The opening song is so great.

I thought it was really interesting that you mentioned rebaptism. I personally have a very intersting experience with this. The first time I got baptised, I got baptised as a Jehovah's Witness at age 14. And I was getting baptized seeing it as a devoting my life to God, and I meant it genuinly. And at that time, for many years after, and for many years prior, I saw myself as a devout Jehovah's Witness and believed the Jehovah's Witnesses were the true religion and God's people. However, when I was baptised, I just felt weird. Like, even though I genuinly meant it, I jusy felt so empty about it after doing it and really just felt a deeper sense shame than I had before. I never talked about it beacuse I knew people would look down on me or question me for it, but I always felt like my baptism was invalid. I didn't know that I could be sure about it but I just had this deep sense that it wasn't. Someone even asked me the day I got baptised if I felt different and thats when it hit me that I felt nothing, but I lied and said I did. But I did feel different, I felt weird, and thats what tipped me off that something wasn't right. And when I finally came to know the true gospel (which happened gradualy over a few years), I was able to be sure that my baptism was fake and I left that cult, was studying the bible for myself a lot, only with God's help, incuding drawing my own conclusions about baptism, and I got my real baptism. I was not baptised into any denomination or church. I was baptized by my dad in my neighbors swimming pool in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And that baptism was definitely real and I did feel something. I knew that I was redeemed by Christ alone and saved and that my sins where washed away. And I felt Joy. My neighbor who's pool I was baptised in even said that his hairs were standing on end because he could see the Holy Spirit on me!

@FollowerOfChrist0708

5 ай бұрын

Wow! What a beautiful testimony! Thank you for sharing this😄! Glory be to our Lord Jesus alone! Hallelujah!

Thank you! Very helpful video.

I was baptised as a baby in the Methodist Church. I know for a fact baptism does not regenerate you. I was an atheist until I was 23. I got re baptised (actually baptised) several months after I was actually "regenerated" (a doctrinal term, not Biblical term) by putting my faith in God. I was saved in that moment and God called me to Baptism, which I was obedient in doing. My baby baptism did nothing to regenerate me and I didn't even receive a calling from God to be baptised until post faith.

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

Baptism’s efficacy isn’t tied to when it’s administered. You coming to faith was your original baptism coming into effect

@turkeybobjr

Жыл бұрын

@Redeemed Zoomer The problem is, you have to appeal to church tradition to make that claim. That is not *at all* what God's Word says about it. If my original baptism was sufficient, why was I clearly called by God to be re-baptised?

@bigboineptune9567

Жыл бұрын

@@turkeybobjr Re-baptism is completely absent from the Bible.

@turkeybobjr

Жыл бұрын

@@bigboineptune9567 Sounds like you need to re-read the book of Acts...

@bigboineptune9567

Жыл бұрын

@@turkeybobjr Verse?

This is a really good video. I’m Baptist myself but I must say this view of baptism seems to be much more inline with the Bible than the symbolic view, and the fact that it’s the traditional position is telling as well. I myself was baptized Catholic as a baby but then I became an atheist and when I converted to Christianity as an adult I was baptized in a baptist church. I saw it as symbolic at the time so I’m curious what you’d have to say about that.

Rituals like the taking of bread and wine, and baptism, if they're not done after "becoming saved", does that lead to the withering of one's sense of God (his presence)? Can one be technically saved, yet become atheist, due to having never been baptized?

I don’t believe that to be re baptized is a sin. I’m a Catholic doing Baptist Bible study and at the end of Matthew , Jesus said that the apostles should go out and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. After much prayer I decided I wanted to be baptized again of my own volition as a profession of my personal relationship with Jesus. I don’t see how you can say I sinned by being baptized again.

