I really enjoyed this. There were tense moments, but I think those show the areas most needing inter-group discussion in contemporary conservative confessionalism.
Yeah I don't know if Everhard enjoyed the convo of the Lords Table, esp when Zoomer was saying that he hasn't heard of the language of "Body and Blood" of Christ in many churches.
Zoomer. I'm a confessional Lutheran who has seen a lot of your videos. I have also read most of the reformed confessions, both 16th century and 17th century. To address a question that you asked in the video.....yes, there was a shift in reformed theology between the 16th and 17th century. The 16th century confessions are much closer to the Lutheran view regarding baptism. What changed later in reformed theology was the Arminian controversy within reformed churches which resulted in the synod of Dort. The canons of dort shifted the reformed focus from the sacraments to a focus on the relationship between predestination and the human will. This change in focus was most likely grandfathered into the Westminster confession which was written much later in the 17th century. Because of your love for the sixteenth-century reformed confessions your views on the sacraments are much closer to the Lutheran view than they are to the reformed view and the confusion in the "soft debate" that you had with pastor Everhard reflects this difference. Great video!
Currently reading a book on this, and read jv feskos book on baptism “word water spirit” and i do see this similarity in baptism arguments, mostly because Geneva and as well as the lutherans were answering the same questions. Fully developed presbyterian covenant theology comes later down the road relating to covenant, but this is true as far as arguments about baptism are concerned. I will say as far as relationship between old and new covenants, lutherans, 1689ers, and roman catholics tend to agree against to reformed, which is interesting.
this could be true, Francis Turretin who is one of the divines of the Synod of Dort does not believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation, instead he takes it a view to be generally necessary because of God's command. Can check this out in his 3rd volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology.
I was baptised as a child in Australia presbyterian and went to Australian Uniting Church Sunday school. When I left school joined the military I moved away from that as work and life become 1st. Now retired I am now 60 and refinding my Christianity but I find the predestination hard to work through as coming back to Christianity. I have been studying the bible and have studied Romans 9 and I can't see the Tulip alignment as through out the Bible Jesus acceptance of all and healing and wanted all to repent and follow him for eternal life. We have to follow repent and ìf the predestination is true then all these other Christian's will spend a life of following scripture and repentance and be denied and sent to hell with nashing of teeth. Jesus clearly teaches if you have faith and repent and believe in him he is our saviour and gateway to heaven and his father God who has Grace. I understand the Trinity the Father, Son and holy spirit or holy ghost. I also see the Baptism assigning our souls to the covenant. So to me the predestination will kill the church. As the Bible does not clearly support rather Paul is talking to Israelites about Gentiles. So I am in a kind of tough understanding on this Predestination and the whole TULIP bit. This is a scholars interpretation back in 1600 or 1700. I honestly have issues with Church and this teaching style. I read my bible and watch online church services and try to watch the same chapter explained by other online Ministers.
When I was member of the OPC, we had one Elder who liked to just read portions of John 6 before we received the Supper. The other elders would only read 1 Corinthians 11 and would emphasize the symbolism, but this one Elder would never do that. Just read Christ's words in John 6 and then administered the Supper. It was lovely!
This is a collab I never saw coming!! I stumbled upon Matt Everhard a few months ago, and he's one of those underrated gems that always delivers. Excited to see this. From a Reformed Baptist considering Presbyterianism.
@@perilousrange what the Pope says has no bearing on what the Magisterium teaches unless he proclaims it as universally binding on the faithful, exercising the power to bind and loose given to St Peter.
Reformed baptist, wife and i are 1689 Federalist but currently members of the PCA out of necessity due to location. Love the PCA and can’t wait to watch this interview!!!
This seemed like a breath of fresh air to have Presbyterians of different denominations discuss topics and Confessions, and both being charitable to each other. Regarding the suspicion that the PCA’s stance of the sacraments is mainly ceremonial, it appears that WCF 24.7 states that when worthy receivers partake of the elements, they receive them spiritually, consistent with their faith, which defies a solely symbolic partaking).
Matt brings a certain wisdom as a pastor. Pastor’s have to answer questions in a way that is balanced. A answer that both encourage and solidifies believers faith.
I am curious: does your church building (temple) look like a sports hall or concert hall with a stage? Do you use pop music in worship? Is your pastor a woman or a gay man?
