This is a neat video. I was talking to someone who claimed the Didache proved early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. I read it and realized it actually did because it referenced Zechariah 14:5 "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." and tied it to Matthew 24:30 "Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven." Zechariah 14:5 speaks of the LORD God coming whereas Matthew 24 speaks of Jesus returning, demonstrating they believed He is one and the same! It's always good to read what people cite.
As a former Baptist myself, I am confused as to why Baptists are so obsessed with the insistence upon immersion (when they don't think Baptism does anything), but think that wine and only one chalice are necessary for the Lord's Supper (which they also think doesn't do anything). Why is there no insistence upon using only one chalice for the Lord's Supper?
Well, I would hope that it is because we are obsessed with getting the Bible right! I have never heard of an argument being made to use one chalice before. Where would one make an argument from the Bible for that? Any article you could point me to?
The concern you raise here regarding Preterism dampening an eager awaiting of the return of our Lord is one that I share. Also, I too am concerned about how easily someone who is partial can go full if they stay consistent in the thinking.
I’ll also add that I have found reading these early texts, such as the Didache, Against Heresies, Dialogue with Trypho, etc. (you know, all the good Premil texts 😉), has been very helpful for me in putting myself into the minds of the original recipients of the NT. They are a huge blessing.
What happened to Gary DeMar? - 46:55 - I started listening to his podcast a while back to become more familiar with the partial preterist view, and it’s been interesting to say the least…
A year or so ago (maybe two now) he went full preterist and is not sure any passage is talking about the second coming-he sees them all being fulfilled in 70 AD. Even the resurrection passages. So he was disowned by many of the partial preterist groups, though they still appreciate his writings etc. Just disinvited him from speaking at conferences etc.
The Church that Christ built is the Church that has the authority to interpret scripture - don't know how so many people decide that THEIR interpretation is correct. Take part of the early Church then trash the rest.
As a lifelong credo Baptist now considering paedobaptism it would help to see cases in the early church of people who grew up in Christian households get baptized as adults.
Great! I will see if I can carve out time to go grab the list for you (beginning the semester here), but Everette Ferguson does a great job compiling their Histories in his magisterial volume tracing baptism in the first five centuries of the church.
Bwvinck also concedes that baptism was by immersion of believers in Reformed Dogmatics. He even says though the Reformed have "wrestled mightily" to ground their practice of paedobaptism, "no consensus" exists for why it should be so apart from baptismal regeneration. (Which he rejects, of course.)
I don’t have that quote in my notes! Thanks for pointing it out. Do you know what page he talks about that? (If it’s not convenient don’t worry about it)
@thebiblesojourner Vol 4 chapter1, in both the abstract and then the main text. He even intimates John and Jesus's baptism must be distinct from circumcision (Which Beale outright concedes in his Biblical Theology of the New Testament).
It's interesting to note that the Apostle Paul during the Acts period (Acts 19. 2-7) distinguishes between 2 baptisms,John's & "in the name of the Lord Jesus". During which the Apostle Paul expected the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ while he was still alive, 1Thess 4.17, 1 Cor 15.51. After the Acts period, when he wrote to the Ephesians, he talked about only "one baptism" & no longer expected the imminent return of the Lord but expected his death in his 2nd epistle to Timothy.
That is an interesting note! I would tend to explain the Acts 19 as being an example of baptism being related to discipleship. People were baptized in the name of the one they followed. There was a transitionary time where some of John’s followers needed to understand they were to follow Jesus. I don’t personally see it related to Paul’s expectation of Jesus returning, but that is an interesting connection to make!
@@thebiblesojourner That's true. Baptism is congruent being "identified with" or "identification" . Such is the case with the Lord's baptism by John the Baptist. It was not about repentance, but about identification with the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel during the Acts period, was to be baptised in water & in spirit. Their repentance or their changing of their minds about the Lord Jesus being the Messiah of their Law and of their prophets would inititate the Lord's second advent. Acts 3. 12 to 20 12 “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this,.. 19REPENT therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that HE MAY SEND the Christ appointed for you, Jesus.. This was the hope of the Apostle upto the end of Acts when he met Jewish leaders in Rome. When his message was rejected, he declared in Acts28.25 - 28, that the salvation is sent to gentiles. After this declaration, he wrote 7 epistles adressed only to gentiles which had a different hope & only one baptism is mentioned.
