Видео

I think this would be much easier for you if you just become Lutheran.

Who is the one High Priest of the New Covenant that can "baptize" a person into the Body of Christ? A person must be "baptized" to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. What did Peter mean about being "quickened by the Spirit" in 1 Peter 3:18? John baptized with water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Which "baptism" was Peter talking about in Acts 2:38? The answer is found in Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:15-16. Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Which baptism occurred on the Day of Pentecost, based on the words of Jesus here?) Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 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, Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (Is this “baptism” water or the Holy Spirit?) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (The word “baptisms” is used in some translations) (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)

I swear this doctrine doesn’t comport with reformed Soteriology.

Something I find interesting about David’s child dying in 2 Samuel. The text explicitly tells us that the child died on the 7th day (12:18). This was one day shy of his son receiving the sign of circumcision, and still, David was confident he would see him again.

The most common definition of Calvinism has to do with the doctrines of predestination and divine election in salvation. This is often described as a unique system of theology and associated with the 1619 Synod of Dort. While the Synod of Dort was an important international council, it was only regional in its authority. It was also limited in its task. It did not try to explain an entire system of theology. Instead, it responded to five theological positions posed by the students of Jacob Arminius. This is where we get the Five Points of Calvinism (see below). But the Synod of Dort also has to be understood as existing within a larger tradition. Calvinist theologians had existed long before Dort. John Calvin himself died in 1564. The Heidelberg Catechism was published in 1563. The English Lambeth Articles, commonly described as Calvinistic, were released in 1595. Many Calvinistic groups have never formally adopted Dort’s canons. The Westminster Confession of Faith has had a much greater and more direct influence on Calvinism in English-speaking countries. While it was drafted after the Synod of Dort, its chapter on predestination closely resembles the Irish Articles, which were published four years before Dort.5 So even though the organizing of Calvinism into five points comes from the Synod of Dort, the larger idea of Calvinism is older and broader. John Calvin certainly did write about predestination and election. These themes appear in his Institutes of the Christian Religion6 and also in his controversial writings against Albert Pighius on the freedom of the will and eternal predestination. Several of Calvin’s students and successors continued to write on these themes. Two of the most famous were Theodore Beza and Girolamo Zanchi. While these doctrines were never presented by Calvin as the central or most important doctrines, it did become common for critics to begin attacking them as “Calvinism.”7 When Charles Spurgeon wrote “A Defence of Calvinism” in the middle of the nineteenth century, he meant the doctrines of predestination and divine election.8 The early twentieth century American Presbyterian Theologian B. B. Warfield did not believe that Calvinism should be reduced to predestination. “The doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism,” he wrote.9 Instead, Warfield argued that Calvinism was “an overwhelming vision of God … , a complete world-view, in which [salvation] becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty.”10 For Warfield, this “world-view” then creates “a particular theology,” “a special church organization,” and even “a social order.”11 This way of understanding Calvinism became widespread in the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The school of theology called “Neo-Calvinism” agreed. Two of its most famous representatives were Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. Calvinist figures in the liberal “mainline” made similar arguments.12 The Calvinistic view of the church A second way that Calvinism distinguished itself historically was its particular view of the church. Calvinism maintained that the church was a divine creation. As such, it was not dependent upon the human will, whether in terms of tradition or the civil rulers. This caused Calvinism to have a more specific view of church government and polity. Typically, Calvinists argued against bishops and for lay-elders. Calvinists also wanted the ministry of the church to have an important measure of independence from the civil government. This did not mean the more modern vision of a separation of church and state, but it often did mean that the pastors of the church viewed themselves as prophetic critics of the political rulers. Calvinism also tended to teach a greater right of resistance and even revolution in the face of tyrannical government. All of this was held together under the notion of divine sovereignty. Quoting the book of Acts, Calvinists would say, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ). This aspect of Calvinism is complicated by the fact that John Calvin did not teach all of it. While he did teach the concept of lay-elders and jealously guarded the clergy’s right of excommunication, he did not believe that the Bible prescribed every point of church government. “For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a form of government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite,” he wrote.13 Calvin also limited the right of resistance to lesser magistrates. He did not believe that private citizens could ever rebel against their political leaders. Still, this emphasis of divine church government quickly became associated with Calvinism. When Richard Hooker wrote against the stricter Puritans, he noted that they had turned Calvin’s books into “almost the very canon to judge both doctrine and discipline.”14 The Scottish Presbyterians made similar arguments to the English Puritans, especially in their quarrel with King James. French Huguenots were also considered “Calvinist,” and they promoted a particular version of resistance theory that would become influential for later political movements.15 Certain American founding fathers could appeal to this Calvinistic heritage, even if some of the same founders were not personally orthodox Christians. Critics of Calvinism have accused this view of government of being separatistic, oppositional, and inclined to rebellion. Proponents argue that it safeguards the liberty of the church and the liberty of the Christian conscience. They also argue that it puts the teaching ministry of the church in the greatest position of social influence.

