Southern Baptist here. Thanks for the clarifying video, Zoomer. It seems to me, then, that the difference between Presbyterian and Baptist doctrine on salvation is more of less how we talk about the subject. When Baptists talk about Baptism, we mean the physical act. That’s why we say it doesn’t save. You said the same thing in your video. When Presbyterians say Baptism, they mean both spiritual and physical baptism, which is why you *do* say it saves. In which case, we actually agree. It’s just a semantic difference. The substance of what we’re talking about is the same.

@mitromney

11 ай бұрын

As a Catholic, I would say exactly the same thing. If an adult atheist wants to become Catholic, he first goes through so called Initiation, and the purpose of it is to tell him about the faith, so that he understands and believes it. When he does, he is already saved, even before he goes through the sacrament of baptism itself. If a person undergoing initiation dies before they can be baptized, we believe they go straight to heaven, no strings attached. So technically, we agree with both Baptists and Presbyterians that you first believe, then you get saved because of it, and only last but not least, you get baptized to put an official seal on what already happened. The difference, once again, is in the semantics. Catholics would say that the REASON why you are saved before you got baptized is because of "baptism of desire", in other words, you WANT to be baptized, so the fruits of it already are present in you. But that's just digging into HOW, it doesn't change the fact that we all agree on what has to be done (hear about the the faith > believe it > get saved > get baptized).

@blakebonecutter

11 ай бұрын

If it’s a semantic difference only, would you baptize an infant? Do you believe in multiple baptisms?

@DrGero15

11 ай бұрын

@@mitromney Wouldn't they go to purgatory?

@taradiane

11 ай бұрын

i agree the physical act doesn't save, nor do i believe it's required for salvation. to me, physical baptism is a 'work' and we are not saved by works but by faith. i'm taking pause at the statement zoomer makes at 2:39 re: rejecting the physical act. i'm just not sure i can get behind the idea that rejecting the physical act means you're "probably rejecting the thing signified." churches i've been to require you to be a member before they will baptize you, and not everyone has that opportunity or has a church they feel fully comfortable with to become a member. i was raised baptist, was never physically baptized - my parents left the church we were members in before i'd even reached my teenage years due to...well, let's just say it was a good reason, but it so deeply affected them (especially my mom, who was very involved playing piano and organ) that we didn't go to church for many years after. we got into another church for a few years not long before i started high school, but they stopped going there as well and i'm not sure why. anyway, long story short (sort of lol), i don't belong to any church, i'm a bit jaded when it comes to trusting church leadership for a myriad of reasons. i listen to pastors online, in podcasts, etc, which i know isn't ideal, but..... sigh. this would be easier if we could physically baptize ourselves. ;-)

@maxxiong

7 ай бұрын

Some baptists actually say that baptism is so closely tied to faith and regeneration that 1 Peter 3:21 means the latter by the former. It's really a difference of language at that point.

I think Jesus never intended us to believe that a baptism was a guaranteed trip to heaven. I think everyone who believes they are saved just because they got dunked should tread carefully and do some careful reflection

@planteruines5619

11 ай бұрын

it's not because you say Lord Lord that you will be saved

@pedropaulom.ribeiro6511

11 ай бұрын

baptism is NECESSARY for salvation, but nothing is a GUARANTEE of salvation

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

@@pedropaulom.ribeiro6511 no, Baptism doesn’t save us.

@David-bh7hs

11 ай бұрын

Yeah. Think of it like marriage, is it valid if you don’t take vows but live a loving life caring for your spouse? If you live like you had giving vows but just somehow never made those in the first place from an honest mistake, it’s still a marriage.

@coleburns5497

11 ай бұрын

I disagree on reflection, we should doer of the word. Be willing to sell everything and give everything to one-another with Christian’s AND to the needy. Not necessarily-say (addicts or habitual sinning) but those who desperately need goods to LIVE. Pray when tempted by evil: anger, lust, etc. Cause’ if we reflect, we reflect “dead flesh” since God promised us we’d be saved not “feel” saved. When we are controlled by subjective feelings centered on ourselves rather than by objective truth centered on God, we live in a constant state of defeat. Because feelings can confused or lead to trickery by Satan and minions. Rather, let us focus on the authority of the Word of God (the Bible), The father’s sovereignty, Jesus High priestly intercession and divinity, promise of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of the Eternal glory. Understanding these great truths, centering our thoughts on them, and rehearsing them in our minds will enable us to reason from truth in all of life’s trials, and our faith will be strong and vital. Reasoning from what we feel about ourselves-rather than what we know about God-is the sure path to spiritual defeat. The Christian life is one of death to self and rising to “walk in the newness of life” (Romans 6:4), and that new life is characterized by thoughts about Him who saved us, not thoughts about the feelings of the dead flesh that has been crucified with Christ. When we are continually thinking about ourselves and our feelings, we are essentially obsessing about a corpse, full of rottenness and death. God promised to save us if we come to Him in faith. He never promised that we would feel saved. It’s not some special knowledge or secret potion, rather a understanding by Faith that TRULY sets us FREE!

Thank you for this video brother. I had a discussion with my Presbyterian grandmother (I’m baptist) this past weekend and came to this conclusion based on my coming to faith story. I was baptized when I was in elementary school. I didn’t really know why it meant at the time but I wanted to do it. I wouldn’t say that was the day I was saved, it took many many years leading to where I am as an adult today. However, that day was what planted the seed of my faith. My diligence and involvement with my church waxed and waned over the years, but I still had that firm foundation. Today I can confidently say The Lord has redeemed my soul and saved me from a bad path where I was headed.

@huntergallant5655

11 ай бұрын

This has been my experience as well. I was baptized (I'm also a baptist) as a teenager, but it was only in my last semester of university earlier this year that I truly started taking my faith seriously.

@zahd35music

11 ай бұрын

@@huntergallant5655I find it interesting that this is the experience of a lot of Christians, myself included. We tend to feel comfortable and asleep in our faith until we are plunged in the secular world that really tests who we are. That’s when the LORD’s calling is typically most effectual and emphasized.

@huntergallant5655

11 ай бұрын

@@zahd35music It seems that for a lot of people, including me, we can only appreciate what Christ has to offer us once we've gotten a chance to see just how dire things are without Him to have hope in. Now I look at all the people in this world who take part in all sorts of unhealthy, awful behaviors and beliefs, and it terrifies me that I could've ended up just like them if God hadn't called me back to His side. I still struggle every day to move past the unhealthy habits I picked up, but after years of feeling listless and adrift in this world, I finally have hope again, and I thank God every day for that.

@zahd35music

11 ай бұрын

@@huntergallant5655 yes dude exactly! Praise GOD, man, He is so merciful enough to show us a mirror of our sins and He is so gracious to show us as much as we can handle. The more we see and turn to Him, the bigger the cross gets, and the more able we are to see our sins and turn to Christ! This is why spreading the Gospel is so necessary. Because we have no idea who GOD has chosen to save. So we spread the truth and the diagnosis of the ailment of damning sin, and then deliver the sweet Gospel truth that saves. In addition, I would heavily encourage you. As you grow in Christ, you don’t struggle less. You struggle easier. Not because you are stronger, but because Christ is strong in you! GOD is your father and Saviour and you are His child!

@jeusmarcomascarina4102

11 ай бұрын

Baptism is a commitment in body while Spiritual Birth is internal commitment.

A few years ago I had walked away from Christianity as a whole. Early this year I reopened my heart to God and it’s been one of the best decisions I’ve made in my life so far. I have been attending my local church again as well as praying & reading my Bible. I haven’t been Baptized and I want to soon but there are many things I need to work on. I’m a Seventh Day Adventist and your channel has been showing me to find common ground with my brothers and sisters in Christ as well as provided a great deal of intellectual stimulation. Finding your channel has truly been a blessing.