@justhair17

4 ай бұрын

Not sure if its a sin, but its definitely invalid. According to Catholic doctrine, you can only be baptised once

4:10 You can’t just twist the rules to your liking, either it’s entirely necessary or entirely not. It’s the definition of NECESSARY

I already left a comment on the Lordship Salvation video about how baptism's assurance of salvation so I won't repeat that. But... A plain reading of 1 Peter 3:21 says quite the opposite of what is often quoted. "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God" (NIV) If you read past the first part of the verse, Peter makes clear that the physical act being cleansed with water is NOT what saves but instead the pledge of a clear conscience. So that first part of the verse is being taken so far out of context that the false interpretation is completely contradictory to what the verse actually says. Reading the whole verse I can't understand another way to interpret it. Also you seem to be contradicting yourself regarding baptism's relationship to faith. At 1:46 in the video you explicitly say "Baptism is something that needs to happen before we can have faith." Yet as you said later, it is possible in extreme situations for someone to have faith and be saved. Yet extreme circumstances aren't required for this not to add up. To take your situation, for example, you said you did not receive a "valid" baptism as an infant and did not become aware of this until 5 years after your salvation. It's not unreasonable to assume that a whole lot more genuine Christians never had a "valid" baptism either as an infant or as an adult and never realized it. These are not extreme circumstances and this situation is not uncommon (especially depending on what one considers a valid baptism lol). So are all these people damned since they had plenty of opportunities to be baptized yet did not? Assuming the answer is "no", then baptism is NOT something that needs to happen before faith. This is also only one example of a reason why a Christian might not be baptized; others may include denomination traditions (Salvation Army), lack of personal or Holy Spirit conviction for baptism, general inability, etc. And these can't all just be exceptions to the rule of faith requiring baptism.

@matroid4996

Жыл бұрын

I would agree with you, but for the sake of arguing because these are fun topics to debate: For your second point I think the usual counter is that God isn’t bound by the sacraments to us, we are bound by them to Him. Meaning He will always be able to do the work he wishes to do in us regardless of what we do, and therefore can deliver the spirit apart from the moment of baptism to the elect. That last part is why I only ever see calvinists deep in this argument. It feels like it requires you to believe heavily in the concept of the elect

@ihiohoh2708

5 ай бұрын

I agree, faith absolutely precedes water baptism, and often. Credobaptists prove that. To me, baptismal regeneration seems superstitious more than anything. This idea that it “gives you higher chances.” Is definitely not valid. You’re either a child of God or not. One can certainly know they have faith. There are many who have genuine born again experiences many years before they’re baptized, and many pass away before baptism with genuine faith. I’m not arguing in favor for credobaptism by the way, just stating it proves faith often precedes baptism.

John 3:5

I know the video is 5 months old. But I wanted to clear something up about the scenario in 4:20 of the plane crashing, because you said even a Catholic would agree. The Catholic doctrine would agree IMO. The Catechism says the following: Contrition is defined as [CCC 1451] sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again. [CCC 1452] When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. [CCC 1453] The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance. [CIC 916] A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. I would agree, even if you have not received baptism, you would be saved if there is an act of perfect contrition. If you believe in God, truly repent out of love for God and intend to get baptised (which I imagine would also imply intent to confess after baptism) then you have achieved perfect contrition and are therefore saved. In fact, the situation of the plane crashing before confession is a very typical example used to explain the concept. I hope this clears things up in case anyone was wondering about it.

@friedrichk.5609

15 күн бұрын

thanks

Baptists when I read John 3:5 to them: 😮😢😨🤯

baby baptism isn't in scripture. Ah, this is where I will have to disagree. Baptism in the "trinity" are titles, not the name of the God of those titles, as the scripture says.

The Church of Christ has the most bizarre and contradictory view of baptism, they affirm baptismal regeneration but are against infant baptism.

@D.dot.

Жыл бұрын

Where in the New Testament are examples of infants being baptized?

@MAMoreno

11 ай бұрын

That's because the CoCs often have Pelagian leanings: if you don't believe in the inherited guilt of Original Sin, you can still affirm baptismal regeneration while insisting that infants are sinless and therefore don't need regeneration. Baptists, by contrast, do tend to believe in inherited guilt, but they hold that baptism can't do anything to address that problem. Rather, baptism is a sacred rite that externally expresses the internal faith that is connected to regeneration--a conscious faith from a sapient mind. The extreme end of this perspective is the Quaker view, which sees no point in baptism whatsoever. Friends don't let Friends go dunk. (Or sprinkle or pour, for that matter.)

@javindhillon6294

10 ай бұрын

They believe in baptismal efficacy

@Protestant_Paladin440

3 ай бұрын

@@D.dot. Acts 2:38-39. Baptism of water leads to baptism of the Holy Spirit, and this covenant applies to you AND your children.

@D.dot.