John the baptist .......preach the gospel in... Matthew 3:11.......The simple solution...... Water baptism was only for john the baptist... To complete. His testimony....JOHN 1:6-7......... IT'S ...THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. THAT SAVES YOU❗️

Excellent video. I am very glad for your ongoing videos on the historic Reformed view of baptism and the richness it holds. They are immensely edifying and highly educational! As a current member of a CREC church I think that what we practice is very much in line with what you described here, and while it is downstream of Federal Vision it is distinct and from what I have seen, clearly delineated from Lutheran or other views. It is of course a subject I am still learning more about, and always glad to continue learning in! Thanks again.

Great video. I'd like to see a more detailed comparison of this with federal vision. I was under the impression that this was basically the position of the federal vision folks, but they extended it to things like paedocommunion.

Here before redeemed zoomer????

Reformed Anglicans winning at the end there

I believe baptism saves but not in presumptive regen. I think Rutherford is right (as always) that "baptism is a means of regeneration and is said to save us" and is a "hyperphysical means of salvation" (Rutherford's examination of Arminianism) DESPITE the fact that chronologically regeneration frequently comes long after baptism

FV adherent here. We actually do have clear categories. I can see how people would see that it gets close to Lutheranism, but if you listen carefully to how terms are defined, FV is indeed orthodox Reformed theology.

When I visited my previous Baptist church (I go to a PCA church now) the pastor said that God works through families and cited some statistic that says 90%+ (don't remember the actual number) of Christians have Christian parents. Is there this variance in the reformed tradition concerning adult converts as well? I am mostly thinking about the Church of Christ's teaching that converts are saved at the time of Baptism and whether that comes from the founders' reformed background somehow.

Even as a firm non-Calvinist, I must say that your videos are fantastic!

Another great video! Thank you.

Keep doing the lords work! Greetings from Greece. ❤

I've been wondering about this for a while, thank you so much for this video

Do you think john davenant's view of baptism is acceptable in reformed theology?

Incredibly helpful. Thank you!

Credit to Redeemed Zoomer for recommending this channel and video.

you are SO much better than redeemed zoomer

My son asked me why he needed to be baptised since he was raised in a Christian household. I could only say "it's commanded by scripture". But I want to go deeper here. So great video.

Ok, so if I go around throwing water on people saying, BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS, they’re saved?

God tells us to baptize our disciples. If children are disciples, they should be baptized… this makes sense

This was a profound and much needed video. Thank you for your excellent work!

Lutheran here - I may have missed it on my first viewing of this and your baptismal efficacy video, but do you make a distinction between an individual who is a part of the new covenant and someone who is elect? Are they the same thing or different? Can someone be part of the new covenant but not part of the elect and vice versa?

