Wow, as an evangelical for 20 years thinking about going back to roman Catholicism, I am very IMPRESSED with your breakdown! Everyday i am more impressed by Lutherans. God bless!
You hit the nail on the head with the "Well the early church just all lost it" argument. That is the prevailing argument I've heard. I remember being on a Calvinist message board, and one of the posters there literally believed that the church decided to invent sacramental efficacy as soon as the apostles died. It was the weirdest and least convincing argument I had ever heard, and it served to direct me to Lutheranism. The collective amnesia in modern evangelicalism (or perhaps it's just "chronological snobbery" as C.S. Lewis called it) is quite astounding. I think I've brought this up here before, but if you ask a modern evangelical Wesleyan (Free Methodist or Nazarene in particular), they are completely ignorant of John Wesley's sacramental theology, which was FAR closer to Luther's than to the "mere symbolism" they basically embrace in these churches now. What would be interesting to do sometime is a study as to how and why Zwinglianism spread so quickly through the modern church.
I grew up in the Nazarene church (I'm now a very happy confessional Lutheran) and I remember being completely surprised one Sunday when we had an actual baptism of a baby. In all the years I attended that church until I was 18 that was the only infant baptism I remember. Sadly, I read there is a movement among some Nazarene pastors to get rid of infant baptism in the Nazarene church. I guess they want to be just as lame and boring as every other evangelical church out there.
Why did it spread so widely? Satan appears as an angel of light. He can’t kill the church through obvious external sins, so he introduces false teachings and teachers on the inside.
I can never take credobaptists seriously when they try and do a Koine Greek lesson to prove their point. Because the early church was paedobaptist and Greek was the lingua franca of the church fathers. They would’ve known the language of the New Testament better than the scholars of today.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”” Acts 2:37-39
Moving from outside the Church to inside, where forgiveness is, happens through the gateway of Baptism inasmuch as every Christian must be baptized. But an adult hearing this preaching is only going to be moved to be baptized if he has been given faith. So believing and being baptized both suppose one another and the mention of either is proper in relation to forgiveness. This view is quite natural and actually gels well with a rejection of baby baptism. The difficulty for Baptists is they often deny baby or sprinkle baptisms are even valid even though almost all Christians had one of these until the 17th century, so they compromise the link between baptism and Christian identity and thus undermine the explanation above.
Yes this is what I was getting at in my comment. Your point about infant baptism is a good one. If we can’t affirm that aquinas and Luther were baptized then we have a problem and need to adjust.
@@jordancox5709 I think so. It is the paradox of Baptist theology on Baptism. It is first raised to a point of such importance to require schism, and afterwards, when recommencing relations with the rest of the Church, it is reduced to a noble but non-essential extra.
I remember reading Peter's sermon in Acts, and other passages, back in my Pentecostal days. They never made sense in my theological system, and none of the Evangelical commentaries gave a good explanation of what they meant. Basically I was left just saying, "I'm sure those passages mean something, but I have no idea what, and they obviously can't mean what it sounds like they mean."
Well argued, but as far as I am concerned there are just too many scriptural verses that mention baptism following the reception of the word. Unless, we are assuming that baptism in the Holy Ghost coincides with water baptism, but cannot be as baptising with the Holy Ghost is what differentiated the Lord's from John's. But here is a list: Acts 2:41"Those that gladly received the world were baptised" Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching.......they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 10:47 "can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as we". We also clearly see in Act 8:36-38, that Philip could only baptise the Eunach after confirm his acceptance of the gospel. For me this is sufficient proof that we are sent to preach the gospel and not to baptise (1 Corinthians 1:17), but those who respond to the gospel then there should be commanded to be baptised. Noted, all the good things that the Church fathers are very helpful, but we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and not that of every father (Matthew 4:4).
It always confused me: they call themselves baptists. Yet they hold the lowest view of baptism. Maybe their whole thing is "baptism of the Holy Spirit"? And their spirit is washed by the Holy Spirit when they believe...thus their namesake comes from THAT baptism? I'm confuzzled.
As a Baptist I do think there are other options than the one you cited. I would affirm (and some Baptist confessions as well) that grace and forgiveness is being applied in the waters of baptism. Thereby I don’t see any issue with affirming that portion of the creed. I would just also affirm that most of the time with an adult convert they’ve already been “regenerated” when God converted them (some people distinguish this from regeneration but I guess that gets to the challenge of making sure we aren’t talking past each other). Otherwise I don’t see how they would even seek Baptism if their hearts hadn’t already been changed by the Holy Spirit. I know the Lutheran tradition (and others like Aquinas) have a category for these people as well. If you want to call it a baptism of desire then that’s totally fine with me. I just would feel uncomfortable with the idea that someone who has faith but dies before their baptism is going to hell. Which I know Lutherans don’t affirm. You guys probably have been studying this longer than I have but I (and many other Baptists, though I recognize we are a minority since most haven’t really given it much thought) have no issues with baptism being an occasion - even the preeminent occasion for the forgiveness of sins. Ultimately we are dealing with mysteries of the faith and I hope all our traditions can keep learning from each other.