Correct. I think it is wise to disagree with anyone who would say immersion is not the mode of baptism. Although they are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
'Infant baptism' should really just be called 'baby dedication', a waypoint or milestone for patents making a promise to raise their children in the instruction of The Lord, something I should have been more prudent.
@@dorcasmcleod9439The Lord Jesus Christ being brought to the temple on the eighth day is a good example. Though ti was a circumcision, it meant he belonged to the people God had chosen. Now that we have the wall of partition broken by the Lord, we dedicate our childten to prayer. In Brazil, believers do it. They bring the child to the service and a pastor lifts the child in his arms and prays for the child. My mother did it to me. And I believe God honoured her. Then later, I became a believer by conviction and was baptized.
My view of baptism has always been "immersion" because the Koine Greek word itself is just clearly that -- "immersion." Every time we see the word "baptize," it is the Greek word "immerse." Every time we see the word "baptism," it's the word "immersion." It's hard to picture "immersion" unless it is heavily "poured" (as opposed to "sprinkled") because of the symbolism we find in the New Testament. Even Josephus refers to John the Baptist in this manner -- as one who immersed people. This was not, as Josephus believed, for the forgiveness of sins but for changing behavior -- so that they might "exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God" (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119). When Paul spoke to the men of Ephesus about baptism, he asked whose baptism they received. They said John's. Paul said that John's was a "baptism of repentence" (Acts 19:4). This is a "baptisma metanoeō" -- essentially an "immersion [of/for] changed mind." As there is no preposition, a "baptism of repentance" is more literally a "against mind immersion." The part of "repentance" being a "change of mind" or "against the mind" is certainly worth investigating too. However, the "immersion" part is completely clear because no other word was ever used to describe this. I would point out one other interesting thing from this passage in Acts 19. Luke wrote that , "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5 ESV). This phrase (i.e., "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus") is the Greek "baptizō eis ho onoma ho kyrios iēsous." Whereas the Greek "baptisma metanoeō" literally lacks a preposition or article, this other reference includes "eis" or "into/in/for." It's literally saying that those men were "immersed into/in/for the name of Lord Jesus." This reminds me of how we are grafted into the vine -- now called by HIS name. This is reflected in Solomon's prayer and God's answer when the Temple was dedicated. Solomon's dedication prayer/request is recorded in I Kings 8:22-53 and God's answer recorded in 2 Chronicles 7:14.
@@bigtobacco1098 - While I cannot attest for the number of videos on UA-cam regarding this, I can attest that the Greek word itself for "baptize" and "baptism" only mean "immerse" and "immersion." They were common words. There are different Greek words for "sprinkle/sprinkled" (rantizō) or "wash/washing" ("louō"). Those are also common Koine Greek words. The word for baptize ("baptizō") and baptism ("baptisma") always -- without exception -- refer to immersion.
@@bigtobacco1098 - I don't know what you mean. It doesn't matter how many times people try to "debunk" this. It doesn't make their claims true. Baptism is -- literally -- the word "immersion." The word "baptize" ALWAYS (seriously....always) literally means "immerse." There are different Greek words for "sprinkle" and "wash." There were no other Greek words for "immerse" other than "baptize." Moreover, all of the earliest writings indicate that baptism was done -- by default -- by immersion. Even this particular document (the Didache) indicates that pouring water (which is different from sprinkling) was permitted only when all other opportunities weren't available.
Everything should be clearly explain on Christian beliefs, life patterns and so on, including coming to Christ for salvation- who is He, why did He have to die, why a person needs to believe, what's at stake re: eternal life and sins forgiven v the judgement and outer the out darkness. After all, from where are we being saved to, what we are being from, to where (and who) are we being save to and Who saved us.
didache is not talking about immersion (and no, baptizo does not "mean immersion") it's talking about the kind of water used... living water was preferred
That is an interesting theory but I would encourage you to learn Greek and you will quickly see baptizo is simply the word for dipping or immersing. It is not actually a debated point. Even most of the infant baptists (even back to Calvin, Luther etc) acknowledge that immersion was the practice and meaning of the early church. Just one quote might help you too here is Tertullian and his discussion of immersion (remember he is writing in Latin so isn’t using baptizo): After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names. (Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity, 623).