@@deutschermichel5807 each denomination, and yes, even Catholic/Orthodox have sects of liberal congregations, and they are usually excommunicated by the conservative one.
@@deutschermichel5807as a non-denominational Christian, raised in a church of Christ, my church has had only old white men as the pastor, they wouldn’t let a woman minister. The building itself is actually a school, not a stadium, and they know sexual immorality is a sin. I don’t think any church is playing “pop” music during service. I’ve never seen a church playing cardi b. Does your church only use single note vocal harmonies in their music, you know intervals are demonic. Jesus didn’t play the organ.
Can we take a moment to appreciate and savor that two men who disagree on some points that are non trivial can do so without resorting to name calling, screaming, or other folks tend to do...
Loved Zoomer pressing Pastor Matt for clarity on Lord's Supper. Also appreciated Matt's careful responses. Itv appears that have different convictions regarding the importance of the phrase "receive the body & blood"...but were too polite to come out and say it.
Matt does have a high view of the sacraments. I think the controversy was just on how should we phrase what goes on. In Matt’s video on the Lord’s Supper, he speaks on a spiritual feeding of Christ, which means that Matt is not zwinglian. I think the reason why zoomer talks about the PCA’s view of sacraments is because some PCA pastors may be zwinglian (which I would argue is rare, but does occur. I have heard pastors in the PCUSA sound zwinglian also, even with the Scots confession), but also because they want to be careful explaining the reformed view and say zwinglian phrases even though they hold to real presence to appeal I guess to a memorialist audience. My little gripe with the supposed zwinglians is that they should be more clear about what they believe to avoid confusion, and my little gripe with zoomer is that I believe that we should debate on this in the reformed tradition. Yes, we all believe Christ is spiritually present, but having a different opinion or phraseology of how he is really and spiritually present shouldn’t have you labeled Baptist or zwinglian.
@@mmtoss6530 Yeah - its interesting that the ghosts of Marburg still haunt us to this day. FWIW, I have seen *exactly* the zwinglian, minimalist sacrament view in PCA churches. Baptism and the Eucharist are treated in a very perfunctory, memorialist kind of way.
Pastor Matthew is a gracious, thoughtful and patient theologian who has little time for overly-complex semantic interpretations and intellectually-inspired theological obsessions. His channel is well worth subscribing to.
When I saw who was being interviewed, I thought, "Are they going to argue about baptism?" The way I see it, Zwingli is an inescapable part of the Reformed tradition, so this point will always be a matter of dispute. Reformed Christians can hold a range of beliefs from Knox to Zwingli without losing their Reformed identity. (Maybe they shouldn't call themselves Presbyterians if they disagree with Knox, but they are still very much within the Reformed tent.)
That would be interesting to hear his take on it. He seems pretty biased, but with good reason, which gives him an interesting perspective. Even though I'm literally getting my degree in classical music, I'm much more open to (some) contemporary music than he is from what I've seen.
@@andrewwunrow yeah same, in terms of strictly worship music i'm orthodox so i keep it to the traditional chants and hymns but in terms of regular music even though i'm a classically trained musician i'm really not a purist about what i listen to lol, i'm big into all kinds of secular contemporary genres. also congrats on the degree, hope you've enjoyed it :)
I don’t know if Zoomer agrees, but I think contemporary Christian music is fine … I really like some Lauren Daigle songs, for example. However, it just doesn’t belong in a sacred church service! The hymns are more beautiful than anything new.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXISTS IN THIS WORLD, or any other for that matter, that can stand up to the DEVINE POWER of FAITH & The LIMITLESS POWER & PURITY of BELIEF in such FAITH. NOT ONLY your own FAITH, but in the ENORMOUS FAITH of the HOLY COMMUNITY
I discovered both of you guys recently and have appreciated your videos. In the past year I’ve come to believe in covenant theology, paedobaptism, and the reformed doctrine of salvation. I’ve been listening to a lot of reformed teachings, but have been struggling with the idea that baptism is both a sign and seal. Eph 1 teaches that the Holy Spirit is our seal which we receive when we believe. How can baptism be a seal if we were already sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believed?
