Thank you redeemed zoomer! I was not connected with God for a long time, but after watching your videos I took the step to grow more in faith. Praise God!
@@EliB207Probably someone who have just heard about Calvinism with these pentecostals/ Non denominational youtubers who love to talk about it without knowing anything about Reformed Theology and make a 2 hour video just strawmaning Calvin. There are a lot of this guys out there since pentecostalism decided to consider Calvinism a heresy lol.
PRAISE THE LORD!!!🗣️🗣️🗣️🔊🔊🔊🔥🔥🔥 For those who don’t know by the way, (anyone can read though), Jesus will fulfill you more than anything in this world, I speak from experience (from when i did Romans 10:9-13), he loves you and wants to be in a meaningful (not romantic) relationship with you. :) “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-13 KJV “and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Mark 1:15 KJV If you want proof that Jesus and the Bible are true look a documentary called “Ron Wyatt discoveries 2022” on RU-vid and a RU-vid channel called Expedition Bible. They both examine archeological sites and discoveries that prove the Bible, and even reference secular sources. (Just don’t convert to 7th day Adventism after watching the documentary) And lastly if you don’t know the gospel and want to be saved search up “abc’s of Salvation Teenmissions” on Google and it should be the first or second result. When you click on it read the whole thing, and do what it says and have faith in Jesus while you are doing it, do not doubt, and if it is hard for you to do what it says, ask Jesus to help you, have faith that he will, and *he will.* God Bless :)
I started watching your videos as background noise while playing Minecraft, I was also a radical atheist and rejected the very existence of a creator, let alone worship him. I didn't click on your video but RU-vid automatically auto played it. I know know it was our lord and saviour Jesus Christ that placed your videos on my recommended. You made me see the outer picture, to see that this wonderful universe with just way too many coincidences for human life was not made by a big bang but by god and his power. Praise be to god.
One of my PCA ruling elders is so based. When I was talking to him about the real presence he said “Jesus did say this is my body”. Also I would kinda disagree that Westminster can be abused to have a symbolic view of the supper (I would give you that anything can be abused to fit what people want to believe). The larger catechism explicitly says we feed on the body and blood of Christ.
Here is an idea for another KingdomCraft episode, do a comparison between the Presbyterian confession's/catechism's and the Dutch Reformed confession's/catechism's
If you are serious about the study, there have been comparison done already that you can read up on. The differences are extremely minor, but the tone is vastly different. The Belgic Confession is written more "warmly" but not as clear and precise. The Westminster Confession is rigid but more precise. The reason is that the WC was written like 70 or 80 years after the BC and wanted to eliminate any misinterpretations.
Westminster isn't vague on the sacraments. The Larger Catechism says "they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body" (168). Also, having a binding Book of Confessions in conservative denominations is extremely impractical. The PC(USA) can have the Book of Confessions because they don't enforce any degree of subscription to the confessions. In the PCA, we require our pastors to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Westminster is more than sufficient in its theology, especially when a church actually believes and enforces the contents. We don't use the word "theosis", but we do talk about union with Christ. Union with Christ is prominently featured in Westminster. Final point worth considering: the Church of Scotland jettisoned the Scots in favor of Westminster. That should tell you something about the development of Reformed thought and that Westminster was accepted by the purest Presbyterians as superior to the Scots.
Often times people say having communion more frequently would make it "less special"; These same people seem to want sermons and the offering every week 😅
The Scots Confession was written in four days by John Knox and five other men - all called John. Is it easy to make even a RU-vid video of any substance in four days? If you want a Scottish discussion of theology from someone who had read all of Barth's Dogmatics and who interacted with T. F. Torrance then consider Donald Macleod's books or lectures. There's a lecture currently labelled as "Discipleship no4 discipleship and the sacraments" from the "Lectures in the Faith" series "2001-2002 Discipleship" on my channel which is pitched to a congregational audience. I'd provide links but I'm not sure if the settings would allow posts with those.
I’m Scottish, former Presbyterian, currently non-denominational/pentecostal but I don’t think I could even walk into a CoS church anymore it’s just so sad. I’d love to support the Reconquista here though
I knew literally nothing about Reformed theology before watching your channel. Even though as a Catholic I still disagree with it, at least now I have a much clearer understanding of why and feel like I can have good debates with Reformers (if I ever do meet one).