@ABSTRACTSHNITZEL

11 ай бұрын

What made you choose to be a SDA, if I might ask?

@dillpickleman

11 ай бұрын

@@ABSTRACTSHNITZEL That’s a good question. Honestly one of the main reasons is that it’s the Church I grew up in. However I chose to stay in the SDA church for two reasons. The Saturday Sabbath and the concept of Annihilationism. There are things within the SDA church I disagree with such as the rule of not eating unclean meat for example. I also have never read any writing’s by Ellen G. White and don’t plan to. I guess I’d be more non-denominational if it weren’t for the Sabbath part.

@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136

11 ай бұрын

@@dillpicklemanI'm so happy for you God bless you 😊

@dillpickleman

10 ай бұрын

@@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136 thank you

@dillpickleman

9 ай бұрын

@@cactisiusninja I can best answer that question with another question that can also give insight into the Adventist View of God’s nature. If God is loving and all good and if pain will cease to exist and every tear shall be wiped away why would there be this pocket of existence where suffering continues eternally?

This type of content really helps clarify Christianity for me! I'm in a very similar position that you were in when you converted. In New York and I was in a really anti-Christian school. Thankfully, I moved to a different school where there are more Christians, and I am definitely better off.

@GAF2234

11 ай бұрын

Brainwashing is terrifying and that leaving religion was the best decision of your life. You'll improved as a person, became more compassionate and helpful to other fellow man, and had greater mental freedom to grow when I became an apostate. And I do good not because I want to be rewarded or get "salvation" in the end (though I have to admit I'll appreciate it if it ever happens), but because for the sole fact its the right thing to do and it brings me joy to aid my fellow.

As a Baptist one I must say I really respect zoomer for sharing what he believes and two I have to say that we deem baptism at least at my church and said that baptism a sign of an inward change so once you're saved your safe then the holy spirit will lead you to take a symbolic dumped in the water for baptism

@CommonApple

11 ай бұрын

Yes, any person at my church including me are eventually pulled aside after church and we get to talk about baptism and how it’s a symbol to us. It’s just like a wedding ring. If you take it off you’re still married. (I do respect that some people believe it does save, this is just what I believe)

@Justin-yn5py

11 ай бұрын

@@CommonApplea better analogy in terms of wedding and marriage when it comes to baptism is that the initial belief or faith we have is like when you first are engaged or courting someone. But you aren’t truly married until you are baptized and the marriage ceremony is what makes you married, just like the baptism is what officially brings you to the church, washes you of sin and gives the holy spirit

@BenjaminAnderson21

11 ай бұрын

@@Justin-yn5py That analogy falls too easily into baptismal regeneration. Here's a better one: water baptism (the sign of our inner spiritual baptism) is like a coronation ceremony. A coronation is not what makes a person king or queen, but it's the visible representation of them becoming the sovereign of the nation. Baptism is the ceremony that brings a person into the Church, even though it is faith, not the earthly water, that actually saves.

@Justin-yn5py

11 ай бұрын

@@BenjaminAnderson21 well I believe baptismal regeneration is biblical and well attested to by the early church fathers. This is one of the few uncontroversial issues in the early church. I encourage you to read any early Christian father on baptism and they will all affirm regeneration

@Justin-yn5py

11 ай бұрын

@@BenjaminAnderson21 the water in baptism is not earlthly but divine. I find that today many Protestants view of the sacraments has a similar philosophy to gnostic ideas. The physical waters and spiritual regeneration cannot be separated. God created us as embodied souls, and the physical aspect of our nature matters. That is why he issues sacraments which have a physical sign and spiritual power

Not presbyterian, but your explanations of this on instagram really convinced me of this view. It is consistent with the scriptures language while also acknowledging the reality of regeneration before water baptism. Thank you zoomer!

I grew up Lutheran. Currently I call myself Lutheran-ish. Through my study of theology, I feel that Lutheranism is the most accurate theology. With that being said, there are parts of Lutheran theology that I disagree with, and parts of other theologies that I do agree with. The Presbyterian view of baptism is the only one that ever made sense to me based on the word of god. I’m grateful for this video

@Lucas-wk3nr

11 ай бұрын

Dont lutherans believe baptism is a means to receive grace? They don't believe the unbaptized are damned, at least not LCMS, I'm researching lutheranism currently because I want to join LCMS

@nerdtalk1789

11 ай бұрын

@@Lucas-wk3nr yes and no. Their views on baptism are very similar to that of Catholics. Though not every Lutheran is the same, traditionally they believe that baptism saves.

I’m so glad you posted this, was just having a discussion on this last night with two of my closest friends

Oh my goodness, this video is SOOO GOOD!!! IT DESCRIBES IT ALL SO PERFECTLYY! Thank you Redeemed Zoomer, this video is extremely helpful even though I'm not personally Presbyterian. Thank you.

You should do a video like this on the Lord's Supper! The format is perfectly short, well written and great for sharing. I love the ending btw.

I'm Lutheran. Pretty similar view. I would say the Lutheran view is more vague, as it tends to be in a interpreting scripture by simply stating that it's stated as truth in the scriptures. The Lutheran view tries not to separate the baptism of water and the Spirit, because we don't want to take away from either.

@bushbladesnbows.2378

11 ай бұрын

Ya I think the biggest difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian theology is really just that Lutherans appeal to mystery more often and Presbyterians tend to try and create logical systems of faith. We often actually agree on things, but the difference comes down to "I'm not so sure I would put it that way" from the Lutheran, and "but it's obvious that... *blah blah blah blah*" from the Presbyterian. Sincerely, a Presbyterian.

@litigioussociety4249

11 ай бұрын

@@bushbladesnbows.2378 I'm not too concerned about differences as long as a Christian appeals to scripture, exegesis, historical context, etc. The biggest fallacy is definitely when someone appeals to something that only applies in their language, such as English, that wouldn't even work in the original text, such as Son/Sun. This has been happening with progressive Christianity, such as interpreting "male and female he created them" as "he created males, females, and thems," and there are actual believers doing that.

@bushbladesnbows.2378

11 ай бұрын

@@litigioussociety4249 100% agree

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

_"The Lutheran view tries not to separate the baptism of water and the Spirit, because we don't want to take away from either."_ As a WCF holding Presbyterian, I have to say I appreciate the way Luther does distinguish them in the Large Catechism. On the one hand, I love his turn of phrase about it being nothing more than a "bath-keeper's baptism when you try to separate the Word from the ordinance of Baptism (22) or say that it isn't God's work but something man is doing (35), and he clearly isn't saying that magical properties are conveyed by the mere water ceremony, but calls repentance "nothing less than Baptism" and "produces, begins, and exercises" a new life (74-76). To be honest, it worries me when I see Lutheran's say they basically have the Roman view, as the Book of Concord seems to make distinctions that Rome rejects. Luther seems to thread the same line we do. If anything, I think the biggest difference between the Reformed and Lutheran view (with the framing of WCF 27.2) is that we tend to speak in terms of the sign (the ordinance), and Lutherans in terms of the thing signified (regeneration, salvation). As such, I think we can talk past each other when we do agree. My confession says that either way of speaking is correct, and I appreciate the boldness Lutherans state that baptism (understood properly) indeed does save. Amen! But I do appreciate the concern from Lutherans that we speak where scripture is silent. I think sometimes Lutherans leave to mystery where scripture does speak further, and to that end, I hope our respective traditions can be a check to each other's blind spots. Lutheranism has such a rich confessional history that I appreciate, especially the earlier statements.

