The Sacraments - Mastering Reformed Theology Chapter 5 

As a Baptist, I find it hilarious how many times I've been picked on in your videos, and yet, I keep coming back. 😂

Baptist: The sacraments do nothing! Lutheran: They do everything! Reformed: They were predestined to do something I guess (good video, but I couldn't help it)

I've been attending baptist churches for years, and there's definitely a spectrum. My current church definitely believes that you need to get baptized if you are saved, and it's not just a symbol, but also not a prerequisite to salvation. More like a postrequisite, or the fruit of salvation. However, we believe that baptism is a personal choice as a product of salvation, that can't be made for us, and it's meaningless if not done from faith, which is why we don't baptize babies. One church I went to would do child dedication, which is more for the parents as a pledge to raise the child in faith, and that the church would participate in the child's discipleship in the hope they would one day accept Christ as their personal savior, which kinda reminds me of the concept of infant baptism. All that said, maybe the over-individualism of the Baptist traditions is why so many young people feel less connected to the church. Maybe if they believe they were dedicated through baptism to be in the church from birth, they'd be more likely to continue on the faith.

Love the Genevan psalm melodies in the background. I grew up Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands and these melodies have been with me my whole life. More intimately now that i am an organist.

As a german lutheran, I'd like to point out, that our understanding of baptism is closer to what you described as the reformed view. We don't believe that "baptism saves" in the way, that if you get baptized as a baby with water you're automatically saved. There may be some that do think that, namely what we call "paper christians" (only christians on paper, as in registered in a church register) but we generally think, that baptism is one way of creating faith (not we create it, but god) because the bible says, that faith comes from hearing (or reading, you know what I mean) the word of god. And since baptism is water combined with gods word, it has the potential to create faith. Just as if an adult is listening to a christian cermon, or apologetics video. That's how we think about the baptism. It's the faith that saves you, or as you described it, the baptizing with the spirit. Just think of all these people who were baptized as a child, grew up in the church, have always been christians and don't have one of those points in time they can point to as the moment they were born again. Those have always had faith, we think they received it at baptism. But without faith, your baptism is worthless. I'd like to quote Martin Luther from his own Big Katechism's section about baptism. (I'm german so I'll translate it from my german booklet here myself.) "The faith alone saves, but it needs an outwardly sign it can hold onto, like baptism" (Just like you explained the reformed view in this video. So we can "see" our salvation.) "Now some of our smartipants claim, that faith alone saves and works and outwardly things contribute nothing. To that we respond: Of course this is only a work of the faith, as we will hear later as well. But what those blind-leaders don't want to see, is that the faith needs something to have faith in. That means, something it stands on, something to hang onto. So the faith hangs onto the water und believes, that the baptism is something in which life and saving is; not for the water's sake, as has been said often enough by now, but because it is mixed with god's word and command and because his name is glued to it. If I now believe thusly, what other thing do I believe in as in god? Because he is who gave his word into it and planted it, and gave us this outwardly thing in which we can grasp this treasure?" end quote. In a later section he says: "[...] 'who believes and gets baptized is saved', that means faith alone makes a person worthy to recieve the redeeming, divine water in a useful way. Because what is thaught and promised with the words about the water can not be received in any other way than if we believe it from the bottom of our hearts. Without faith this water is useless, even if it is a divine, overflowing treasure. [...] Because it is unshakable: Who has no faith contributes nothing and receives nothing" end quote. (the last sentence is about salvation)

My grandpa was a Lutheran pastor and he affirmed faith alone. All biblical Lutherans do. That's like the whole point of Lutheranism

6:44 : thank you, I was thinking about re-baptizing myself but yes, it makes sense if you are baptized by Holy spirit, then your child water baptism just gains power / meaning, not that it was wrong. It reconnects as you say "because God is outside of time" ... makes sense. Thanks :)

Posted 6 minutes ago? Uhhhh..... quick! Say something funny!

Reformed Presbyterian here 👋🏽 Thanks for all your work and dedication. These videos are awesome and I definitely look forward to them!