Problem with the theory that Baptism saves is that the thief on the cross, and anyone on their deathbed, didn't have the time to get baptised. Jesus himself declares that the thief would go with Him in paradise. That's why I always encourage people to get their beliefs through the Bible over any confessions, as confessions arent necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the Bible is. Baptism is command to us, but the Bible never declares that it saves or is even necessary in all cases.
There's a difference between saying that baptism saves (the Bible does explicitly say this in 1 Peter 3:21, and alludes to it in John 3) and that you can't be saved _without_ baptism.
You didnt even mention the Belgic Confession, it is very based, definitely worth your time, the story of Guido De Bres, the author of it, is very interesting as well, he was like the Robin Hood of the Reformed church
I was literally doing my research for my master's thesis on geomechanics and soil liquefaction phenomena in mining tailings dams while listening to you lol
To say “a good portion of evangelicals don’t believe Jesus is God” seems like an absurd claim to me. Ive been to many evangelical churches never met an evangelical who would disagree with that
0:00 I did, they didn't care so I picked up a copy of the Mystical Presence, by John Williamson Nevin, so I could be more than well equipped to educate them. I definitely recommend it.
@redeemedzoomer6053 For a future video, maybe you should explain the difference between Jesus’s sacrifice and human sacrifice in Pagan rituals. It’s a point atheists bring up occasionally, and though I’m a Catholic Christian I’m not sure how I’d give a good answer to that
@@keelanenns4548 Accurate. That man really harmed the reputation of the reformed baptist subculture with his wild theology. Most people assume a "reformed baptist" is just a MacArthurite who thinks he has outstanding theology without looking into the rich particular baptist history and confessions
Wow never read the Scottish confession by Knox and appreciate your contrast/comparison of Knox & WCF! I went from J.W. Cult to Calvin ( back in the ‘90s): OPC-Dr. Bahnsen, PCA church plants, both with emphasis on Calvin’s Institutes, WCF. etc. I’m currently attending a local Lutheran LCMS Church with some contrasting doctrinal distinctions I take/allowed to not subscribe to as a non member: Lord’s Supper Real Presence; Baptism Saves; you can loose your salvation. Fortunately the Lutheran Pastor allows me to attend worship and take the Lords Supper, etc. Jeff @ Southern California ✝️
He’s a 4th gen Lutheran: as a Pastor he has to subscribe to their LCMS confessions; however he made an exception for my wife and I on regarding soteriology differences, but agree that we must be born again and “saved by faith, not by works,”etc. !✝️
I don't personally affirm any efficacy of water to save (nor does Zoomer). In my mind, baptism is the water. That said, I need to do some study on baptism because I know there's more. To me it seems most likely that there's several baptisms, possibly related but not sacramentally tied. But if baptism by water is sacramentally tied to a baptism that equals regeneration, it's got to be time travelling, and Zoomer has already explained why.
@@fresholiveoil6490Scripture says there is only one baptism. This is the trouble with the Reformed view: it wants to maintain that baptism is a single sacrament that is genuinely efficacious for salvation, but its seperation between baptism's institution and effect inevitably leads to the Evangelical mistake of confessing two baptisms ("water baptism" and "spirit baptism").
@benjaminAnderson21 I hadn't thought of that verse. Regardless of whether it's correct to separate or conflate different baptisms, it's clear that Paul's point in saying there is "one baptism" is to emphasize the unity of the church. In the previous verse (Ephesians 4:4) he says there is one spirit (πνεύμα); yet we know there are a multitude of spirits based on other scriptures. One Spirit binds us as a church, as does one baptism. But the gospel accounts do imply very strongly that there is more than one baptism: in Luke 3:16 and Matthew 3:11, John tells his disciples that he baptises with water, but He who comes after (that is to say, Jesus) will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. If those are all the same baptism, why does John bother mentioning it? There could be alternate explanations, but the simplest and most straightforward understanding I have is that there is a distinction to be made between baptism with water and with the Holy Ghost.
This really clarified what the reformed view of Baptism; granted you're just talking about the Presbyterian confessions, but all the reformed believe essentially the same things. I'm curious, for the whole "Time travelling efficacy of Baptism" thing, are there any Church Fathers who say anything like that?