@@thebiblesojourner The very first distinct mention of dipping, as a mode of baptism, is by Tertullian, who lived about the beginning of the third century, and he mentions it as associated with such Romish practices as those indicated above,--“in a nude state”-for the purpose of “washing away the sins of the soul,” accompanied by the “sign of the cross,” “anointing with oil,” “blessing the water.” Etc.; and Tertullian himself acknowledges that all these (dipping included) are based on tradition, and are destitute of Scriptural authority. >>That is an interesting theory but I would encourage you to learn Greek and you will quickly see baptizo is simply the word for dipping or immersing. It is not actually a debated point.
There are some interesting comments on prophets in the Didache and their request for income. That day of fasting comment before baptism is interesting too.
"What it signigfies"? It is not about what it signoifies, it is about the washing away of sin - go read about Paul - "Why do you tarry? Arise and be baptized, and WASH away your sins."
Everyone Remember there is no original Preterist, they all coming from the Futurist camp . These are not the young in faith, they are well versed, rooted and grounded Christians that know their doctrines but have had serious questions for years on their eschatology of futurism yet never knew anyone else had the same issues nor was there another view until they found Preterism. Any Preterist you meet, ask them their story and see if they are not everything I mentioned. I was futurist for over 20 years, debated Fulfilled for 5 years until I saw the light, surrendered to the Word. I am full Preterist by the way, but what I want to share is, Hermeneutics, Preterism and Scripture are all public knowledge. Why not spend time to see for yourself why there is a alarming rate of educated futurist changing to Fulfilled and that this is not going to change. Every 2,000 years God shows His people something they have never seen before, yet was always there and foretold or forewarned. Its been 2,000 years, just saying
No offense but this isn’t really a logical post. There are many preterists who become futurists and futurists that become preterists. Furthermore, preterists enjoy having children as much as the next group and they teach their kids that system as well. To say they all come from the futurist camp is not possible. But I will say that there are more futurists who become something else (idealists or preterists) just because of simple statistics/numbers. Over almost the entire scope of history of the church, preterism has either been nonexistent or a minority view. So it makes sense more would come from other views.
Thank you, and these are statistics I personally know that are factual. And have there been a few people that went back to the futurist i am sure that's possible, I could not argue with that. I was just saying, its all public knowledge and for people to study for themselves, I am not calling anyone a heretic just sharing my personal testimony.
Sorry for any mixup. The baptism quotes come at 17:45. Prior to that is intro of Didache because most people don't know what it is. Chapter titles are included for your convenience in the description! 🙂
Sprinkling is unbiblical. And both the text and early church say so. Immersion and pouring are the only Biblically authorized modes for anyone actually believing the Regulative Principle of Worship. And pouring would still be done publicly, standing in the water.
If only the original Greek words had been translated rather than transliterated, we could avoid so much confusion. The word means “immerse”. Substitute that every time you come to “baptize” in an English Bible and watch things become so much clearer. I asked the guys doing the LSB to translate this word, just like they did with Yahweh and Slave, but they decided it was too much and left the transliteration instead. Someday maybe…
@@boaz63 No, the word does not mean immerse. It means "to whelm". You don't define a word by one of its modes. We find the term used to describe the "pouring out" of the Spirit often and where do we find any other mode along side the term other than "pour"? Well, we do not!
This is a neat video. I was talking to someone who claimed the Didache proved early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. I read it and realized it actually did because it referenced Zechariah 14:5 "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." and tied it to Matthew 24:30 "Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven." Zechariah 14:5 speaks of the LORD God coming whereas Matthew 24 speaks of Jesus returning, demonstrating they believed He is one and the same!
It's always good to read what people cite.
Thanks for watching the video! Love the application to the deity of Christ.
Another excellent episode, thanks.
Glad you found it helpful!
Really appreciate your clarity and teaching.
Thanks, brother. Your encouragement means a lot.
I remember I read the Didache years ago, and I didn't reflect on this topics. Great video!!!
So glad you found it helpful!
As a former Baptist myself, I am confused as to why Baptists are so obsessed with the insistence upon immersion (when they don't think Baptism does anything), but think that wine and only one chalice are necessary for the Lord's Supper (which they also think doesn't do anything).
Why is there no insistence upon using only one chalice for the Lord's Supper?
Well, I would hope that it is because we are obsessed with getting the Bible right! I have never heard of an argument being made to use one chalice before. Where would one make an argument from the Bible for that? Any article you could point me to?
The concern you raise here regarding Preterism dampening an eager awaiting of the return of our Lord is one that I share. Also, I too am concerned about how easily someone who is partial can go full if they stay consistent in the thinking.