In some ways very painful to watch. I love Dr. Everhard and even spent over 200 dollars on a wide margin Bible at his recommendation 5 years ago (great choice still). However you can see his hesitation to say anything remotely salvific about the sacraments. He seems to be motivated by worry that the layman will misunderstand and hear a Catholic position, but I'd say the way he speaks brings about the opposite misunderstanding and most Presbyterians think mode and infant baptism are the extent of our disagreements with baptists. I really appreciate people like Zoomer who aren't afraid to simply say the Reformed position. And I don't mean that to say that Dr. Everhard is. I just wish he and more PCA ministers would be willing to teach the somewhat nuanced position of limited sacramental efficacy with the same readiness to teach limited atonement. A lot of these things can be misunderstood so let's teach them.
The sign and the seals. The sacrament. The ordinance. As for the sign, I would say that sign means that the tokens or the symbols or the bodies are annexed to the promises; that is, the antecedent promises. The sign is two things: the things and the words, or the promises. When they are separated, there is no consecration, and there is no setting them apart for the purpose they were designed for.
57:35 my town has a full pca church with no pastor and an empty opc church with a pastor. The pca building has been there since the gold rush, church of the 49ers.
It was kind of a strawman argument question since Zoomer made a claim that he doesn't see this and then when asked how many churches are going to he said I don't know.. so where's the question coming from then?
@@GrammarPoliceBotthat question was of how other churches spoke of the communion being the blood and body, i dont know is a normal answer unless you visit many other churches.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
You'll notice the verse doesn't say "God effaciously wills all men to be saved" or even that Christ died for the world (which I affirm). It says that God loved the world, He gave His Only Begotten Son, and that whoever believes on the Son is saved, something every legitimate calvinist affirms.
Westminster Confession of Faith on The Lord's Supper: "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." (WCF XXIX.7)
In my PCUSA church growing up, we never opened the book of confession in 18 years. We never identified as or taught what reformed meant. We were just a generic leftist church. In my current PCA church, we discuss the Westminster confession/catechism every Sunday.
The Problem with the Sacraments in the PCA is they let Baptists become members of there churches even when they don't believe anything in the confession. So the even though the Pastors may believe it, in practice it is not practiced. (Im a member of the PCA).
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I find it fascinating that you choose to be PCUSA over PCA. I know your stance on taking back the main line denominations; but it's still hard for me to process. Then again, I also have trouble processing Catholics that aren't sedevacantists.
Hey zoomer I’m about to start my own channel with a similar Minecraft and Christianity style. Out of curiosity would it be possible in the future for your server to have a Pentecostal town
God bless Pr. Everhard that he is a grey-haired, Bible-believing man, pastor, husband and father. With many narcissistic men and women running to colagen supplies, hair painting and the like, may God give me grace not to tie to appearances.
Zoomer, what are your views on dating and even marrying from different denominations. My girlfriend and I have been dating for a while and both of us are part of different denominations. Her being Calvinist and myself being a Roman Catholic. I really love your videos and I was just wondering what your views on this would be.
I thought about this a lot as I had a Mormon gf that was really serious. My view on this is for both of you to try each other's churches and see if one sticks, and if not, try to find a 3rd denomination you can agree on. Marriage should be the bringing together of 2 people before God, so it does well if you find a common one...though it may still work if you both stick to your current church, as long as you reach an understanding about it. In my case I was willing to try almost any church but the Mormon church, and she was unwilling to waver. But the Mormon church is quite a lot different from other Christian faiths, and she was unwilling to give an inch. At the end of the day I think you have to do what is right for you, and if you find a healthy compromise. I wish you both well, how ever it works out. :)
Not zoomer, but if you understand dating rightly, you will know it's primary objective is for marriage, and a necessary and righteous consequence of Christian marriage is children. How are you going to raise them? How are you going to catechise them? You must, as a one-flesh married couple, have a united view on all matters theology. Calvinism and catholicism could not be more different in terms of their viewpoints on many, many issues. Sola scriptura, predestination, the sacraments, just to name a few, I'm sure you're aware. You must sort this out and come to an agreement, where you either side fully with one or another's denomination, or a third denomination if you prefer that. As your wife she must submit to you, but you also must be unified in truth. You will not have a fruitful marriage if you two can't agree on the essentials of the Christian faith.
The reformed zoomer is in a Samctuary that looks a lot like 10th Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia near Rittenhouse Square near where the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra plays. Wkere the legemdary James M Boice preached theoughout the 1980's and 1990's. My wife and I were married there.
The kingdom of hell will never prevail, that means that a reformation is impossible. And they said , save us Lord, for we perish, then He said , where is your faith?