😂 congratulations on being Christian. Watch more of his videos and look up what you don’t understand. I was you and still kind of am lol but seeking God more helped me understand :) (this sounds kind of dumb but his discord also helped too just as God intended.) This part of for unbelievers but really anyone can read it. Jesus will fulfill you more than anything in this world, I speak from experience (from when i did Romans 10:9-13), he loves you and wants to be in a meaningful (not romantic) relationship with you. :) “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-13 KJV “and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Mark 1:15 KJV If you want proof that Jesus and the Bible are true look a documentary called “Ron Wyatt discoveries 2022” on RU-vid and a RU-vid channel called Expedition Bible. They both examine archeological sites and discoveries that prove the Bible, and even reference secular sources. (Just don’t convert to 7th day Adventism after watching the documentary) And lastly if you don’t know the gospel and want to be saved search up “abc’s of Salvation Teenmissions” on Google and it should be the first or second result. When you click on it read the whole thing, and do what it says and have faith in Jesus while you are doing it, do not doubt, and if it is hard for you to do what it says, ask Jesus to help you, have faith that he will, and *he will.* God Bless :)
Zoomer, have you been speeding up your videos lately? You're so fast. Gives me an impression of restlessness. Hope you're alright :) Thanks for making all this content
Hey brothers! I have an important question to Calvinists! Please help a brother out ❤ So: If we say God is all loving, than would imply that He wants the best for everyone. He knows that the best for a person is to be with Him, in Heaven. Therefore if He predestines us all, and loves us, why dont all go to Heaven? What is stopping Him from predestining everyone to live a godly life praising Jesus? If He truly predestines: -It goes against free will -It makes God not loving How am I wrong? Educate me please. Sorry if I came off arrogant.
Predestination is not an infringement on free will, at least not how we understand it. We do not believe, as the Gnostics believed, that election is on the basis of containing some divine shard in our hearts, and that those without it cannot be saved. Predestination is a statement of final destination. Every day of our lives is already written in His Book of Life. This is possible because truly free choices are not made randomly, but instead based on environment and circumstance (as well as the condition of our hearts, e.g. Pharaoh having his heart hardened by God so he wouldn't let the Israelites go before God was finished showing who's boss). God foreknew that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but yet He still chose to put the tree there with them in the Garden. By your logic, a loving God would never have given them the choice to do evil in that way at all, but clearly God disagrees! God would like for all of us to be redeemed in Him, as He loves us all, but He has not chosen to predestine everyone to be among the redeemed elect. It should be noted that election and non-election are not the same as redemption/condemnation. (We are condemned for our own actions due to our sin.) In Calvinistic language, we say that He decreed that all should sin and fall away by willfully disobeying his commandments, and then He decreed that some should repent and be restored to participate in His Glory. Those chosen for this honour are called "the elect". If you're still struggling, I'll explain it another way: we do not believe in multiple possible future timelines like in science fiction, but instead in one singular future history. This necessarily implies predestination (furthermore, as God already knew us when He wove us together in the womb, and as He already knows every day of our lives, this is backed up by Scripture). I hope this helps.
@Jupiter__001_ As a Calvinist myself, I have struggled with this as well. Why does God only decree SOME people to be saved, when He could save all? I know He has no requirement to save everyone, but in His loving mercy, he still decides to save some, but why not all? Since he does not save everyone, does this mean that He is not ALL-loving?
@@esserman1603 all is determined in the sight of our omniscient God. I think God wants all to be saved, but in his omniscient, he foreknow who will be saved. We are free to choose, but God sovereignty knows the end, and nothing escapes his control and limits.
@@esserman1603 it debunks Calvinism. It indicates that those for whom Christ died can still perish either limited atonement or perseverance of the saints is false or both.
The Presbyterian Church, no matter what expression of it you may be in, should use only the Westminster Standards. If someone wants to keep that abomination that is the confession of 1967, then they are a rank liberal. Barthian theology and neo-orthodoxy is NOT acceptable in the church; we don't want our churches theology to come from someone who should have (and would have) been excommunicated from the church. We should require our ministers to be held accountable to a strict subscription to the standards with no exceptions allowed. The Westminster confession and the catechisms alone are fine enough. They were fine enough for the PCUSA from 1788 to 1903, and they will be fine enough for the church again today if it is to be reformed again.
So how do you KNOW you are one of the elect? It can’t be just by your fruits, because there are plenty of people who produce fruits and the apostate. So how do you KNOW?
Somewhat random question…what do you think of paedocommunion? I’m becoming more convinced it should’ve come back into practice after the reformers brought the cup back to the supper.
I doubt that vivziepop is a confessing Presbyterian. Vaguely influenced by Christian mythology (Heaven, Hell, Satan, even values like redemption), but not an actual Christian.