I’ll also add that I have found reading these early texts, such as the Didache, Against Heresies, Dialogue with Trypho, etc. (you know, all the good Premil texts 😉), has been very helpful for me in putting myself into the minds of the original recipients of the NT. They are a huge blessing.
Yes, that is definitely a huge concern! Consistency tends to lead to full preterism (e.g., DeMar).
Nathan Busenitz church history class is great. I’ve been through it twice. It’s a great resource available on UA-cam. I’d recommend it to all
Indeed!! Solid recommendation.
What happened to Gary DeMar? - 46:55 - I started listening to his podcast a while back to become more familiar with the partial preterist view, and it’s been interesting to say the least…
A year or so ago (maybe two now) he went full preterist and is not sure any passage is talking about the second coming-he sees them all being fulfilled in 70 AD. Even the resurrection passages. So he was disowned by many of the partial preterist groups, though they still appreciate his writings etc. Just disinvited him from speaking at conferences etc.
The Church that Christ built is the Church that has the authority to interpret scripture - don't know how so many people decide that THEIR interpretation is correct. Take part of the early Church then trash the rest.
As a lifelong credo Baptist now considering paedobaptism it would help to see cases in the early church of people who grew up in Christian households get baptized as adults.
Great! I will see if I can carve out time to go grab the list for you (beginning the semester here), but Everette Ferguson does a great job compiling their
Histories in his magisterial volume tracing baptism in the first five centuries of the church.
In my experience, it becomes an insurmountable case the more you study… crossed that bridge this year
@@hammerbarca6 Insurmountable to paedo or to credo? I always hear both 😅
@@thebiblesojourner lol I left it ambiguous on purpose 😂😂
To credo... the only time was under the novationists... otherwise the church has ALWAYS baptized entire households
Bwvinck also concedes that baptism was by immersion of believers in Reformed Dogmatics. He even says though the Reformed have "wrestled mightily" to ground their practice of paedobaptism, "no consensus" exists for why it should be so apart from baptismal regeneration. (Which he rejects, of course.)
I don’t have that quote in my notes! Thanks for pointing it out. Do you know what page he talks about that? (If it’s not convenient don’t worry about it)
@thebiblesojourner Vol 4 chapter1, in both the abstract and then the main text. He even intimates John and Jesus's baptism must be distinct from circumcision (Which Beale outright concedes in his Biblical Theology of the New Testament).
@@shawngillogly6873 Solid. Thank you!
Johns baptism wasn't Christian baptism...
It's interesting to note that the Apostle Paul during the Acts period (Acts 19. 2-7)
distinguishes between 2 baptisms,John's & "in the name of the Lord Jesus". During which the Apostle Paul expected the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ while he was still alive, 1Thess 4.17, 1 Cor 15.51.
After the Acts period, when he wrote to the Ephesians, he talked about only "one baptism" & no longer expected the imminent return of the Lord but expected his death in his 2nd epistle to Timothy.
That is an interesting note! I would tend to explain the Acts 19 as being an example of baptism being related to discipleship. People were baptized in the name of the one they followed. There was a transitionary time where some of John’s followers needed to understand they were to follow Jesus. I don’t personally see it related to Paul’s expectation of Jesus returning, but that is an interesting connection to make!
@@thebiblesojourner That's true. Baptism is congruent being "identified with" or "identification" . Such is the case with the Lord's baptism by John the Baptist. It was not about repentance, but about identification with the nation of Israel.
The nation of Israel during the Acts period, was to be baptised in water & in spirit. Their repentance or their changing of their minds about the Lord Jesus being the Messiah of their Law and of their prophets would inititate the Lord's second advent.
Acts 3. 12 to 20
12 “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this,..
19REPENT therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that HE MAY SEND the Christ appointed for you, Jesus..
This was the hope of the Apostle upto the end of Acts when he met Jewish leaders in Rome. When his message was rejected, he declared in Acts28.25 - 28, that the salvation is sent to gentiles.
After this declaration, he wrote 7 epistles adressed only to gentiles which had a different hope & only one baptism is mentioned.
A friend recently asked me if I knew of a book that depicted daily life or family life in the early church. Do you have any recommendations?
So the Bible says immerse, but someone (not inspired) says you can change it.
That is not sola scriptura.