Thank you for this video! It was very well explained, and I appreciated the point you made at the end that we are still brothers and sisters regardless of our views on this issue

You really have a gift for explanation. Better than some of the Presby pastors I've seen explain this. Spot on!

Thank you for reading the comments, and answering peoples' inquiries.

Good video. It laid to rest some fear I had not going to lie, and it seemed pretty self-evident in hindsight, but I never want to close my ears off to others, reinforcing my thoughts or otherwise. I had experienced the Spiritual Baptism well before I received a Water Baptism, and in my earlier days of being Born Again, I was petrified as a disabled young person, with low prospects of getting to Church, yet I *knew* at that moment everything had changed forever. Thankfully within a few months I had a standing Baptism the week before Covid shut down churches. Now my question is, in Protestant theology, is receiving the sacrament of communion necessary for the forgiveness of sins? Surely I would think not, essentially for the same reasons, but I would also certainly believe it is a beautiful thing for our relational understanding of Christ. Reading Luther's Small Catechism explaining the "poured out for you" really brought a thankfulness and awareness of the "personal assurance" of Christ's redeeming act on the cross.

Will you make a part 2 about Baptism and Original Sin? I remember seeing an old Instagram post you made saying the reformed view is that Baptism doesn’t remove original sin, is that still true?

Thanks for clearing that up! Will you make a video on communion and whether or not that saves? I'm currently non-denominational but 95% agree with your takes on theology.

@TW-fs3fj

11 ай бұрын

When you say communion do you mean Divine Liturgy?

@andrewwetzel5491

11 ай бұрын

@@TW-fs3fj Like the partaking in consuming the bread and wine

@TW-fs3fj

11 ай бұрын

@@andrewwetzel5491 that's Divine Liturgy. Communion is an established relationship between a church and other churches. Also it's not bread and wine, it's the blood and body of Jesus Christ. Do you think Christ was offering salvation to the Apostles at the Last Supper?

Great video, Zoomer! I would appreciate if you explain different topics of Reformed Theology in this way, like every point of the Tulip, pedobaptism, Presbyterian Hierarchy etc.

Wow! What a clear and precise explanation! Thank you!

i grew up baptist. I literally just had coffee a few days ago with a local PCA pastor who was trying to help me understand infant baptism. This video helped sum up the groundwork necessary for infant baptism. Thanks Zoomie 🙏

@trompettist

11 ай бұрын

Look up colossians chapter 2; There it explains that baptism is the successor to circumcision; therefore baptism should be applied to infants, since circumcision was too.

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

@@trompettist You are completely misquoting Colossians 2. Jesus Christ came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick. Little children/babies are whole because they are not capable of committing sin. The curse of Adam is taken from them in Jesus Christ and has no power over us and the law of circumcision is done away in Jesus Christ. It is a solemn mockery before God that you should baptize little children/babies. Repentance and baptism are unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin and little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Baptism is unto repentance to fulfill the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! If little children could not be baptized then they could not enter the Kingdom of God because someone only born of water can enter into it (John 3:5). Someone that supposes that little children/babies need baptism is deep in bitterness and ignorance and in the bonds of iniquity and have neither faith, hope, nor charity. For how awful it is to think, let alone say, that God saves one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because they had no baptism. Little children are unable to repent so what an awful wickedness by God to deny the pure mercies of God unto them if this were the case. And he that says that little children need baptism deny the mercies of Christ.

@Guitar-qv6gu

10 ай бұрын

This isn’t about infant baptism. It’s about believer’s baptism.

@mikeyvangelism

10 ай бұрын

@@Guitar-qv6gu “This video helped sum up the groundwork necessary for infant baptism.” I guess I had gotten confused between the Lutheran reasons for infant baptism and the Presby reasons for infant baptism.

@Guitar-qv6gu

10 ай бұрын

@@mikeyvangelism this isn’t about infant baptism. This is believers’ baptism. The two are totally different.

Keep doing what you’re doing Zoomer!! God bless

I was confused about this. This video was very illuminating.

This is so helpful for understanding the Reformed view on this topic! The Baptist view is simple, and therefore easy to understand, as is the Catholic view. But the Reformed view was less easy to understand for me because it mixed both of the previously mentioned views.

That makes SO much more sense than the other answers I've gotten, I actually understand this now. Thanks zoomer!

Yes in the sense that we shouldn’t separate the sign and thing signified, no in the sense that the act of poring, immersing, sprinkling does nothing in of itself.

Hey Zoomer, so would you say in Ephesians 4:5 where Paul says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." he's talking about water and Spirit baptism being connected?

Hi there! If you are reading this you are loved by God and he wants to be with you in his kingdom for an eternity! ❤️✝️ *Romans 10:10-11 - We believe with our hearts, and so we are made right with God. And we declare with our mouths to say that we believe, and so we are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be disappointed.”* 💗🙂🌸 You are amazing and have an amazing day!!! 😎⭐️💗🌎 👇 If you love Jesus :)

@Melanie_44

11 ай бұрын

I Love Jesus ❤ God Bless You

@GAF2234

11 ай бұрын

Brainwashing is terrifying and that leaving religion was the best decision of you life. You'll improved as a person, became more compassionate and helpful to my fellow man, and had greater mental freedom to grow when I became an apostate. And I do good not because I want to be rewarded or get "salvation" in the end (though I have to admit I'll appreciate it if it ever happens), but because for the sole fact its the right thing to do and it brings me joy to aid my fellow.

@miakel126

11 ай бұрын

@@GAF2234 Christianity to me isn't Brainwashing, but Brain WASHING (making cleaner.) It has helped me truly become a better version of myself to help and serve others. You may know this, but good works do not bring salvation, for they will never outweigh the bad works, but rather faith in Jesus. Yet good works and helping others is the fruit of salvation. So if you would truly appreciate salvation, want to grow mentally, and want to help others, then I would recommend even opening a bible.

@GAF2234

11 ай бұрын

@@miakel126 Makes sense, your totally brainwashed by your cult.

@senormacaco2834

11 ай бұрын

Unless you are gay, of course

i’ve had an opportunity to be baptized once, but i was hesitant and didn’t follow through because i didn’t know what baptism does or what it means, and what the difference would be before and after being baptized. i would like to be and i’m even planning on it, but i often feel scared because i had an opportunity and didn’t take it. if i’d known what i know now i would have.

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

@@danielschmude the person hasn’t been baptised. They said that.

@danielschmude

11 ай бұрын

@@Guitar-qv6gu Oops. I misread that. I'll delete my comment. Thanks.

I've been wanting to get baptized since around 2021, when I really understood what it meant to be a Christian and was begining to devote myself completely to God. However, due to the pandemic, my family and I didn't attend an offline church until the end of 2021/start of 2022. I expressed my interest in wanting to get baptized in my church (my family and I would go to a Prebysterian church, but our views on Baptism are definitely Baptist), but apparently one had to take this 6 month long study session in the church bible studies to be baptized and I would be leaving for college, to a different country, in less than 6 months. I've learned a lot about Christianity since then, and it has only motivated me more to be baptized, but I don't know if I should wait for my fellowship in my new church to grow more before expressing my interest in getting Baptized because I'm still relatively new to it and I felt bad being a newcomer and immediately asking for a baptism. This whole chat about baptism really urged me to get baptized soon! If God allows, it will be soon and the wait will be over!

@timothysullivan1669

11 ай бұрын

It’s great to hear about your desire to be baptized, I’m sorry your previous church had so many obstacles in the way. I can’t help but think of the Ethiopian Eunuch who says “look here is water, what prevents me from being baptized?” And I would encourage you to ask about it soon at your new church, don’t be afraid. God bless you!