Not to push you negatively but to provide a guiding comment. The big thing is that the church prior to the creed, the authors of the creed, and the church following the creeds creation believed baptism efficaciously forgave sins (also a belief in baptismal regeneration. With that a creed is meant to unite the church in common beliefs explained in statements, and give a framework against heresies. Therefore a Baptist is in a tough bind if they reinterpretation portions, contrary to the authors beliefs on those portions, to fit their unique Baptist theology. This actually puts them in opposition to the creed as they attempt to affirm it.
@@Godfrey118yes but I also believe baptism efficaciously forgives sins. So I’m not reinterpreting the creed. Ortlund and Cooper got into this in their discussion. It’s not denying the creed to believe that forgiveness is applied at the moment of conversion and also at someone’s baptism. I think forgiveness is also applied when I confess my sins before I take the Eucharist. I don’t see any inconsistency there with the creed. I’m affirming the creed just also affirming that forgiveness can also be applied to someone at the moment of conversion which may not be temporarily identical with baptism. Like I was a dad at conception but also in a more powerful sense on delivery date. I’m not aware (though not an expert) of any part of the creed or early church understanding that violates. Unless the framers of the creed believed that only and exclusively at baptism can sins be forgiven or only and exclusively at baptism can one put their faith in Christ (neither of which I think is true). Now many baptists won’t agree with me, but the problem then isn’t with Baptist theology per se but a defective strand of our tradition that needs to be challenged and work through these issues. If I misunderstood you let me know. If your point was more that many baptists as individuals misinterpreting that language in the creed then I probably agree. I would just say for most that’s probably due to ignorance and would be better served by teaching them the implications of the creed rather than telling them not to affirm it which I what I took the original video to be doing.
@@jordancox5709 gotcha... Yeah I'll agree with you that many Baptists won't agree with you haha. That's a big defective strand in your denomination, good luck fixing that. Why not become high church? Like presbyterian or Anglican?
@@jordancox5709 if you believe that baptism efficaciously forgives sins, then you should be a paedobaptist because we are born into original sin at birth. Why would you not give that gift to children who are sinners just like you and me?
How should one understand "for repentance" in Matt 3:11? Here it would be absurd to understand it as if people obtained repentance in the moment of baptism (and not a second earlier). Is this not a passage baptist can use to build an argument similar to what is presented? I am not familiar with how the early church understood this passage so I would be interested in hearing a response. I say this as a lutheran, so i am in no way agreeing with the baptist conclusion. I am not curious whether there is more to the argument than what is rebuted here.
It seems that modern American Evangelicals are alwasy looking for the bare minimum. "I'm saved by Faith alone they say, that's it." It is true that we are saved by Faith alone, but you cannot have Faith without the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel. No Gospel, no Faith. The sacraments, both Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the "Visible Gospel". God gave us these gifts for our benefit. He combined earthly elements that we are familiar with with the Word to make it even more tangible for us humans. In the sacraments we can feel, we can touch, we can taste and we can hear. It is not the water of Baptism that saves you, it is the Word (the Gospel) that accompanies the water that saves you, through the Work of the Holy Spirity (We are saved by works, but it is God's Work, not ours). This is what trips the modern American Evangelical up. They look at Baptism as their work, their act of obedience after they have Faith, not as God's Work. And since it is their work, it can't save them, bacuase then it would be "Faith & Works". While they are still saved because of Faith, they are in effect a "new" branch of Christianity, apart from Confessional Protestantism and the otherwise universally accepted Nicene Creed. These beliefs put modern American Evangelicals outside of Historic Christianity.
@@DrGero15 not sure what you’re asking. i think it does violate orthodoxy. if you’re asking what the orthodox view is, it’s that there’s one mind in God. and as to the processions, the athanasian creed summarizes: “The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit received in baptism, which is God’s work, not ours. Baptist theology makes faith a work of man’s intellect and will (a decision) instead of a free gift we receive.
I dont like creeds. They were developed so certain groups could be persecuted. But i recite them with my church. We dont mean them in a nasty way like the early church did.
![Responding to a Baptist on the Nicene Creed [Improviso #34]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