3 ай бұрын

@trinomer Those verses don't say infants were baptized. Acts 2:41 does say that "those who accepted Peter's message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." How could an infant accept Peter's message??

Thoughts on the thief on the cross. Was he saved or no?

@darrenwkriel

11 ай бұрын

Yes, as Jesus himself assured his place in heaven because of his faith

@YouKnowWho434

8 ай бұрын

He was definitely saved. My understanding is that the thief on the Cross was baptized with the Holy spirit because John‬ ‭7‬:‭37‬-‭39‬ ‭says... “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Jesus was Glorified the night before he was crucified according to John‬ ‭13‬:‭31‬. Right before Jesus's statement in verse 31 Jesus was eating the last supper with his disciples and Judas Iscariot had Just left the feast. “So, when he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him.” This means that the thief on the cross believed in Jesus and because of that he received the Holy Spirit. And he was saved by grace through Faith (Ephesians 2:8). I could be wrong but this makes sense to me. ‭‭ ‭‭

@Protestant_Paladin440

3 ай бұрын

Yes. However, that is an extraordinary circumstance and does not represent all humanity. Baptism saves, but it is a sign of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism of water are different. Spirit baptism saves, and is administered to the elect when they come to faith. However, the two baptisms are tied, one eventually leading to the other among the elect. In other words, he was saved because he had faith in Jesus, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, because Spirit baptism is so closely tied to water baptism, if the thief had gotten off the cross, then he would've been baptized.

It only goes against Faith Alone if it's YOUR baptism that saves (which is false). It's CHRIST'S baptism imputed to us that saves.

@Protestant_Paladin440

3 ай бұрын

Yes, but even the Catholics and Lutherans do not confess this. They say that at the moment of water baptism, you are regenerate and receive the Holy Spirit. Basically, the two baptisms are simultaneous and are merged into one, not in a Reformed sense of sacramental union, but they are literally the same thing.

@freakylocz14

3 ай бұрын

@@Protestant_Paladin440 I'm Catholic myself, but of the evangelical variety. Baptismal regeneration is just one of those beliefs that other Christians are going to have a hard time reconciling with the doctrine of justification by faith.

But does a catholic baptism count? Even if we are protestant not catholic

@redeemedzoomer6053

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Catholic baptism is valid, no need to get re-baptized

@Baraodojaguary

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 thank you for telling me that i have friends who were catholic but left and became protestants and are now looking to join my church thats why i asked they are my best friends and my spiritual family sincd they were the ones who taught me about christ

@Baraodojaguary

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 also i m not baptized in my church i am baptized as catholic but the baptists i go to doesnt accept their baptism i know your opinion about baptists and i agree with you in many points i actually go there becase i like the people there and they are faithful to the bible but i used to want to be a Lutheran but there isnt a lutheran church in my town and here in Brazil lutherans are progressive heretics

@BookZealots

Жыл бұрын

@@redeemedzoomer6053 is this true? If someone was baptized before coming to Christ, (believing, repenting, getting baptized), then isn't it just getting wet? It's not a true buriel. If it were me, I'd be baptized properly.

@jordantowner5995

11 ай бұрын

@@BookZealots I agree. To substantiate the claim let's remember what baptism is: a declaration of faith and a pledge of a clear conscience before God. If someone is baptized before they are saved, then they did not declare faith, nor make a pledge. Like you said, they were just getting wet. Thus, I personally would recommend a re-baptism.

Read 1 Peter 3:22, keep reading.

FAITH ONLY will not save you: James 2:24 - Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

@Protestant_Paladin440

3 ай бұрын

He's talking about the kind of faith that demons have. If you just believe that God exists, that won't cut it. Saving faith has to bring about good fruit, i.e. contrition, repentance, following the teachings of Jesus, etc. He's not saying you go to heaven by faith plus works, nor is he saying you're going to heaven because you work in a soup kitchen. You go to heaven because of your faith, which produces works.