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

If you are wanting to be baptized then you should be baptized with authority and into God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You could be baptized 100 times and it would avail you nothing if it is without authority.

@pilot_bruh576

11 ай бұрын

If you really want to get baptized get baptized I remember a story in Acts where a disciple (forgot which of the twelve) shared the good news to an Egyptian and when they went past water the Egyptian said "Look water, what stops me from getting baptized?" Which you can guess he got baptized what im trying to say here is "why did they want you to study the bible for an entire 6 months" TLDR; a question I could've said with 14 words becomes a paragraph

@Hithereitsme32

10 ай бұрын

@@dylanwilliams2202 mormons are heretics

Dr. Everhard and you both made videos after your and his conversation 🤣😂😆. You guys are hilarious and great!

@redeemedzoomer6053

11 ай бұрын

yup! I had a nice discussion with him on twitter about all this. We're planning to do something together again soon

@manuelpitman

11 ай бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 right on!

Hey do you have a video on liberation theology and if not what is your opinion on it?

This is fascinating. So close to the Lutheran View. You reformed people are cool.

As a baptist, I agree actually. Either way believers should be baptized regardless.

I knew this was coming after seeing Matt Everhard’s video and your comment 😂 P.S. I’m definitely still a baptized. Cool video tho

As a Baptist that's trying to learn about other traditions, this kinda just sounds like the baptist view, but with different semantics? Like the ideas and concepts seem to be basically exactly the same (the sign doesn't save, the thing signified does), just the definitions we use are different (baptism = sign, vs baptism = sign + thing signified) Makes me wonder how much of theological debate is just semantic in nature?

@redeemedzoomer6053

11 ай бұрын

Well it’s more than semantics cuz we baptize babies believing God will work through that to save them

We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone!!🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️

This actually clarifies the idea of infant baptism/sprinkling to me, sort of a already but not yet sign and trusting that the dedication of that end of the sacrament can/will lead to the baptism with the Spirit. Of course that still leaves the discussion of the right order of things and such, but still it's a good way to open the dialogue in the first place

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

This isn’t about that. Infant baptism is different.

@pedroguimaraes6094

11 ай бұрын

Infant Baptism is clarified by reformed covenant theology.

@zahd35music

11 ай бұрын

Infant baptism serves as a sign and a seal- a covenant between the parents and GOD. The parents baptize their child in faith, placing their trust in GOD that He will, at some point, call the child to Himself. When the child eventually comes to faith, it’s seen as a fulfillment of the covenant made so many years back, and everyone is blessed that the covenant is kept by GOD and the parents.

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

Jesus Christ came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick. Little children/babies are whole because they are not capable of committing sin. The curse of Adam is taken from them in Jesus Christ and has no power over us and the law of circumcision is done away in Jesus Christ. It is a solemn mockery before God that you should baptize little children/babies. Repentance and baptism are unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin and little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Baptism is unto repentance to fulfill the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! If little children could not be baptized then they could not enter the Kingdom of God because someone only born of water can enter into it (John 3:5). Someone that supposes that little children/babies need baptism is deep in bitterness and ignorance and in the bonds of iniquity and have neither faith, hope, nor charity. For how awful it is to think, let alone say, that God saves one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because they had no baptism. Little children are unable to repent so what an awful wickedness by God to deny the pure mercies of God unto them if this were the case. And he that says that little children need baptism deny the mercies of Christ.

@pedroguimaraes6094

11 ай бұрын

@@dylanwilliams2202 1) We all sinned in Adam, we all are born in sin (original sin): Romans.5:12 - Romans.5:12 (NKJ) 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. 2) We do not believe that a baby is unsaved just because he has not been baptized with water. What saves is the baptism of the holy spirit which can happen any given time, but we believe that every person baptized with the holy spirit will, under normal circumstances, want to be baptized with water. As the baby is not aware of this, he can be saved despite his parents not having baptized him with water. Now, baptism remains a means of grace given by God to his people and the symbol that the person (whether adult or baby) belongs to the people of God. Thus, well-educated Christian parents should baptize their children. We believe that circumcision was not simply abolished and thrown away by God, but that it was REPLACED by baptism. When Baby gets older, he will still have to make a public profession of faith to continue as a member of a Presbyterian Church and partake of the Lord's Supper. 3) To say that someone who believes pedobaptism does not have faith is both unbiblical and also ridiculous since a lot of great christians through the history of cristianity have believe in that. In fact, in the history of Christianity, including biblical Christianity, the rejection of paedobaptism is the exception.

As a Catholic I like to say we are saved at Baptism, being saved now, and hope to be saved in the future. It's journey with Christ, we live our salvation.

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

No. We have to be saved BEFORE baptism.

@leandrestrash

11 ай бұрын

@@Guitar-qv6gu says who?

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

@@leandrestrash says the BIBLE.

@thomasfleming8169

11 ай бұрын

I'm confused. I thought Catholics believe that baptism forgives original sin, but not that it guarantees you into heaven. What does "saved" mean in this video? Does it mean go to heaven? Also I'm catholic

@thomasfleming8169

11 ай бұрын

​@@Guitar-qv6guplease explain

Doing great work! Keep it up!

1 Peter 3:21 single-handedly made me leave the Baptist faith I was born in. I’m currently an Orthodox Christian due to other things, but all that stemmed from one verse.

@AntiAzovIndividual

11 ай бұрын

I don’t understand, I looked it up and to me, atleast it just reinforces it, could you please elaborate

@user-db7bv6qt8v

11 ай бұрын

@@AntiAzovIndividual Baptists believe that baptism doesn’t save, meanwhile 1 Peter 3:21 outright says that it does.

@AntiAzovIndividual

11 ай бұрын

@@user-db7bv6qt8v hmmm, ok thank you, although I’m not fully Baptist, more non denominational but baptism is the closest thing to that so I just go with it

@BenjaminAnderson21

11 ай бұрын

I'm a Baptist, and I think 1 Peter 3 is one of the best and most succinct descriptions of the Reformed Baptist view of the sacrament. Baptism saves, not as the removal of filth from the body, but as the visible sign of our repentance and rebirth in Christ.

@user-db7bv6qt8v

11 ай бұрын

@@BenjaminAnderson21 Please forgive me of any ignorance, I was raised as a non-Reformed Baptist, but from what I learned Baptists believe that baptism does not save, but 1 Peter 3:21 outright states that Baptism does save.

Im reaserching LCMS lutheranism because im intrested in joining, they say baptism saves, but people who are unbaptized dont necessarily go to hell as long as they have christ, i think they view it as a sacrament and as a way to recieve grace, but im a little confused

Kilroy was here ( I feel like you’ve explained very well why we don’t baptize our babies and why we think it’s a choice)

Whenever we do a baptism service at my church, my pastor asks the congregation, "Does baptism save?" and the correct answer is "Which one?" We believe that the baptism of the spirit is what saves, and that baptism in water is an outward sign representing a willingness to stand in public for Christ. We're a non-denominational (baptist) church. The reformed view only differs in that baptism in water and spirit are closely linked in a way that if a person genuinely comes to faith under normal circumstances, they will be baptized in water if they hadn't been already. So if a person claims faith but refuses water baptism, they don't have true faith. I think we would agree with this. I'm having trouble understanding how this position supports a pedobaptist view, however. If a person isn't saved automatically by being baptized in water, why not wait until the person has a genuine confession of faith to baptize them, as is the pattern of scripture (Mark 16:16, Acts 8:36-37)? Infant baptism makes sense if you believe baptism in water saves regardless of other factors (otherwise your dead, unbaptized child will go to hell), but I don't see how it follows from a Sola Fide view of salvation.