He definitely seems closer to the memorialist view of sacrements while you seem to lean closer to the Lutheran view , This probably is a result of what you said about multiple confessions clarifying Westminster , while only one confession can be interpreted differently , Also did not like the way he was separating the natures of Christ saying Catholics tend to focus on human nature present , and Reformed divine. Christ cannot be divided in anything. That is Nestorian heresy
I agree with you on Zoomer, he seems to hold a Lutheran view. Everhard has a Reformed Westmnister view. Sign and seal. It is effectual just as the WCF speaks of the Word and Prayer being effectual meand of grace. And he did not slip into Nestorian heresy. There has to be a distinction because Christians believe Christ rose again. He has a resurrected body in a real location (i.e., heaven), and He is also omnipresent because He is God.
I think presbys are trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to baptism. Its a symbol of your faith and saves but in the next breath, you say john the baptist had faith as an ingant but we cant tell if infants being baptized are regenerated. If baptism saves then i cant see how they arent regenerate. Todays reformed baptists at least are more consitent in their understanding of the sacrement. I do however appreciate the attempt at sticking with Calvin rather than the Smyth on that. The lords supper as well! I am seriously curious, why dont presbys take calvins historic view on mary seriously?
@redeemedzoomer6053 Dude... you should totally do a video on that! In the 10 years I spent as a calvinist I never heard Calvin's view on Mary. I think it's one of those historic doctrines that a lot of modern presbys stay away from for fear of sounding too catholic. I don't think you're like that at all.... I'd be so interested to hear your thoughts on the theotokos.
Calvin compromised on baptism, as did Luther. They only signed off on infant baptism because they helped to find state churches, and a state church has to "baptise" infants.
@@robsunners What do you mean compromise? Do you think they could've gone with their beliefs rather than altar theology to appease the state? Or do you think their real interest was power and influence?
what that guy said isn't true at all. Calvin STRONGLY advocated infant baptism. ALL the Reformers believed Mary is the Mother of God, and I have a video about that called "is Mary the Mother of God"
So this is coming from a Free Methodist Armenian POV. We believe that baptism is a showing of ur faith. One of the things we do at a baptism is faith testimony where we explain what led us to Christ. However we also believe that if u are on your death bed and accept the free gift of salvation (again as an Armenian viewpoint we believe in Free will) if u aren't baptized before u die that doesn't mean u lose ur salvation. In some cases from pastors I know they will do a what I like to call "prison baptism" where instead of being fully immersed in a pool pond or baptism tank u can be baptized by having water or oil gently poured over ur head and the sign of the cross on your forehead (note this is not the Catholic sign of the cross its just a simple cross on ur forehead and not fully down) Although here's something I've been meaning to ask u. What do u think about the question "If God is so good then why is there evil in the world and why does God not stop it?" Our view (again its the Armenian view that has free will) is that because God is a loving father he gives us free will to choose good or evil and that's why there's evil and suffering in the world. We also believe in the fall of man (Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden) so that's why. As for why God doesn't stop it again because we as humans have free will He can't stop it because then He would be taking away our free will and thereby no longer be a loving God because He would then be forcing His will on us.
@@MysticOceanDollies So for me that would depend on the type of Baptist u are. I have many Baptist friends and it seems to depend on whether ur Reformed (Calvinist Baptist) or First/Second Baptist church. Or if u're in the States I think reformed Baptist is often called SOuthern Baptist but a lot of Canadian Baptists (im Canadian btw) dont like the Southern Baptist name due to the extermism that has come out of it (Westboro Baptist for example)
@@davidfitzpatrick6535 you would be correct that most southern Baptist tend to lean on the reformed (I grew up Southern Baptist). Very few Southern Baptist churches are like Westboro and I am pretty sure they are not a part of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC is the reason my dad is saved as they held a lot of missions in Cuba and have started a lot of churches there.
@@MysticOceanDollies Church plants are allowed in Cuba? I know Christianity is the official religion there (or Catholicism at least) but I thought the Castros didnt allow Christianity to spread?
i can't see PCA and PCUSA "merging" ... that's like saying Westminster Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary merging... which is just unfathomable to think about.
Zoomer can't understand an intellectual " I don't know" answer. This pastor is so good that though he doesn't know he has a very clear answer but is still pressed.