My biggest struggle with sacramentology is how counter-intuitive so much of the vocab is. Even as I came to hold a classically reformed view of communion I still thought I was memorialist for a long while, because I thought that it was the sign cooperating with the believers faith to confer a spiritual benefit to the believer rather than something special about the elements. The power at work was tied to the remembering (memorial) in faith, not the bread itself. Growing up at a staunchly memorialist church, everyone would have said this. We all were clarifying that we thought the elements were bread and wine when we said it was "just a symbol", we were rejecting transubstantiation. We all believed that when taken in faith it nourished us spiritually, and that when taken in an unworthy manner is could bring real harm. This is not to say everyone there secretly espoused Calvin's view of communion, they didn't but many were incredibly close. If you asked about elements and accidents you would get symbolic language reacting against Catholic error, but if you asked them if God did something to strengthen their faith and unite them with Christ many would have sounded very reformed. Baptism is often very similar. Almost every baptist I have ever met would agree that: 1.Water Baptism is a sign that is tied to the reality of spiritual baptism 2.Water Baptism is taught by our Lord, and should be sought immediately by any claiming to have faith in Christ 3.Refusal to be baptized is a sign of grave spiritual danger, or lack of saving faith 4.The moment of water baptism is not the moment you were saved, that is spirit baptism, but the two are obviously importantly related 5.Baptism is only effective for those with saving faith Then the major debate with our Presby brothers cannot be any of those points. It comes down to very specific language that the laity often does not understand in either's churches (luckily we aren't saved by perfect doctrine). Further the infant baptism debate really heavily hinges not on anything in this video but on the specific way that baptism and circumcision do AND do not correspond. This is a complicated argument on Covenants, Christs efficacy as mediator, and visible versus invisble church. Again something that is not primarily about how baptism works or what it is, but about the nature of the covenant community and their children. To give one last example: Lets take baptismal regeneration. Baptist say you are regenerated at your spiritual baptism, not your water baptism. So they usually respond that they reject baptismal regeneration. Presbyterians say that you are regenerated when you baptism becomes effectual, which is separated in time and space from your water baptism → but because of mostly different vocab (which is an important way we protect our doctrine, but can also make these conversation unnecessarily contentious and confusing) they would sometimes say they reject or affirm baptismal regeneration depending on who you ask and how. God bless you to any one who actually read through this.

3:30 In Catholic Theology (Aquinas) something different happens when someone in a state of mortal sin or doesn't have faith in the Eucharist receives communion they do receive the body of Christ sacramentaly, but instead of recieving it spiritually they recieve judgement (like 1 Corinthians says) This is why in Catholic Theology there is a distinction between spiritual communion (can be received together with the sacrament or through prayer by a faithful desire of the sacrament) and sacramental communion (where the faithful substantially receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly present in the form of both species, the Bread and the Wine)

“I say that is means is, as long as the definition of is is not is.” -John Calvin, probably

Best 10 minutes of the week

Point of clarification, that's not the "Baptist" view of the sacrament of the Table, but the evangelical/non-confessional view. The 1689 takes a very strong position against transubstantiation, but also against the view of the supper as merely eating bread and drinking wine. "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." I'm once again begging Presbyterians to stop using "Baptist" as a synonym for "non-confessional" 🥲 And yes, if you're born in a country you're a citizen of that country - which is why being born of the Spirit makes you a citizen of the Kingdom of God ❤

Here's what I think sums up the Baptist view of other denominations: Roman Catholics - people that love wine and worship Mary Lutherans - Catholics that love beer but don't worship Mary Anglicans - Catholics that don't want to talk about why they're not Catholic Methodists - Catholics that don't drink Presbyterians - Catholics that don't move Pentecostal - Crazy

my goodness i was just searching to see if you done a video on the sacraments thank you for your service

Separating baptism and faith by time is separation. The argument that god is outside time doesn't work since humans are not outside of time. Your faith is being separated from your baptism when the words and action are separated. This is not a matter of trying to empower humanity with salvation, it is a matter of declaring your faith both in word and in action, much in the same way that faith is expressed by faithful speech and faithful action, and one without the other is dead faith.