In the interest of historical accuracy, it perhaps should be noted that while not a majority view, Cornelius Burgess, who headed the Westminter Aasembly's committee on baptism and served as polocutor of the Assembly in William Twisse's absence, wrotea book in defense of the normativity of the baptismal regeneration of elect infants. Samuel Ward, another member of the Assembly as well as a commissioner to the Synod of Dort, wrote a defense of the baptismal regenerstion of elect and non-elect infants. John Davenant, whose interaction helped guide the language of the Canon of Dort on the extent of Christ's atonement also wrote a defense of the baptismal regeneration of elect and non-elect infants in a treatise answering Arminians. In addition, all three, along with Lutherans, would affirm the pre-baptismsl regenerstion of unbaptized adult converts. I have heard some Lutherans argue that in those cases, the waters of baptism continue by faith to sacramentslly apply the washing of sin to our daily sins by faith throughout our lives. These three were from the Church of England, but all three of them were certainly regarded as "reformed" and had nvolvement between them at Dort and Westminster, including Burgess's role on the committee on baptism at the latter. As to the Westminster Standards, it does not teach Burgess's view as the Assembly's position, rathr it utilizes language that could be agreed upon by multiple parties in the baptismal disputes, including his own position.

I think there are many Baptists following your channel to understand more about Reformed theology. Maybe that's why videos about baptism are the ones that are most popular. With this in mind, perhaps it would be interesting to focus on topics that differentiate the Reformed faith from the Baptist: (a) Covenant Theology x Dispensationalism; b) Sacraments as means of grace x sacraments as just symbols; c) Pedobaptism x credobaptism; d) Our view of Sola Scriptura (allowing logical inferences) x the radical view of many Baptists; e) Presbyterianism x Congregationalism; f) Reformed Baptists x Classical Reformed Faith. Maybe you don't want to define your channel in that sense, but I think these are topics that would be worth explaining and some of them I've seen that you've done a great job on.

Great video!

How would you differentiate the WCFs section on baptism and the 39 Articles section?

You deserve a larger platform. Great stuff.

If I could encourage one small yet important word change. Not Christian worldview but biblical world view.

Great video and information sir!

Rev. Don Baker, are you presuppositionalist? This video could suggest either way cuz you talk about "worldview" but also "natural revelation"

It was a pleasure working with you Pastor Don!

Hey I know the stained glass in that thumbnail! It's from Park Cities PCA which I've gone to many times

Thanks Lance for coming all the way to Korea to collab with me! Go ahead and check out his channel where we filmed another video on this topic here: youtube.com/@lancepfilms?si=UvCc0ftidea8yev7

Could you do a video comparing the Westminster Standards to the 3FU, any differences there are? I know they're very similar but would like to know the differences. I've not found anything particularly helpful on this yet. Thanks

Excellent video - thank you so much for continuing to delve into the Reformed view of the sacraments! Please keep it up. God bless you.

It just appears that the Reformed systematic wants to say "baptism save" but needs to nuance it enough that they can say "baptism saves**" and the ** is an explanation on how baptism saves, but not really, but it does kinda for the Elect, in a nuanced way

Amen 🙌

Glory to God

I'm confused. You say baptism saves, but then you seem to say they were already saved before being baptized? So which is it? If someone gets saved and receives the Holy Spirit and then dies in a car crash on the way to baptism, are you saying they aren't saved because they didn't receive the "seal?" Serious question not being confrontational.

Semantically speaking, what would baptism be saving one from? I ask given that efficacy is not to the moment of baptism (paraphrasing @19:48 line 1). I assume the efficacy refers to the thing of regeneration?

19:30 rev, i think you got the section wrong, it is WCF XXVIII.6 (28.6)

I wish I could subscribe to you again.

Something odd I’ve found in practice about the Lutheran position on baptismal regeneration is that it creates an inconsistent use of baptism between infants and adult converts. For infants, born of at least one believing parent, it creates faith in the heart of that infant ex opere operato (though I know Lutherans would deny they believe in ex opere operato sacramentology). If I’m an unbelieving adult, though, I can’t willingly submit to baptism and have it create faith in my heart. They say it has to be received in faith in that case. I think the Reformed position is stronger and more consistent not only in its description of the sacrament as a sign and seal, but also in its application both to infants and adults as their entrance rite into discipleship-into the covenant community.

This is simply a paedobaptist rescuing device. If you drop your errant view of baptism, you wouldn't have to dance like this.

Amen! Well done!

Thank you! Praise God!