Correct. I think it is wise to disagree with anyone who would say immersion is not the mode of baptism. Although they are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
The Bible doesn't say immersion
show me ONE example where someone was immersed for baptism, unless the Bible has changed since the apostle John died, there is no example
'Infant baptism' should really just be called 'baby dedication', a waypoint or milestone for patents making a promise to raise their children in the instruction of The Lord, something I should have been more prudent.
We all have areas of life we should have been more prudent in, but God is gracious and uses our feeble lives anyway.
And the scripture that promotes or subscribes "baptizing" infants to dedicate them to the Lord, where can I find that?
Exactly. Since baptism takes a conscious decision to live the life.
@@dorcasmcleod9439 That's my point. There is no infant baptism.
@@dorcasmcleod9439The Lord Jesus Christ being brought to the temple on the eighth day is a good example. Though ti was a circumcision, it meant he belonged to the people God had chosen. Now that we have the wall of partition broken by the Lord, we dedicate our childten to prayer. In Brazil, believers do it. They bring the child to the service and a pastor lifts the child in his arms and prays for the child. My mother did it to me. And I believe God honoured her. Then later, I became a believer by conviction and was baptized.
My view of baptism has always been "immersion" because the Koine Greek word itself is just clearly that -- "immersion." Every time we see the word "baptize," it is the Greek word "immerse." Every time we see the word "baptism," it's the word "immersion." It's hard to picture "immersion" unless it is heavily "poured" (as opposed to "sprinkled") because of the symbolism we find in the New Testament. Even Josephus refers to John the Baptist in this manner -- as one who immersed people. This was not, as Josephus believed, for the forgiveness of sins but for changing behavior -- so that they might "exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God" (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119).
When Paul spoke to the men of Ephesus about baptism, he asked whose baptism they received. They said John's. Paul said that John's was a "baptism of repentence" (Acts 19:4). This is a "baptisma metanoeō" -- essentially an "immersion [of/for] changed mind." As there is no preposition, a "baptism of repentance" is more literally a "against mind immersion." The part of "repentance" being a "change of mind" or "against the mind" is certainly worth investigating too. However, the "immersion" part is completely clear because no other word was ever used to describe this.
I would point out one other interesting thing from this passage in Acts 19. Luke wrote that , "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5 ESV). This phrase (i.e., "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus") is the Greek "baptizō eis ho onoma ho kyrios iēsous." Whereas the Greek "baptisma metanoeō" literally lacks a preposition or article, this other reference includes "eis" or "into/in/for." It's literally saying that those men were "immersed into/in/for the name of Lord Jesus."
This reminds me of how we are grafted into the vine -- now called by HIS name. This is reflected in Solomon's prayer and God's answer when the Temple was dedicated. Solomon's dedication prayer/request is recorded in I Kings 8:22-53 and God's answer recorded in 2 Chronicles 7:14.
The argument for immersion only has several videos on UA-cam and it can also mean washing...
@@bigtobacco1098 - While I cannot attest for the number of videos on UA-cam regarding this, I can attest that the Greek word itself for "baptize" and "baptism" only mean "immerse" and "immersion." They were common words. There are different Greek words for "sprinkle/sprinkled" (rantizō) or "wash/washing" ("louō"). Those are also common Koine Greek words.
The word for baptize ("baptizō") and baptism ("baptisma") always -- without exception -- refer to immersion.
@ccchhhrrriiisss100 sorry, it's been debunked repeatedly
@@ccchhhrrriiisss100 it's also been debunked that baptism was always done by immersion
@@bigtobacco1098 - I don't know what you mean. It doesn't matter how many times people try to "debunk" this. It doesn't make their claims true. Baptism is -- literally -- the word "immersion."
The word "baptize" ALWAYS (seriously....always) literally means "immerse." There are different Greek words for "sprinkle" and "wash." There were no other Greek words for "immerse" other than "baptize."
Moreover, all of the earliest writings indicate that baptism was done -- by default -- by immersion. Even this particular document (the Didache) indicates that pouring water (which is different from sprinkling) was permitted only when all other opportunities weren't available.
What does the nicene creed say ??
Everything should be clearly explain on Christian beliefs, life patterns and so on, including coming to Christ for salvation- who is He, why did He have to die, why a person needs to believe, what's at stake re: eternal life and sins forgiven v the judgement and outer the out darkness.
After all, from where are we being saved to, what we are being from, to where (and who) are we being save to and Who saved us.