This explains so much!!! As a Non-Denom trying to understand Reformed Theology, I thank you for laying this out clearly

I'm a Baptist that's in between Baptist and reformed just a little bit XD. This is blown way to far out of proportion like how some people in my church believe the rapture and some don't, but we are the same church. For example, I could say the rapture is a stupid thing to my parents and they would agree but if I said it to my grandparents, they would disagree, but we go to the same church. Instead of arguing about everything and making a new denomination they just need to except that there can be multiple ways of interpreting things.

Really appreciate your explanations - your channel is a blessing brother!

Have you read Gavin Ortlunds article arguing against reformed paedobaptism called "Why not grandchildren?" I think it's pretty persuasive. I grew up Presbyterian, and have been struggling with these issues for a bit now and reading Bavinck has firmly pushed me to the credobaptist side because the way that he describes what baptism is and does for converts seems to be what I'm seeing in scripture... but then switches it up completely in talking about infant baptism and what it does and means for babies of believing parents. Feels like two different baptisms. Much respect for the reformed folk. Most of the authors on my shelf are reformed.

I'm Catholic and I've very much been enjoying your videos. I've been keeping up with this series and honestly, I don't see a significant difference between our beliefs. It seems like the reformation was necessary back when the church needed it, but that time time is gone realistically. The Catholic church reformed by studying the the Protestant denominations. We view the church as being the authority to interpret the word of God, but the word itself is still unchanging and unquestionable. Through the will of the Lord, may we be united again one day.

I was so happy to see this on my notifications! Thanks!

My church in the Netherlands seems to be filled with those ‘pres-bap-terians’ you mentioned near the end of this magnificent video, so I think I might share this with some of my fellow church members!

Helpful. This video led me to the realisation I'm a moderately strong baptist. Depsite not being reformed. I like this channel alot!

And this is why we need theology teached to our youth. Thank you again for your service m8, God bless you

I'm proud to be a reformed Baptist

Thanks for what you are doing brother

Welp, you convinced me to become Presbyterian. I love this tradition

Confessional Baptists in my country believe in reformed view on sacraments.

Can you elaborate on the scriptural basis for the distinction between the sign on the one hand and the thing signified on the other as opposed to both being the same thing? Thanks!

My brain is physically growing by watching these!

Hi! Which books do you recommend that deal with the sacraments from a Reformed perspective?

my church takes communion really seriously, and we are baptists. It so sad to see that people portray baptists so poorly. We also have to get baptized before communion, and only the people who baptized do the communion.

I’m a Baptist minister awaiting my ordination, and my church agrees with your definition of the reformed position on the sacraments. My church also practices the other 5 sacraments, excluding confession to the pastor/bishop/deacons. Only confession and repentance through prayer is necessary. We don’t, however, practice infant baptism. I don’t see anything wrong with it though. We also don’t believe in predestination.

What is that music near the end?

1:18 where did you get that actual footage of me, and why are my words visible in little speech bubbles?

Thanks for the great videos! ❤ how do we log onto the minecraft kingdom craft server? Thanks

So do y’all have a record of the baby baptisms and do y’all have a ritual or ceremony for adult salvation?

So, Baptist here. Honest question, in the reformed view, are there individuals that receive the sign (water baptism) that have not and will not receive the thing signified (spirit baptism) ?

where can I find the song that starts at 8:47?

Anything on the original immersion process which was a ritual washing in the mikveh?

This was actually very helpful as I recently found my way back to the church after a long time off and I’m trying to understand what Presbyterians actually believe

This view on baptism really helped put me at ease, as I was wondering if I should be rebaptized since I was as a child when I was baptized. However, is there anything regarding the mode of baptism that changes things? I was baptized by the sprinkling of water on my head, not dunked in it. Would that in any way make it ineffective?

I’m baptist and I first want to say thanks for being fair in the video. Essentially the way I see it is that inward and outward baptism can be compared to what happens when a couple gets married. Inwardly, they are making the covenant together with god and outwardly they celebrate it physically with the wedding ceremony surrounded by their loved ones. At my church, we also have it as a requirement to become a church member.

When should communion be performed? Does he have a video on that?

