Did the SBC Reject the Nicene Creed? 

Awesome! As an SBC Member, I love that!

ah so now we see that a " confession" that I dont believe is now the authority. As an SBCer myself, that just goes to show that none of these things make us anything more than mans opinion

@@caman171 the Bible is my authority my rock whether you agree with the contents of the 1689 is your own convictions even if they're false. The 1689 is only a tool affirming what we believe to be revealed in scripture. The founders of the SBC were reformed. One of the greatest evangelists ever Charles Spurgeon was reformed. His reasoning "Reformed theology is the most God glorifying doctrine." Not to mention the greatest evangelist of all time Paul undoubtedly believed in the sovereignty of God unto salvation. You believe this is wrong I believe this is right. One of us is wrong or both of us is wrong but we are not both right Let God be true and every man a liar

@@Slice_O_Bread94 You obviously need a history lesson. Being a calvinistic Baptist is NOT the same as being "reformed", ask Spurgeon. He said both Catholics and Reformed persecuted Baptists, and that we existed before them. However, the term "calvinist" only meant you affirmed some type of eternal security when the SBC was formed, hence 2 pointers, 3 pointers etc. Southern Baptists were composed mostly of Separate Baptists, who were largely NON Calvinists by todays definition. Read Jesse Mercer's memoirs, who WAS a 5 point Calvinist. He affirms what I say. the sandy Creek Association was the forerunner to most Southern Baptists, and they were not predestinarian at all. So my convictions are false huh? Reformed theology is the most God glorifying? Sop how did God get glory before yall came along? Even Calvinist scholars admit your doctrines didnt exist before Augustine see here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--UkCWKzjsVs.html

@@Slice_O_Bread94 You need a history lesson. The SBC was composed largely of Separate Baptists and werent calvinist by todays definition. Jesse Mercer affirm this in his memoirs, and he was a 5 pointer. Also Spurgeon would be horrified if you called him "reformed" . There's a big difference between a calvinistic Baptist and a Reformed person. As for God being glorified by Reformed doctrine. how did He get glory before it existed? Even leading Calvinist scholars admit it didnt exist before Augustine.

😅😅😅😅

No! He already had the championship, Rocky fought him! They became best friends and stayed close until he was killed by the Soviets.

Same here.

We recite the athenasian creed. From memory!

I switched to Lutheran recently and love saying one of the creeds and The Lord’s Prayer each week.

@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I switched a year ago and was catechized online the two years before; attending both my Lutheran and my parents' nondenom church prior to being confirmed.

@@hailholyqueen That is impressive.

Throw the athanasian creed in there too! Really good.

Nazarene ah....😒 women pastor, Arminianism, voting for your leaders....yep, I've been in that rabbit hole 🕳

Amen!

Christianity was around for several centuries before the Nicene Creed was created. During those early years, Christian communities had a wide range of beliefs and practices. Saying that anyone who doesn't follow Nicene Christianity isn't truly Christian ignores this rich history and diversity. Your tone exhibits the same spirit which caused the church to actually physically murder anyone who deviated from the creed. I have been a pastor for over 30 years, from my experience most people when trying to describe the trinity provide examples that support modalism.

@@Cato1006 the Nicene creed affirms the divinity of Christ. What is your issue with it? Heretical groups like gnostics or arians before and during the time of the Council of Nicea did not teach the truth about our Lord Jesus Christ. If you don’t either, then you are a pastor of nothing but lies.

@@gumbyshrimp2606 Jesus is God's son. John 3:16 destroys the divinity idea. Jesus NEVER taught anything close to what Nicea decided. Jesus NEVER taught the trinity. If Jesus didn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity, then perhaps the way you are reading those texts that you think support the deity of Christ are incorrect. The fact that Jesus never taught the doctrine of Trinity is admitted by many Trinitarian theologians. Here are a few: It is a given or self-evidently true that the essential doctrines of Christianity should be CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY stated in Scripture, not deduced or developed from complex or convoluted theological constructs developed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th century of the Christian era. Charles Ryrie, in Basic Theology, writes: It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89). Millard Erickson, "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture,” "In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12). "The doctrine of the trinity is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20). "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. "Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109) Trinitarian G.W. Bromiley is quoted in “The Evangelical Dict. of Theology” edited by Walter Elwell, as saying: “In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine…” (p.1112) Roger Olson and Christopher Hall in their book, The Trinity write:"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? (p.1).

@@gumbyshrimp2606 I responded to your comment the author of the post deleted my response.

@@Cato1006 I think youtube is just being weird some of my comments are disappearing too on other videos

Yes! We need some normal Calvinists and not another crazy uncle!

I appreciate your comment of having no problem with the content of the ecuminical creeds coming from a CoC. I would argue however, you are creedal the moment someone preaches or teaches the text of the Bible in their own words. To truly be anti-creedal as "no creed but Christ" would be to simply read the Bible. Once someone begins to explain the Bible they are making a statement about what they believe about the text, and therefore making a creedal statement "I believe."

Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have always upheld the Nicene Creed, it’s just that the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is being overly bureaucratic and keeps kicking the can down the road for another time. They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are starting to include a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.

Thanks bro, I did do a video with my five favorite books. ru-vid.comrz9rNWduDEE?si=i1nQTlcujrJQmSLY

​. 10:55 know what's wild??? When you debated Spencer Smith, he said that he studies the Bible and isn't interested in the history or Orthodox Theology from Church History by other men. That's wild for someone to say.

On yeah absolutely, you can't unsee the mess that is the Baptist Church's stance on baptism which was unheard of before they showed up.

Which makes this adoption of the Nicene creed by the SBC interesting. They believe in a baptism, but not that it saves nor that it forgives sins. So do some believe it or not?

@@fuzzyaomeba2844 honestly I don't think they could if they stick to their own tradition. If they accept what's been taught by the church from the beginning, they would be compelled to leave. There is much to be said on these matters... God Bless

Exactly, baptism is a work of The Holy Spirit. He adopts us, He buries us with Christ, He raises us to new life, He clothes us in Christ. There is nothing wrong with affirming Bible verses which is what the Nicene and Apostle’ Creed are summaries of.

@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I agree, not our work, but God's for us

@@fuzzyaomeba2844This can depend on which Lutheran Synod you might be referring to, but Lutherans believe in forgiveness of sins through baptism. They also believe that a baptized person is baptized into Jesus’ death and therefore also into his resurrection. A baptized person therefore has a hope of heaven.

If the SBC has to rewrite the creed to fit its dogma, then does it also have to rewrite Acts 2.38 to fit its dogma? And at that point, does it even care what the Bible teaches? Look at the verse in the CSB (which may not be an exclusively Baptist translation, but it does have ties to the SBC): "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Surely if it's good enough for the CSB, it's good enough for the SBC.

@@MAMorenoWell … you’re preaching to the choir. I have no problem with the verse or the creed. But Southern Baptists will never accept the creed as written. The way that the RCC uses that phrase to justify infant baptism is just a step too far for them. Just the way it is. I’m not really sure why baptism would even need to be mentioned in a creed about the Trinity anyway …

Al Mohler said something similar and I think ultimately it is true. Creeds do tend to be shorter and more declarative, but they serve a similar function as you said.

Actually it’s the Elect Sovereign Version

I think the Tiny Bible is more of a gimmick if it's the one that I'm thinking of.

@@Mulerider4Life Actually Keith has said, one of its purposes is to put scripture in the hands of people who are not allowed to have a Bible. 🙂

Church member had it made for me, it was a gift :)

Acts 2:38 uses the Greek word “eis” for “for”. Some say it should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. Can man beckon God to give the Holy Spirit at man’s discretion by performing a water baptism or is the baptism symbolic of repentance and is done to show the desire of man to be clean from sin and to follow Jesus (which man needs the Holy Spirit to do)? “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.”” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭11‬:‭30‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ““I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭3‬:‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭36‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I'm in a similar situation as well.

The BFM is a statement of faith, subservient to the creeds.

A church member gave it to me, they had it special made. I may try to figure a way to have it recreated to sell in our shop.

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Nice! thanks for the response it was a burin g question XD

It'll never end there. One group will inevitably say that their beliefs conform to the creed, and that they affirm it, while detractors say that their beliefs contradict the creed. Calvinists and anti-Calvinists both say they have a God centered worldview, not a man-centered worldview. They do not agree on the description of the other. Classical theists and open theists both say they affirm God's Omniscience. They disagree on the description of the other.

@@JD-xz1mx It does end there. Objectively speaking, either you affirm the basic principles of the faith or you don’t. Calvinism vs Arminianism is not a matter of who is inside or outside of the faith.

The Nicene creed represents an imperial Christian religion with ecumenical councils where the Emperor is the divine head of the church and ecumene..meaning approved of the empire.

​@@matrixlonewhere does it say that specifically?

​@@matrixloneIs that when the Sabbath was ignored and people started worshipping on the Venerable Day of the Sun?

To have a different interpretation or application than originally intended, is contrary to the purpose of a creed. You can't "accept" the creed and have a different interpretation contrary to the authors. That's just being a dishonest heretic that's trying to sneak their way into the orthodox faith

I would say no. You cannot affirm honestly the Nicean creed by re inventing it. Then it just becomes another sparkle ✨️ creed in all but name.

​@Godfrey118 Yeah, I would agree with you Godfrey. You cannot affirm a creed and then actually not be affirming it. This is just dishonest to try and do that. These men obviously had something specific in mind when it stated things like baptism for for the forgiveness of sins

I've heard Mormons say that they could affirm the Creed if they interpret certain words in a way those at the Council clearly did not mean.

The real question which needs to be asked is how did Baptist theology get so far off the mark that affirming the Nicene Creed became a problem? The Nicene Creed is the fundamental guardrail of who is or is not a Christian, by definition. The Creed is what guided the decisions on which writings of scripture would become the canon of the bible. They are inseparable. If a church has a problem with the Creed, it isn't the Creed that went astray.