@pedroguimaraes6094

11 ай бұрын

Pedobaptism is best clarified by reformed covenant theology so you need to understand it in order to understandthe Presbyterian view. I don't think that i'm the best person to explain it to you but Zoomer already talked briefly about it by saying that we see more continuation between the old and the new covenant and that baptism is more about Citizenship in the Kingdom of God (and babies should not be excluded from it). In the same way jewish babies were circumcised as a sign that they were members of Israel, Christian babies should be baptized as a sign they are members of the Church (New Israel). The sacrament will be effective for those who are elect by God (and thus will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit later) and it will be not for the rest, but we can't separate them at that time in the same way Jacob and Esau could not. However, here in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, although we consider babies and young children as members by the faith of their Christian parents, they are not communicant members (since discernment is required to participate in the Lord's Supper) and, upon turning 18, they must make a public declaration of faith in order to receive Communion and stay as members.

As a Reformed Baptist, I agree fully. I still do not affirm paedobaptism, but I do agree that spiritual baptism should absolutely by followed by aquatic baptism, and I'm personally of the persuasion that it should be conducted by full immersion, and preferably in natural, running water if you're a hillbilly like me, lol.

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

_"...I agree fully. I still do not affirm paedobaptism..."_ These don't go together. :) Baptists don't agree with the video on the point about timing, or else you would accept that it doesn't matter when in time one is baptized relative to when they come to faith. I think if you rewatch the video and pull on that thread, you'll start to see a lot of other differences between the Baptist view and the view laid out here.

Very well put together video. You know, I’d really love the opportunity to sit and talk with Redeemed Zoomer. I come from a somewhat IFB background, and I’d love to see what he thinks on ALOT of the most preached on topics. Modesty. Forced Tithes. Tattoos. Piercings. Movie Theaters. Music. Schooling. Etc. These days I seem to be falling more and more away from baptist beliefs. And I wonder if that’s because God is working on me, or if it’s my flesh.

@DankusMemicus

11 ай бұрын

I wouldn't put IFB in the same category as other Baptists like Paul Washer for example. If those are the most preached topics, that's pretty sad tbh.

@CC-iu7sq

11 ай бұрын

@@DankusMemicus It’s nearly as cultish as Mormonism in some ways. There’s some creepy IFB camps out there too. Especially down south. Common ground baptist camp In Pennsylvania is pretty cultish and one of the more well known ultra-Fundie types too. This one I’m a little familiar with because I attended it several times when I was younger. I actually still have access to their flyer where they prohibit staff members from attending movie theaters on their own time in their personal life. They also try to restrict what music you’re allowed to listen to in your own free time lol. I’d love to actually provide it to Zoomer if I had the chance lol And camps like this indoctrinate thousands upon thousands of our youth every year.

@DankusMemicus

11 ай бұрын

@@CC-iu7sq Wow. I've just seen a few Steven Anderson compilations... he's more of a meme than a pastor. I bet they'd have a problem with me, as a Christian metal enjoyer.

i do have a question for you mr. zoomer. i do not find denominations to be biblical due to the strict call of unity in the bible, not that we have to all agree but that the body should not be divided on scriptural interpretation differences or who’s theology we follow. this is clearly taught especially in 1 cor 1-3. what are your thoughts

@redeemedzoomer6053

11 ай бұрын

Unity is easier said than done. Non-denominationalism actually just turns each person/church into their own denomination, so it’s INFINITELY denominational. It’s the opposite of unity. Denominations are a statement of unity around a shared set of beliefs

@amirsmith9269

11 ай бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 fair enough. not judging you or your position at all because i know you’ll be in heaven. however, i agree with your stance that unity is difficult but i believe most christians prefer to argue their stance of their theological positions rather than focus on the glory of Christ.

@buckarooben7635

11 ай бұрын

@amirsmith9269 The Catholic Church was established by Christ.

@amirsmith9269

11 ай бұрын

@@buckarooben7635 yes the catholic lower case c as in universal church. many of the practices you see in the Roman Catholic church as well as many other churches were not instituted by Christ

Okay, let me see if I understand your position correctly: 1. Efficacy means that it has the ability to produce the desired/intended result. If the result is Salvation, then Baptismal Efficacy means that Water Baptism has the ability to save you, but it doesn't actually save you. 2. You are actually saved by grace alone through faith alone, at which point you receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 3. But Water Baptism and Baptism of the Holy Spirit are just two sides to the same coin, and you cannot have one without the other. This is the sacramental union that you talked about. If you accept Jesus Christ as your *LORD* and Savior (emphasis mine), then you would obey his commandments, one of which would be to receive Water Baptism.

John 3:5 - how do you know that this verse is talking about baptism? I always interpreted being born of water as our initial, physical birth - we must be born once physically then again spiritually. Not explicitly disagreeing with your concept of baptism, but what is the evidence that Jesus is talking about baptism in John 3:5?

@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG

11 ай бұрын

Yes. In fact, right after, he clarifies flesh vs spirit, pretty clearly proving the context of the passage being about the flesh not water baptism.

So can babies be baptized in the spirit?

As a Baptist, this makes a lot of sense. At least with this specific issue, I'm leaning towards Presbyterianism. In fact, I've heard something similar said, even in Baptist circles.

@FollowerOfTheLight2782

24 күн бұрын

Romans 5:1-2 (KJV) 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

As a Free Methodist I believe that Baptism is more symbolic but I got to say I can really agree with this. IMO I think if u can get baptized u should and there are many ways to be baptized. When I was baptized at 8 I actually couldn't swim so my dad (who's a pastor and was the one that baptized me) offered me to have a baptism by pouring a cup of water over me but I declined since I said that if I'm going to be baptized I want the full baptism (note im not saying u have to be dunked under water to be fully baptized it was just a dumb thing I said as a kid). My dad basically had to hold on to me but I was fine. Some other ways to be baptized if u cant/uncomfortable with what I called "Dunking baptism" (Officially I think its called full immersion baptism) such as water over the head "Prison baptism" or symbol of the cross drawn on the forehead which is often done with people who are baptized as they are dying/terminally ill.

Love the font!

Baptism is a sign of faith, not a profession of faith, nor a guarantee of faith.

Fair enough. Good video. 👍

Another requirement for non negotiable doctrines is that salvation is by faith alone through Christ. Alone.

Could you pleassssse do a video on Lutheran views like on baptism???

@mmtoss6530

11 ай бұрын

It’s very similar to the catholic view as both believe in baptismal regeneration

This is truly an excellent video! I am Baptist, but i think this clarified a lot of things for people who didn't understand or know this already. I totally agree with what you are saying though!

Romans 5:1-2 (KJV) 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Can u make a history on the KJV bible?

AMEN!❤

What this video lacks, I think, is an explanation as to why you think this view is true as opposed to Catholic or Baptist view, so perhaps it would be good to make a separate video about this

In John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Amen 🙏🙏

Doesn’t a pregnant woman’s water breaks when she gives birth? Wouldn’t that be the born of water part in the scripture?

Can you speak to the idolatrizing nature that feels present in the Catholic church? a big component where I see a lot of Christians debate the doctrine of Catholicism where I'm from revolves around Catholics worshipping figures and saints.

@buckarooben7635

11 ай бұрын

@musicianscrub458 Where you’re from is it the idea of saints praying for us or is it the artwork that seems to be the issue?

Kind of ironic how Baptists don’t think baptism saves.

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

Cos it doesn’t. The video is about water baptism.

@Hithereitsme32

10 ай бұрын

@@Guitar-qv6gu it does

Honestly this is starting to feel similar to discussions that involve the two natures of Christ where things have to be clarified. It's like how Mary is the mother of God, but this has to be clarified so that people don't think Mary is a goddess, and people just start to avoid the title altogether.