I was taught in confirmation that Episcopalians/Anglicans retain other sacraments from Catholicism along with baptism and communion such as confirmation, ordination, unction, matrimony, and confession.

This was an excellent explanation. I was baptised along with my family by sprinkling at a young age (3-4) in a reformed church and now find myself at a baptist church. I refuse to be rebaptised as scripture clearly teaches there is only one baptism, but the pressure is real and the denial of my baptism by this denomination sucks. This video helped tremendously. If you have another up your sleeve about modes of baptism I would love to see it.

Baptism saves? But whaddabout the thief on the cross?

Could you do a video or make an instagram post explaining Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I grew up in a Pentecostal community where Baptism of the Holy Spirit and being Born Again/Regeneration are separate events. It appears, from what I understand, that you're saying that they're one and the same. This has been a topic of great confusion for me for a long time. Thanks so much for all the work you do! God bless!

I don’t mean to nitpick but in reference to baptizism not being separate, can you maybe explain Acts 19:1-6?

The Reformed view of the sacraments are close, but no cigar. Viewing Baptism as contingent upon one's faith, undermines the objective and monergistic aspects of the Gospel, and thus, ironically, God's Sovereignty. Rather than being able to look to one's Baptism when one is in doubt, the Reformed view can, also ironically, lead one to an Arminian/decision theology view of one's salvation. In other words, instead of focusing on one's Baptism as an objective work of God performed on us, regardless of ourselves, it becomes an issue of "Did I have enough faith when I was baptized?" The Lord's Supper is supposed to be a reflection of the union of the divine and physical in Christ Himself. Christ cannot only be true God and true Man based on our faith in Him. He is the perfect Godman regardless of our own faith or lack of faith in Him. The Body and Blood only being the Body and Blood if one believes makes no sense in this regard. It also minimizes the very real danger of taking His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner: 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

Hey Zoomer i want to ask a question that is really important to me: what is the most conservative church? With westboro baptist, jehovas witnesses, mormons 2nd: what is the most conservative church with a big empasis on Tradition? Thanks

Any tips with continually falling back into the same sin?

The effect of the sacrament of water baptism is by the power of the Spirit

I thought the Lutheran's believed in Consubstantiation which is different than transubstantiation. Is this correct?

Reformed Presbyterian here! You keep creating remarkable videos thank you! What song did you use at the end when talking about John Knox

Cool video man - I appreciate your content more and more

Well, I'm a strange case in this. I consider myself a Sacramental Baptist. My view is similar to the Reformed view that you explained but with some differences. The main is that Baptism and Communion are not only effective for salvation but also to confirm the damnation of the unbelievers who partake in them. In that sense, because both are pledges representing a spiritual reality, those who partake in them have to be accountable about their effects. I take this primarily from Peter, who describes the Baptism as tied with the accountability of individual and compare it with the Flood, that destroyed the sinners, but saved the justs. In that sense, I think that baptism independs of the time that it's administrated to be effective too, but the better administration hold the individual accountable caring that they not pollute the rest of the body (the Church). P. S. : sorry for my bad English, I'm Brazilian!

So correct me if I’m wrong but your saved by faith in the blood but also saved by baptism when you believe what I just said so your getting dubble saved?

what if you get baptized on a cult (7th day adventist) and then, years later, recieve the batptism of the Holy Spirit, after leaving the cult. that means i have to be re-baptized?

If baptism is the same as circumcision then does this exclude women from being baptized? (rhetorical question obviously the answer is no, but it does show that you can't just equate baptism and circumcision)

How does 1 Corinthians 11:29 fit into the Reformed view of communion?

This was far less unifying of Protestantism than your usual videos.

Nice video, Zoomer! Maybe you could do a future one where you look at books that are good for getting into reformed (and maybe just general) theology?

What scripture explicitely supports a sacramental union?

Question. Since you have a reformed view on Baptism wouldn’t infant baptism be redundant since they don’t have the baptism of the Holy Spirit rendering baptism ineffective?

Yo Zoomer, picked up and started reading The Mystical Presence by Nevin per your rec in another video. It’s awesome.

How did you get that picture of me at 4:54?

Hey, you’re awesome, thank you mate!