The problem is that the early Church didn't interpret the gospel that way. You were not regenerated before baptism. You won't even find that interpretation talked about before the Baptist church comes along. Hence why it is false. The baptism of John the Baptist was merely a precursor for the true baptism being offered by Christ. Preparing the people for that which was to come. That's all.

AMEN!!!

Oh I'm sorry I pray you find better theology and don't pray to dead people

Faith alone was not good enough? You had to add your works to salvation? Way to abandon the faith you once knew. There no longer remains a sacrifice for you under works.

So you went from a little shakey to absolute heresy? Oh ok

@@alwaysreforming872 He has not abandoned the faith, he never had one. No one who has been a real christian retreats from the faith. As the Apostle John said "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." Many years ago i was doing evangelism in the midle of a street market and a man came to me took one of my leaflet from my hand crumpled it up, threw it on the ground, and said to me while shouting: "you are a buch of liars, I used to be a christian evangelical and was baptised in the church but now I know the truth, you are all liars. that's why I left" I never told him I was an evangelical, he was refering to a pentecostal church he thought I was one of them, but I really felt sad for him and after 20 years I still think about that man. It must be terrible to end up like that.

@@Scribeintheink yes.

😂😂😂😂

Amen!

Love ya, but no thanks.

Repent and be Lutheran!

@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny you'll get there one day, I'll pray for you friend!

Have you seen the statistics of pastors deny essential doctrines such as The Trinity? Or people who profess faith in Jesus Christ deny them?

The BF&M already has those essential doctrines. If a pastor or lay person denies them already, how does adding a creed make a difference?

@@davidharvie6240 That’s my point, not having those hard stances on doctrine led to this. It seems that the BF&M is open to interpretation, but a creed is not. In some instances, the SBC is to autonomous.

Did you watch the video? The first 10 seconds I said the SBC didn't reject it.

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist must have been muted when I opened the video. I did listen to the whole video and somehow miss that. I retract!

@@RyanMcAllister1987 No worries, I didn't really explain the voting system or how it all worked (not even sure I understand). My purpose was to talk about why *some* in the SBC did not want to accept the creed. But thanks for responding, and watching! Blessings!

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist love your content, brother. Sorry I jumped hard. I’ve seen a LOT of confusion over the SBC stuff (understandably) so I just jumped too quickly. Should have rewatched lol!

Yea its Hans Fiene

I'm not sure how the Nicene Creed misinterprets Act 2:38?

@@fuzzyaomeba2844 Some people have parsed Acts 2:38 in a way that makes the command to baptize a parenthetical comment, and linked repentance to the forgiveness of sins. I merely said that these people would have a problem with the creed.

@@maxxiong ok, thank you for explaining what you meant

Yes I thought the same, when he talks about church history and admitting yeah this is Catholicism, then yeah when he is talking about the crazy landmark baptists that think their church goes back before rhe reformation (ppsst don't tell Spencer Smith!) And Keith seemed not to buy that idea, I was like yeah their are some real crazy ideas entertained specifically by baptisms that make them look to me as insane as Jehovahs witnesses.

Why in the world do they do THAT?

They are both councils of Nicaea. Nicaea I and Nicaea II. Yes there was a previous creed at the 2st council, as there was a previous ceed prior to Nicaea, the Apostles Creed, which is still a viable creed some churches still use. 👍🏻

@@srich7503 As long as Christians understand that these are Trinitarian Creeds, we're good. These "catholic" creeds are what makes even us Reformed Baptists, "catholic," because we are Trinitarians. In other words, the "catholicity" of these creedal statements does NOT depend on a Christian being a Papist, or Eastern Orthodox (both of which are apostate, false religions).

@@ryangallmeier6647 i dont disagree but i also dont see how it has anything to do with your OP. Also this last post fits very well with the Catholic catechism teachings.

If baptism washes away sins then yes, it's an essential issue what happens during baptism. Since the early Church taught baptismal regeneration, to say otherwise goes against what Christians have always taught on baptism.

@@dman7668 We're saved by grace through faith and not of works. Baptism with water doesn't save you. Baptism of the Spirit is what saves you when you repent and believe and are born again, which is a simultaneous occurrence that provides the believer justification through the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a work that a Christian will do because they love the Lord, but the work itself does not save.

@jamestiffany3531 The reality is that people have the internet and can easily see the Church never understood baptism the way you understand it James. We can clearly see the Church wasn't viewing baptism or interpreting the Bible that way. You can't find your interpretation of baptism pre protestant reformation. So we know your view is just an accretion and also false.

@@dman7668 The counterfeit Church will always be the mainstream. It's the one everyone flocks towards. There are many antichrist. The true church has the Word of God, which will never pass away. That is where the truth will always be. Everything I said was the truth and can be found in the Scriptures. I don't care what the traditions of men say. I only care about what God has to say.

Bug zapper in the next episode would be great!

Everyone reading the bible for themselves is exactly why we need creeds. 😊