Another banger from zoomer, god bless you all

Man- it is awesomely entertaining to listen to your explanations of all the esoteric and bizarre traditions of Christianity with that tone in your voice of : “nailed it”

Hello, I just want to add something. You might want to add a little more context to the Catholic one, as it would seem to suggest every baptized Catholic is saved, and that is not the case. The purpose of the baptism is to cleanse throught this sacrament (both the water and the sacramental union with the holy spirit) the original sin, and marks us as children of God. While this technically means you are saved, the person can STILL sin, as the Catholic Christianity (I do not know if others) mandates we should follow Jesus' path, and if we get astray, we should regret our sins if we want to keep the holy communion. To give an example: - If a baby is baptized, and passess away before having a real conciousness for the actions the baby has done, the baby is saved and will go to heaven. Which is why Catholics worry a lot about abortions, as those would have to go to purgatory, and can be saved by prayers and the will of God. - If a person is baptized, grows up, stops being a Christian and does evil deeds, salvation is not guaranteed. The baptism is only the start of the Journey for Catholics. Thank you for reading, feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong, I do have understanding this is our belief as Catholics, but let me know.

Well said! 🚀🚀🚀

This is really helpful and informative as someone who has always struggled to understanding the Presbyterian view of baptism, growing up PCA myself.

@snackpup

10 ай бұрын

get saved kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKCuw7Kqe8mYqtY.htmlsi=L6ts3J0c-9HY0g_s

I always love seeing a new video from you with a white thumbnail

Great thanks!

Where would you put the order of salvation for water baptism? Would it be under regeneration and union with Christ? Or under progressive sanctification?

@jesusrosary9067

4 ай бұрын

Baptism is what Jesus said by water and Spirit

1:58 Christ saves "through" faith, but I know what you mean

thanks man!

@Redeemed Zoomer, It is possible that the thief on the cross had already been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples. Only through Jesus death and resurrection could his repentance and change attitude towards sin be acknowledged in eternity.

@Mic1904

11 ай бұрын

_"It is possible that the thief on the cross had already been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples"_ It's a fair and understandable thought to have, but apart from being really wildly speculative, that isn't even Christian Baptism as instituted as a sacrament by Christ after his Resurrection. Acts 18:25 makes it clear that the Baptism of John is not the same thing as Christian Baptism. To be a recipient of Christian Baptism, someone baptised by John would have to be baptised 'again' (not really again, merely for the first time under the New Covenant). The thief was not, in any conventional understanding, a recipient of the Sacrament of Baptism, as he died before it even existed.

@chiaratiara2575

11 ай бұрын

@@Mic1904 You are absolutely correct. BUT, Jesus had already said, This is my body ... This is my blood... It's not as if the doctrine of the new covenant was formed retrospectively, as it is clearly prophesied in the Old Testament. So please read Luke 1 v 6. We do not know if John's parents were still alive when Jesus died, so how were the sins of those who followed Moses' law actually ATONED for? Read Hebrews 9 v 15. It's by the death and blood of Jesus Christ. However there IS a difference between their status before God and ours. Heb 3 vv 1 to 6; Heb 11 vv 39, 40. Galatians 4 vv 4 to 7.

The Baptist and Reformed views appear identical in your final statement. Both distinguish between baptism of water and the spirit. Both claim baptism of water does not save. Both claim faith/baptism of the spirit are what saves. Both claim the former is a sign of the latter. I don't understand how you can say "the reformed view tries to distinguish the sign from the thing signified without separating them". How is that any different from the Baptist view? Honestly, is just seems like a difference in semantics. Would not the real difference be that Baptists require a profession of faith prior to water Baptism, and some Reformed groups do not?

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

Because of the stuff he said about timing. To the Baptist, timing is essential: you have to produce faith first before you can be Baptized, hence why it isn't licit to baptize infants. But for the Presbyterian, that doesn't matter. Baptism is effectual, and God works that effect in his own timing separately from the timing of the ordinance. Hence why household baptisms, even of infants, is fine.

Why does the reformed baptized infants?

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

1. We see one faith throughout the OT and NT in two administrations. Some things change, but some things stay the same between them. The NT is rather clear about what changes and seems to presume continuation for the things it doesn't bring up. 2. The pattern of the covenant sign has always been that when one comes to believe, the convert and their household receive the covenant sign. Gen 17 sets up the pattern, and Peter repeats it in Acts 2. When the disciples baptized a new convert, we are told that their household was baptized without any concern raised about their ages or whether each individual member believed. If there was a change, I would think we would find an example of an infant being refused baptism or similar turmoil around baptizing children as we see regarding other notable changes like the kosher laws and whether or not to circumcise gentiles. 3. It seems to have always been the practice of the church with no recorded controversy surrounding it. When people did start questioning the reason for baptizing infants, we see that the practice was already established, and the reasons given weren't for Baptist reasons. The sorts of reasons Baptists raise didn't appear until many centuries later with the Anabaptists, and later the English separatists that would go on to become modern Baptists. That said, it is in the end an argument from silence either way. I think the silence speaks more loudly for household baptisms, but I think it is the sort of thing Christians can have passionate debates over yet come together in unity as brothers in Christ at the end of the day. The disagreement is important, but no where near to the point of heresy.

I love your videos brother, but sola fide is an essential part of the Gospel and I will die on that hill. Rejecting sola fide, wether it's by roman catholics or anybody else, is creating a different gospel (Gal 5:4 and really all of Galatians).

your position to me has been off putting to me but saying the baptism of the Spirit makes me agree with you as a reformed baptist

catholic here, i been trying to study all of the 73 books of bible and cathecism and well, yes baptism saves , and from what i noticed baptists have combined two sacraments into one, baptism and confirmation, from what catholic church teaches to salvation you need both faith and works, not one or the other but both, and what are the works? easy, they are the 7 sacraments of baptism, confession of sins, holy communion, confirmation(done in the age of understanding and basically renewal of the vows of baptism),anointing, anointing of the sick,marriage

@returnedword

11 ай бұрын

I would interested to understand your view on Ephesians 2:8-9 if you believe it is both faith and works, what's the Catholic interpretation of this? Thanks.

@terrorbilly3367

11 ай бұрын

@@returnedword it's adressed in the cathecism of the catholic church, plus i already mentioned, faith by itself and works by themselves don't save, it's when they are combined, aka, 7 sacraments where you proclaim the faith where it trully saves, just faith does not grant you the state of grace, penance and eucharist do but then again you also need faith in order to recieve those sacraments, for no works can save you without faith and faith without works is dead

@terrorbilly3367

11 ай бұрын

@@returnedword as i said, the cathecism of catholic church has the real answear, i just gave you my own summary, so do not take this as what all catholics belive, it's what i believe

When Jesus was baptised He pre-figured His death. We have to understand this in relation to His coming straightt back out of the water because death could not hold Him (Acts 2) and Romans 6. The Jordan is 'the descender'. It drops 1200 feet into the DEAD Sea. This is what we ard baptised into by the Holy Spirit, which gives us power over sin.. This is also where circumcision of the heart is relevant because it represents the change in our attitude towards sin (through godly repentance) and the cutting off of the power of the flesh to lead us astray.. Colossians 2 vv 8 to 15. Romans 3 v 25. IF we sin 1 John 1 vv 7 to 9; 1 John 2 vv 1 and 2. Romans 8.

@FollowerOfTheLight2782

24 күн бұрын

Romans 5:1-2 (KJV) 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Baptism of the Holy Spirit and of Water is not the same.