Hey zoomer, sorry for the question being here I tried on insta but it flagged my account. What heretical "christian" denomination is worst for Christianity? Whether it be for size of it or its ideas? Edit: I don't mean progressive Christianity because that probably would be worse because of size and teachings I mean like JW or Mormons etc
@@wintershreve2056 But if Jesus is now the physical offspring of a powerful alien from Kolob, haven't we departed from the orthodox faith by quite a distance?
I joined Redemmed Zoomer’s Disco server,got muted for a week cuz of a meme,and first thing I said something,someone said “oh no,another catholic racist” pretty rude,huh?
What's so hard about saying "we turly receive the body and blood of Christ" ? His own inability to say those words should have been evidence to him of what you say you have observed in the PCA.
Zwingli was reformed. So I think it’s inaccurate to act as if Zwingli’s views aren’t reformed. They certainly aren’t historically Presbyterian but they are historically reformed.
This is probably just coming from my background as an enthusiastic Orthodox Catechumen, but the discussion about the Sacraments was kind of painful to listen to. It very much sounds like Pastor Matthew really believes in symbolic sacraments, and only nominally/verbally gives some affirmation of realist sacramentology so as not to go afoul of the traditional reformed stance in the confessions. I honestly don't understand what point remains to the Sacraments in this view. Overall, very interesting discussion, thoroughly enjoyed it.
Dr. Mathew is unaware of empiricism as a many pastors are. The sacraments are for souls with bodies for the strengthening of our faith. There is a correlation between John's Gospel and empiricism. John demonstrates the necessity for justification and proof for faith. Proof and the word also go together. Nobody believes Jesus words apart from the prophecies, signs, wonders, and testimonies. Likewise, the sacraments are for the strengthening of our faith that the Holy Spirit provides.
I was raised Roman Catholic, moved to the South and became Baptist? Southern Baptist. Later in the navy they had protestant or non-protestant. Nowadays, I actually don't believe in denominations. I am a Deacon at a Non-denominational Christian church. We are all Christians. Is Christ your Lord and Savior. Did Christ die for your sins. Are you saved by faith not works.
If you wish to discuss further, I can lead you to the homepage of our church and you can feel free to look at our core beliefs. Or I can give you my cell and we can discuss it. It would take quite a bit to elaborate and my hands can't type for long.
How are you reconciling your interpretation of scripture with passages like Matthew 16:18-19, or 2 Peter 3:16. Or the fact that regeneration and justification are the same thing and happen simultaneously…. Inferior theology.
Christian husbands now 'obey their wives,' yet Jesus specifically and unequivocally said, "I came to uphold the Law... Wives obey your husbands..." You guys are practicing goddess ideology, not biblical truth.
Ephesians 5:21 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" In my perspective, submission is willing and earnest obedience, while obedience doesn't describe one's attitude while yielding to another. Those who say husbands are to obey their wives might be simply confused in their wording. Submit and obey are often interchangeable. Also, they might be taking Ephesians 5:21 to it's logical end, even though the Bible does not emphasize for husbands to obey their wives. I'm trying to argue in good faith, but I agree that specifically saying "husbands are to obey their wives" shouldn't be explicitly taught. Especially since Eve led Adam to sin as well, which is why husbands now have leadership of their households.
Lots of focus on confessions, and a total dismissal of Biblical truth. Scripture clearly states that baptism is done on confession of faith and is, by definition, through immersion, and John 6 clearly distinguishes the bread and wine as a literal form (albeit a mystery this side of heaven as to how) of Christ's body. Why else would so many, who had followed Jesus for so long, turn away from him after he doubles down on this point?
All this division in Christianity, and subdivision is cultist, and is only possible due to its divorce from its roots in the 2nd century, more Churchianity yhat the spiritual faith of Abraham. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for the NT truth, rather than doctrines negotiated by men centuries later, eg the 5 points of Calvinism is Baptism not Salvation.
@@bryanbaez4412 figuring it out is an honest point, the NT is 2000 years old but it tells us in the epistles it was already being falsely taught, Paul complained often of the churches in the regions how quickly they believed a perverted gospel, and all I say is he was right and nobody listened to him until I did. The churches grew in their false teaching, yet the truth is still there if we listen to Jesus, Paul and John.
@@simonskinner1450 truth is objective. Figuring it out is hard. No one has it a hundred percent. The western church was definitely far from it during the great schism and and reformations that’s for sure