Hello brother! I'd like you to see this comment not as an attack on your or your beliefs, but rather, something to consider when engaging in the idea of "is baptism necessary for salvation?" In Romans, Paul states in chapter 1 verse 16 that "the gospel of the power of God unto salvation" meaning, whatever the gospel is, it is sufficient for salvation, and in the previous verses, Paul speaks of being ready to preach the gospel in Rome. So wherever Paul is going, he is preaching the means by which God has established by which man must be saved: which is the Gospel. Now, in 1 Corinthians 1:14, Paul speaks of NOT baptizing any of them (expect a select few). I hope you see the point of this comment, that Paul preached the gospel (which, whatever it is, is all that is needed for salvation), and wasn't baptizing people, therefore baptism is not essential for salvation. I hope you see one of the reasons I would believe baptism is not a necessity for God's plan of salvation, and at least spend some time meditating on it! Have a blessed day :)

@MAMoreno

11 ай бұрын

1 Corinthians is a very complicated letter when it comes to this issue. On the one hand, Paul does say that his mission was to preach the gospel, not to baptize (1.15). On the other hand, he assumes with the preceding rhetorical questions (1.13) that they were all baptized. Then he later makes that point explicit when he states, "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (12.13 NRSVue). He also draws an obvious parallel between the sacraments and the exodus when he informs them "that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ" (10.1-4). And of course, there's his odd remark near the end of the letter: "Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" (15.29). The implication of this practice (which he doesn't bother to condemn) is that there is some link between the hope of the resurrection and baptism. So this epistle could be said to be ambiguous at best on the topic of baptism's role in regeneration. Going back to Romans, where he calls the gospel "God's saving power for everyone who believes" (1.16), he also says, "Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (6.3-5). So again, those who hold to baptismal regeneration have Pauline proof texts to support their position, whether we think they're understanding those texts correctly or not.

"Born of water" means being born into the physical world, when the mother's water breaks

@Protestant_Paladin440

3 ай бұрын

I'm gonna need some evidence to back this up.

@TocnaelStarcraft

3 ай бұрын

@@Protestant_Paladin440 I made it up

In reading the Church fathers, it is safe to say they did not teach salvation by faith alone, at least not to the understanding that Luther and other reformers did. Although some Church fathers did express 'faith alone", it was in the context of charity. In other words, the fathers taught "sola fide formata" which means faith formed by charity. I love what Irenaeaus had to say about baptismal regeneration: "First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth onto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God. - Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna), [d. 202 AD], "Proof of Apostolic Preaching".

I think the concepts of salvation and baptism are bessed placed within a timeline. First you must hear the gospel preached (Romans 10:17). What is the message of the Gospel? That we have all sinned against the one true God, and have earned death and eternal damnation, but God has sent a sacrifice to die in your place, his one and only begotten son Jesus of Nazareth. How do we know? Because Jesus did many wonders and signs that only one sent by God could do, and he taught that he was the Son of God. Also, he taught that he was Lord of all as the Father has granted everthying to him (Matthew 11:27). Thus we must look to Jesus in order to find salvation and accept his sacrifice. And what did Jesus tell his followers to do? To make disciples, baptize them in His name, and teach them to obey his teachings (Matthew 28:16-20). How did they begin to do this? They preached the message of Jesus, who he was, what he did, and that He is Lord and Messiah. In those who heard, understood, and accepted that message asked "what should [they] do?" In response Peter told them to repent (of sin) and be baptized (in water) (Acts 2). If you have heard the Gospel of Jesus preached and accept the message and are thinking, "what should I do?" the answer is to repent and be baptized. If you argue about the meaning of baptism, I refer to the fact that the writers of the New Testament either mention water with baptism in passing, or not at all, meaning they expected their audience to understand their meaning. The earliest baptism in chronological order in the New Testament is baptism administered by John, which happened at a river. This was full submersion. Jesus was first baptized with John's baptism. He then taught his disciples to baptize others at the same river that John was at. Then before ascending to heaven Jesus says baptize in His name. His disciple's model of baptism would be full submersion. 1 Peter 3 shows the flood as a sign of baptism. The flood fully submerged the earth, even well above mountain tops (Gen 7:20). Even the Ethiopian eunuch who was literally in the middle of the desert came across a body of water and wanted to be baptized. If submersion were not necessary, he surely would have been sprinkled with the drinking water he had. This models the old testament in which the Jews had faith in God, acknowledged their sin, washed themselves with water, and made an animal sacrifice to be made clean. We must have faith in God as trinity, acknowledge our sin and need for atonement, and be washed, accepting the sacrifice that has already been made by and in Jesus.