructions for the Ark, but Noah's faith and belief in God's promises necessitated that he would of course also actually build the Ark. The same is true with Baptism and the Lord's Supper which were given to us by God, and which we faithfully recieve.
@@Young_Anglican Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Hebrews 11 is the Hall of Fame of Faith, Noah was saved because of faith. [edit]: and by faith alone*
Let me ask, if I was just saved, I had just in this instance repented of my sin, had true contrition for my sin and placed my faith and trust in Jesus to save me and I call out to Him to save me (Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.), but then I cross the street and get hit by a drunk driver going 80mph and die instantaneously, and I was never baptized. Do I go to heaven or hell when I enter into eternity?
@@duudairsoft We totally agree on this reading of Hebrews. Hebrews 11 goes in depth with all of the fathers and almost all of them were called to action by their faith. For all of us faith calls us to different things. So someone who had no chance to be baptized, but still had faith and would have been baptized if given the opportunity is likely saved, because faith is what saves us. But NOT getting baptized and asking "did God REALLY say" x, y, z about baptism is not really fair or good. Peter literally says Baptism now saves us like the Ark saved Noah and doesn't immediately go into clarifying what would happen in x,y,z scenario. It is clear that we are saved by faith, but that faith calls us to baptism which plays an effectual role in our salvation just like the Ark did. Hebrews 11 makes this relationship between faith in God and actions evident.
Super confusing video. I believe only people who already believe this doctrine would understand what you're saying.
I agree with a lot of this video, but I think the appeal to "remember your baptism" rings hollow to people who can't actually remember their baptism. A man baptized while in a coma who later comes to faith should be allowed to be actually baptized on his repentance and faith, not the faith of someone else who he didn't know. It is true that baptism is a sign of a covenant community, but it is applied to individuals, so we must say it is a statement about an individual as well.
Also, the illustration of Christ saying one of the disciples was not actually clean seems to mean that baptism doesn't clean ex opere operato, but rather by reception in faith. This does not mean that someone contributes something to their salvation, as that faith is a gift of God, not of themselves. This is consistent with early church views of baptism, as an example, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical lectures: "But if you persist in an evil purpose, the speaker is blameless, but you must not look for the grace: for the water will receive, but the Spirit will not accept you."
In any case, I enjoy this channel! Keep up the good work, I look forward to hearing your perspective.
Thanks for the comment, I hope I can clarify some. Just because you can disregard your baptism later doesn't mean it didn't do anything at the time. Jesus seems to think it should not be repeated and that the rest of the disciples are still clean. Unless you are a Calvinist, you can easily say grace was delivered in baptism and through it you were grafted into the family. The reason the coma baptism doesn't count but the baby's baptism does is because even you admit the commatose person doesn't know their baptizer. But the Bible always respect the authority of parents over their children. A father and mother do have the authority to bring their children into the church. So someone can be apart of the Church, by baptism and not "saved" in the legal sense because they later have no faith, and even St. Paul says that in baptism we die in Christ, but it is by faith which ressurects us in him. Baptism does something and is effectual, but it is not a guarantee of salvation.
I also hope we can agree that "remembering our baptisms" doesn't have to be a direct access to the memory itself, but instead a looking towards it and having the sure knowledge of it and security in it.
@@Young_Anglican I agree baptism does something, I don’t think it’s an empty symbol or “something we do to show how much we love God”, I just don’t think that sacraments work apart from faith.
If the person in the coma was baptized at the behest of a family member would that make it an efficacious baptism?
And yes, one can look to their baptism even if they don’t remember it, but being able to actually remember your baptism is a powerful tool for a Christian to have in assurance.
@@TheRoark if the family member was their father, and they truly had no will of their own? I certainly think so as that seems to be the implication of the theology but obviously the bible is silent on this hypothetical
When I hear "remember your baptism", I think of what God has said in the sacrament through the church about me, not about some decision I made. But I can see how it might ring hollow to our more modern western individual framework.