Important questions!
didache is not talking about immersion (and no, baptizo does not "mean immersion") it's talking about the kind of water used...
living water was preferred
That is an interesting theory but I would encourage you to learn Greek and you will quickly see baptizo is simply the word for dipping or immersing. It is not actually a debated point. Even most of the infant baptists (even back to Calvin, Luther etc) acknowledge that immersion was the practice and meaning of the early church. Just one quote might help you too here is Tertullian and his discussion of immersion (remember he is writing in Latin so isn’t using baptizo):
After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.
(Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity, 623).
@@thebiblesojourner The very first distinct mention of dipping, as a mode of baptism, is by Tertullian, who lived about the beginning of the third century, and he mentions it as associated with such Romish practices as those indicated above,--“in a nude state”-for the purpose of “washing away the sins of the soul,” accompanied by the “sign of the cross,” “anointing with oil,” “blessing the water.” Etc.; and Tertullian himself acknowledges that all these (dipping included) are based on tradition, and are destitute of Scriptural authority.
>>That is an interesting theory but I would encourage you to learn Greek and you will quickly see baptizo is simply the word for dipping or immersing. It is not actually a debated point.
There are some interesting comments on prophets in the Didache and their request for income.
That day of fasting comment before baptism is interesting too.
Indeed! Lots of fun studies to have in the Didache.
"What it signigfies"? It is not about what it signoifies, it is about the washing away of sin - go read about Paul - "Why do you tarry? Arise and be baptized, and WASH away your sins."
No one for 1500 years believed what you think about Communion.
Everyone Remember there is no original Preterist, they all coming from the Futurist camp . These are not the young in faith, they are well versed, rooted and grounded Christians that know their doctrines but have had serious questions for years on their eschatology of futurism yet never knew anyone else had the same issues nor was there another view until they found Preterism.
Any Preterist you meet, ask them their story and see if they are not everything I mentioned.
I was futurist for over 20 years, debated Fulfilled for 5 years until I saw the light, surrendered to the Word.
I am full Preterist by the way, but what I want to share is, Hermeneutics, Preterism and Scripture are all public knowledge.
Why not spend time to see for yourself why there is a alarming rate of educated futurist changing to Fulfilled and that this is not going to change.
Every 2,000 years God shows His people something they have never seen before, yet was always there and foretold or forewarned.
Its been 2,000 years, just saying
No offense but this isn’t really a logical post. There are many preterists who become futurists and futurists that become preterists. Furthermore, preterists enjoy having children as much as the next group and they teach their kids that system as well. To say they all come from the futurist camp is not possible.
But I will say that there are more futurists who become something else (idealists or preterists) just because of simple statistics/numbers. Over almost the entire scope of history of the church, preterism has either been nonexistent or a minority view. So it makes sense more would come from other views.
Thank you, and these are statistics I personally know that are factual. And have there been a few people that went back to the futurist i am sure that's possible, I could not argue with that. I was just saying, its all public knowledge and for people to study for themselves, I am not calling anyone a heretic just sharing my personal testimony.
@@DWW1972 Always appreciate your respectful comments.
Thank you and I do yours as well!
Going on 19 minutes and you haven't said anything about "The Early Church on Baptism and the Return of Christ..." Goodbye.
Sorry for any mixup. The baptism quotes come at 17:45. Prior to that is intro of Didache because most people don't know what it is. Chapter titles are included for your convenience in the description! 🙂
I’d recommend sticking through, he’s building a case and laying the groundwork. It’s a good helpful episode
Immersion is not Biblical even if the early church folk practiced it.
Sprinkling is unbiblical. And both the text and early church say so.
Immersion and pouring are the only Biblically authorized modes for anyone actually believing the Regulative Principle of Worship. And pouring would still be done publicly, standing in the water.
Most people argue that it just doesn’t matter whether it is immersion or sprinkling. How do you make the case that immersion is not biblical?
If only the original Greek words had been translated rather than transliterated, we could avoid so much confusion. The word means “immerse”. Substitute that every time you come to “baptize” in an English Bible and watch things become so much clearer. I asked the guys doing the LSB to translate this word, just like they did with Yahweh and Slave, but they decided it was too much and left the transliteration instead. Someday maybe…
@@boaz63 No, the word does not mean immerse. It means "to whelm". You don't define a word by one of its modes. We find the term used to describe the "pouring out" of the Spirit often and where do we find any other mode along side the term other than "pour"? Well, we do not!
@@rossjpurdy BDAG disagrees with you. Even R.C. Sproul disagrees with you.