As a baptist, this seems like what i believe i guess ? i'm not sure how its different

@toproductions3931

11 ай бұрын

Same here, seems pretty similar

@Ironica82

11 ай бұрын

In the middle, he basically describes what we believe (that baptism doesn't save but that we should all want to be baptized) but then quickly disregards us as he doesn't see any type of Baptists as reformed.

@user-sn1yw4ol1h

11 ай бұрын

Yeah this is really similar to what most baptists believe with the exception of the idea of a sacramental union

@returnedword

11 ай бұрын

Agreed, although I would probably just simply it as Baptism by the Holy Spirit saves, and that leads to a desire to get a water baptism to show a sign of the covenant.

@Dsquareddyson

11 ай бұрын

From my experience, I have heard that "baptism is an outward sign of inward change" from baptists, and there is heavy emphasis on it having nothing to do with salvation, but merely being symbolic. Not to say that all baptists believe this (and I'm not informed on the official and traditonal views of it), as I'm sure you would know more than me. I always find it interesting reading through the official convention and seminary beliefs from baptists, because when I do I usually think that what they say is pretty solid. It seems to me (on the outside looking in) that there seems to be weird cultural and application mistranslations in the baptist world. Meaning: the offical beliefs on paper don't line up with what is being spit out as far as boots on the ground application and practice is concerned with baptist churches and pastors. Any insight?

Amen! the only baptism that matters is the baptism of the holy spirit, Acts 1:5, Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38

Amazing video! I was raised with a more Baptist view of baptism so it always confused me how anyone could say that it was baptism itself that saved because I thought that that meant they were saying that simply being dunked in water would save you and that even with true faith who were unable to get baptized would not receive salvation. Now that it's been explained so clearly I'm not even sure if I disagree anymore; several of the things you said sounded exactly like how I would describe my view of baptism (such as how even though it's baptism of the spirit that saves, a person that denies the baptism of water may not be saved because such denial is indicative of not having been baptized in spirit). My only question is though, if water baptism doesn't save without true faith, why would does the reformed church baptize babies who, presumably, do not yet have a true faith given their inability to understand such concepts and choose baptism? Is the idea that, because they're not necessarily saved in the moment of water baptism, the baptism signifies the salvation that will come later when the child chooses faith? Or is it perhaps a difference in the reformed view on children that I'm not aware of?

@snackpup

10 ай бұрын

it is because they do not understand why Jesus died on the cross. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKCuw7Kqe8mYqtY.htmlsi=L6ts3J0c-9HY0g_s

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

_"if water baptism doesn't save without true faith, why would does the reformed church baptize babies who, presumably, do not yet have a true faith given their inability to understand such concepts and choose baptism?"_ That has to do with the bit he mentioned about salvation not being tied to the time of baptism. The command is repent and be baptized. Baptists tend to read this as repent _and then_ be baptized, as if it is an ordered list, but we see it as just a simple Boolean expression. Covenant infants have the "baptized" bit covered, and just need to have a living faith in Christ. (To highlight the grammatical assumptions being made, I like to joke that Baptists would be mad if they asked someone to bring milk and eggs and they arrived with eggs and milk.) Per Westminster Confession 28.6 - The efficacy of baptism *is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;* yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is _not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred_ by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, *in His appointed time.* _"Or is it perhaps a difference in the reformed view on children that I'm not aware of?"_ If anything, it would be a difference on our view of Covenant. Baptists tend to see a harder separation between the OT and NT (it varies as to exactly how separate they are), but the Reformed see it as one story of salvation with the same gospel of salvation by grace through faith. As such, we see Gen 17 as establishing the pattern of the giving of the covenant sign, and that Peter reaffirmed that pattern in Acts 2 while applying it to Baptism. That's why we aren't surprised that we see whole households being baptized when the household head believes and we never see any concerns raised about the age of recipients, it is simply a continuation of how God's covenant people have always worked.

As an agnostic from Russia(where 70% is Orthodox), who was never taught about religion in general. I don't really get it. All these complications with branches of Christianity and even more layers under it, and then some of them are official and some are not. I'm not talking about this video, it might be great(as other commenters responded), I'm just not well educated in this area. I understand some basic concepts of religion and faith. So I want to learn more about baptism and everything. Is there some must read literature that I need? Respond if you have time. Thank you.

@tcm333

11 ай бұрын

1. If you are considering the Christian faith, the one source that you can always rely on 100% is the Bible. Read a KJV or NKJV if you want a direct translation almost down to the letter, but if you want a Bible that's easier to read (and therefore less likely for you to misinterpret a verse), read an NLT, or NIV. 2. Like the video says, Christian views on Baptism can vary wildly throughout each denomination. In general, Protestants believe physical Baptism does not save, but rather the Baptism of the Spirit that saves, and Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (though I'm Protestant myself and don't know too much Catholic and Orthodox theology, so take that with a grain of salt).

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

_"Is there some must read literature that I need?"_ The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth. We know and teach the Bible and gospel better than any other denomination. If you are currently in Russia then I am not exactly sure how missionaries work there because we are heavily restricted in what they can do however the effort to learn of my Church would be worth it. If you live anywhere else then you can just look us up lol.

@zynfalde

6 күн бұрын

Please don’t listen to the Mormon man. Christianity is the truth and Mormonism is not that. Read the Bible

Hi Redeemed Zoomer, Sir Read the following verses; Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. That's upon placing his faith in Jesus is when a person is saved and there's nowhere mentioned water baptism in the above verses. However, water baptism is important as it' a command in scripture but water baptism is not a condtion for saalvation. Appreciate any comments. Thank you

You usually do a pretty good job of presenting Catholic doctrine, but you definitely misrepresented it in this video. I’m not accusing you of doing this intentionally, I just think you actually understand the Catholic view.

Question for your beliefs: Do you believe it is possible to be baptized in the spirit multiple times?

God saves us

I kinda disagree with how you box denominations into specific mindsets. Even if you are being broad- Bapists don't necessarily say "baptism doesn't save" (we are talking about how catholics believe that its simply the water) . From previous videos i'd say not to put so much emphasis on denominations because even if we disagree on certain things if you are truly seeking christ, (Again there are exceptions because some people believe things completely farfetched) christ will order your footsteps and show you they way. Baptism with water at least from the knowledge I am blessed with is the open declaration that you choose to serve/follow God, but baptism of the holy spirit is the true sign of salvation in the sense once you repent and believe in jesus he breathes his spirit into you and you are made new. God bless my brother im not trying to start a war btw

@buckarooben7635

11 ай бұрын

@Senpai-Choco You can say what certain denominations believe. Just because certain members of that denomination contradict the official stance of the denomination doesn’t mean that the denomination itself doesn’t have a position. Christians who contradict what their denomination believes either need to learn why their denomination holds that view and embrace it, or find a different denomination.

Yeah

yes

Up until the very end I thought you were just taking the cross-country tour way of saying effectively the same thing as the baptists, haha. In your summary however you clarified that the typical baptist belief discriminates between the spiritual and water baptism too much, which makes everything else you mentioned make more sense. While I grew up with a baptist background(and still lean that direction), my personal understanding on the matter aligns more closely with yours, as well as the particular baptist community I was a part of.

@snackpup

10 ай бұрын

this so called reformed view is just the same circle as the catholic view. did YOU understand the gospel at all? kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKCuw7Kqe8mYqtY.htmlsi=L6ts3J0c-9HY0g_s

Does Baptism save? Baptists: No. We're saved the moment we come to faith. Baptism is just a sign that we have faith. Calvinists: Yes- well, I mean, uh... the pouring of water doesn't save, that's just a sign. Baptism of the Holy Spirit saves, but it doesn't happen at the same time as water Baptism, it happens the moment we come to faith, and Baptism doesn't save everyone, cuz if you reject the promises of Baptism by not having faith then it won't save you. The Reformed view of Baptism just sounds like the Baptist view with extra steps.