That’s not true the about what the baptists believe about the Lord’s supper, London Baptist Confession 1689 says that they are spiritually receiving Christ. Chapter 30 Part 7.

I got baptized as baby and got rebaptized when I came to faith at around 22. I think I lean towards the reformed view now and I don"t know how I should feel now, has anybody some thoughts?

As a Muslim myself I have watched every chapter. And it feels great to see different understandings about God. Thanks for the videos. Also I am studying catholic church so your videos make me understand the basics of Christianity so love your videos. Keep up the great work.

1:23 Best lutheran satire video ever

How do you know 1 Jn. 5:8 is referring to the sacraments?

Interestingly the big theological conundrum between the infant vs adult baptism thing happens when one has received the former, and then joins the a denomination that believes the latter. If you stay in a denomination that believes in infant baptism, then you've already had it and thus won't be expected to get it again. Whereas the ones who don't won't face the rebaptism issue because they get it once they believe in Jesus for their salvation. I feel for those who find themselves in that position though, and have to decide what is theologically accurate. Though we at least can say that, so long as we agree on the key fundamentals of Christianity (as laid out in the nicene creed) then it is not a decision that will affect salvation.

Hey RZ, what do you think of this? I go to a Baptist church and when I was younger (9-10 yrs old) I was baptized, but I didn’t know why I did it. I wasn’t actually saved yet. Several years later I actually came to know Christ and just this last Sunday I was “rebaptized” (if you could call it that) at the same church. Just curious what your thoughts are on this. I’m just happy that I’m saved and baptized now

I was born into a Christian home and I'm not baptized yet, because I'm struggling with the sin of pornography, should I still be baptized?

Hey brother. I know we discussed on one of your last videos on the comment section before. But I want to call you to be true to Reformed Baptist(confessional, creedal, covenantal) we and I as well agree with your view of the sacraments. Not all Baptist have that same memorial view or empty view of the sacraments. I know your videos are to educate people, so I would call on you to be honest. I’m not saying you’re breaking the 9 commandment but you are kind of getting into the territory of 9C violation. By not being honest about your Reformed Baptist. Again I love you as a brother in Christ and this is why I feel comfortable in commenting on this video. I’m not here for an argument or to make a show for people in the comment section.

This is a very helpful video in understanding not just the Reformed position, but also other views in relationship to it. However, perhaps it may be better to describe the Lutheran view not as "Monophysite", so much as "Miaphysite". Like the Miaphysites, Lutherans would claim that the Lord's supper involves a mystery of how the emblems and the Lord's blood and body are united. In essence then, this conflict over how the sacraments are to be understood, resurrected the ancient conflict between Chalcedonian Christians and Oriental Christians regarding the person and natures of Christ. While history may never repeat itself, it does rhyme. May we as modern protestants learn from our ancient ancestors. Fascinating discussion. Peace my brother.

A genuine question: What's reformed view of Acts 16:31, 33? It seems to clarify that the jailer's household was baptized (v. 33) on the basis that they had all believed (v. 31). The fact that we are baptized *in the name of Jesus Christ* (Acts 2:38) also indicates the prerequisite of faith in the name of Jesus Christ prior to the effective baptism. Thanks for your response!

Also hey! Chapter 5? Did I miss 1 - 4? Or is that just my old age catching up with me. (I'm only 41 but fell away and I drank and drugged heavily in my 20s or so and my brain is a bit addled by time and abuse"

If I believe in faith + works to be justified, am I right with God? Will I go to heaven? Should I be concerned?

John Calvin was the middle way with sacraments. He both agreed it was ridiculous to worry about spilling the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion, but it was equally ridiculous to not believe we drink the true blood of Christ at Holy Communion.

What if I was baptized in the Catholic church. Is it still valid?

When the non-elect receive Baptism or Lord’s Supper, why does this separate the sign and the thing signified if they are Sacramentally United?

1:21 with how the thief on the cross was mentioned and how this could mean baptism doesnt save potentially, It would be nice to have an explanation, because its a genuinely intriguing question

I respect your Presbyterian analysis and terming of Lutheran Sacramentology but I hope it's clear that we aren't applying those terms and analysis when we are merely affirming what the Scripture says. This is our confession.

What if we’re unable to take any of the sacrament? Like, I’m a Christian who became Christian about a year ago. I come from a Hindu family and I have Muslim friends in school as I like in Saudi Arabia. Luckily, via the internet, I was able to find Christ and repent and the Holy Spirit now lives within me. But I have no way of doing any of these sacraments such as water baptisms or holy communions ‘cause I can’t go to Church. But, I do have a Christian friend who knows I’m Christian and who has a family that’s truly Christian and knows about my Christianity. Would it be possible if he baptized me in the swimming pool? Or would his dad have to do it since I’m just 13 and my friend is 9 days younger than me at 13 as well? I don’t think I can do any of the other sacraments but I think the baptism is possible, the only thing is I don’t know who should baptize me, so can someone please help?

The Creed say:'I acknowledge one baptism for the remision of sin' so how do you acknowledge a baptism If you were a baby when you recive the baptism?

I'd disagree with the Chalcedonian point. True bread, true body, etc is the Lutheran view. Two natures, one essence. Its Catholics and transubstantiation that might better reflect the Monophysite type for the sacraments. I'd also ask, when you say "spiritually" there, can you actually define what that means? If you can't, I'd argue that's almost the same as symbolic, like when people say they're "spiritual" when asking about their faith. Jesus often talked in parables like saying "I am the door", but wasn't referring to an actual door. When he says "This is my body" he is referring to a "this", that being the bread. I'd have to say, "Is means Is" is something we should consider greatly. Its what Jesus said, directly, and he did not feel the need to clarify. If you were to imagine asking him if he meant "This represnts my body" don't you think his response would simply be "This is my body"? My final question is why people don't accept the very literal take. Sure, you might say scripture doesnt argue for it (as the inverse would apply to any other position) but do you have a personal problem with it being the literal body and blood? Is that where the extra analysis comes from, to try and disprove it?

Paul said people were receiving communion in an unworthy manner in his first epistle to the Corinthians. How is that possible if you only receive the body and blood if you have faith?

So my Southern Baptist Church has a lot more reformed theology than most in our community. For one communion for us is the true presence and our Pastor has made it very clear that folks should not take Communion without being saved. However, we still do not believe in Infant Baptism. Now I believe full-heartedly in the Church I am in being one that the presence of God is still there since I remember being saved there at the altar of that church. And I still feel very much at peace everytime I enter the sanctuary. However, I do wonder how I should start the discussion about what our Church really believes. Frankly, the more and more I think about and look around me, the more and more I believe we are a lot more disconnected from the rest of the Baptist Churches around us in that our theology and our practices are different. I am still unsure about Baby Baptisms and I will pray on that bit, but a lot of videos from you and other channels have made me think a bit as of late. Especially considering how spiritually dead or weak a lot of churches are around us, whereas we still are going strong. But I guess I am trying to find out whether or not we believe more in aspects of reformed theology or mainstream baptist beliefs or a mix of both.

Great videos, keep up the amazing work of proclaiming Christ. On that note: Jesus Christ saves, it is a person, he saves us🙏

Man i've always new re-baptizing was a little iffy but never could understand why i thought that.

Cool video. I'm a Pentecostal and we have basically the same view of the sacraments/ordinances as Baptists i.e.: 1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone 2. Baptism and Communion are works 3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion don't save But after reading John 6, I can't sustain this anymore. I have a more sacramental view, that goes: 1. We're saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone 2. Baptism and Communion are Grace 3. Therefore, Baptism and Communion save. So, I still am searching for the views of "anamnesis" which make a more deep spirituality of the "stickers" of the ordinances without being sacramental, but Idk it seems sketchy. But still, I'm searching a direct instruction that Communion and Baptism (specially this last one) are Grace.

Calvin also said some interesting things regarding head coverings. Care to cover that topic in a future video?

2:21 confuses me. Because when he’s talking about being born of water, he’s not talking about water baptism. He’s talking about literal birth, because that’s the issue Nicodemus brings up.

You need to make videos with interview about conversions of Catholics to protestants and vice versa.

Might become Reformed ngl 🤔