I've been raised with baptists that preach the same thing you just preached.

@oracleoftroy

23 күн бұрын

That would be surprising. One of the things taught here is that the timing doesn't matter, but Baptists teach that the timing does matter, that Baptism must come after conversion. The consequence of this is that Presbyterians view infant baptism as licit and Baptists view it as illicit.

@FordMustangFoxbody

23 күн бұрын

@@oracleoftroy I should have clarified because I don't think that was a part that was taught to me. It's been 10 months so I'll have to rewatch to remember what I was saying.

Huh, I got baptized as a baby and I came to the faith like 2 1/2 years ago in an Episcopalian ( not Presbyterian, my bad) church. So technically, I don't need to get re baptized but I still feel compelled to do so. The only issue is that the Baptist church I go to has the baptismal bath pretty high up and I feel nervous about that due to the height. But that might be me.

@bushbladesnbows.2378

11 ай бұрын

I would encourage you not to be rebaptized, we are assured throughout the Bible and church history that there is one baptism (in a sacramental sense), so if you believe that your first baptism was legitimate, there is no need to have "another one", and in fact, you can't have "another" baptism, as there can only be one. Ether you were never truly baptized (wether that be that you were not baptized in the name of the father son and holy Spirit, or that it was illegitimate for some other reason), or, this "second" baptism will be illegitimate and only serve the purposes of emotional fulfillment. So be careful, make sure you know what you are doing and have good reason for it, but the way I see it, you should remember your baptism, and cherish it.

@oldfarmerboy4158

11 ай бұрын

Congratulations on becoming part of the family of God. Kudos also on desiring to be baptized. As an Anabaptist, allow me to give you my point of view. (No I'm not Amish) Anabaptists were part of the radical reformation in the 1500's. Unlike Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, who wanted to "reform" the Catholic Church, the Anabaptists wanted to "restore" the church to what it was back in the first century as was recorded in the book of Acts, before it was corrupted by both church and state. Early Christians were baptized upon their confession of faith in Jesus. It was/is an act of obedience. The church didn't baptize babies then. After all, the baby had no say in the matter. Baptism is for believers. I understand your concern about the mechanics of getting baptized. I am sure if you explained your concerns, you brothers and sisters would go out of their way to make sure you didn't fall or get hurt in any way. Go for it! BTW, I was brought up in a Presbyterian church and was baptized as a baby as well. When I was in my 30's I came to faith in Christ and was baptized again. The word Anabaptist actually means "baptized again" As babies were required by the state to be baptized at birth in the 1500's, so when people got baptized after coming to faith, it was the second time. Anabaptist was meant as an insult, but my people went with the name and ran with it. That makes me a true Anabaptist and you would could claim the name too. Welcome aboard!

@Guitar-qv6gu

11 ай бұрын

@@bushbladesnbows.2378 That’s different to believer’s baptism.

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

If you are wanting to be baptized then you should be baptized with authority and into God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You could be baptized 100 times and it would avail you nothing if it is without authority.

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

@@oldfarmerboy4158 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church that was restored here on earth. Sorry to tell you but while well meaning and have some good thoughts the Anabaptists didn't restore anything. There are many things I could say about this but I am going to just going to pick on the one thing you said, You said "the Anabaptists wanted to "restore" the church to what it was back in the first century as was recorded in the book of Acts" except that is a false claim. You didn't restore authority or the roles of Prophets and Apostles. We know more apostles were called from Acts 1:26 with Matthias and with Paul and Barnabas being called apostles in Acts 14:14 and Paul introducing himself as an apostle of the Lord in all his letters. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Paul is saying that the priesthood foundation of the household of God includes apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. In other words, in God’s and Jesus Christ’s true church there will be apostles and prophets found. The reverse is also true, a church without apostles and prophets is not the true church of God and Jesus Christ. This has been true since the apostles died, not just the church from 33 AD till around 120 AD. To say otherwise goes against the Bible and God’s word. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has had Prophets and Apostles since Joseph Smith with the current Prophet being Russel M Nelson and has 14 people as Apostles leading His Church.

This is the source of the biggest dispute I have with Catholicism. There's no Scriptural justification for their view, only tradition through interpretation by 'church fathers'. The church even disqualified thousands of baptisms recently because a priest was *saying the wrong words*. Pause and consider: power to save is in the correct word sequence and a sprinkle of water. It's very frustrating. Like arguing with Mormons, eventually they'll just tell you that you need to believe what the church teaches.

@buckarooben7635

11 ай бұрын

Well a priest should know better. Part of having a valid baptism is proper form.

@braedenh6858

11 ай бұрын

@@buckarooben7635 oh, absolutely! And can you point me to the chapter and verse where this proper form is provided and/or explained? Certainly Jesus and the Apostles wouldn't be so careless as to leave such a critical, important ritual out of their teachings, right? Imagine all the invalid baptisms that would happen if God did such a careless thing!

@dylanwilliams2202

11 ай бұрын

@@braedenh6858 _"Like arguing with Mormons, eventually they'll just tell you that you need to believe what the church teaches"_ No such things as "Mormons", Mormon was a guy who lived thousands of years ago and never had a people named after him. Now, LOL I know how arrogant this is going to sound but I would put you over my knee and spank you in any theological argument or in what the Bible does and doesn't say. At no time does any serious apologist say "you just need to believe what the Church teaches" to someone outside of our faith. If you haven't figured it out yet then I am a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth. _"And can you point me to the chapter and verse where this proper form is provided and/or explained?"_ Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Funnily enough in the true Church we have D&C 20:73 which actually has the words God wants us to use lol). Even then, I highly doubt Catholics wouldn't have the words figured out in which to baptize someone so that priest should have known better. _"There's no Scriptural justification for their view"_ Since it is pretty much the same as ours I will defend it, Faith isn't just professed belief and is also expressed in our behavior and/or works (Matthew 7:21-23, James 2:14-26, Titus 1:16, Isaiah 29:13). When you are baptized with faith in Jesus Christ then your sins are moved (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-10, Titus 3:5) and you have made a declaration of faith to Christ and you have been added to the Kingdom of God. It is Jesus Christ that saves us but you have to allow him in and the way to do that is through baptism. You can not enter the Kingdom of God unless you are born of water (John 3:5). When you are you have been born again and made a new creature to God (Romans 6:3-10, Titus 3:5). When you are baptized you are free to access God's and Jesus Christ's and to receive their forgiveness freely. John 3:5 “ Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, *no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water* and Spirit” Mark 16:16 *"The one who believes and is baptized will be saved,* but the one who does not believe will be condemned." Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, “Repent and *be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven,* and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 22:16 "And now why do you delay? Get up, *be baptized, and have your sins washed away,* calling on his name." 1 Peter 3:21 *"And baptism, which this prefigured, 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," When you are baptized you have become born again Romans 6:4 "Therefore *we were buried with him by baptism into death,* so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, *so we also might walk in newness of life"* Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, *through the water of rebirth* and renewal by the Holy Spirit." You should read and study the Bible once and a while, I know a good Church that can help you with knowing the Bible. _" power to save is in the correct word sequence"_ Yea, God is a god of order and has things done in a certain way. Do you really imagine yourself up a God that would let people do whatever they wanted? _"and a sprinkle of water"_ That is false. You have to be buried in water as stated in the scriptures.

@Hithereitsme32

10 ай бұрын

@@braedenh6858 it’s heretical to not baptize in the trinity

@maxxiong

7 ай бұрын

@@Hithereitsme32There was a recent incident where something much more minor invalidated baptisms (iirc it was saying "we baptize" instead of "I baptize")