Southern Baptist REJECT The OLDEST Christian Document That LITERALLY Every Denomination Agrees On?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Southern Baptist REJECT The OLDEST Christian Document That LITERALLY Every Denomination Agrees On?
🤝: Check Out The Bless God Prayer Journal Here: blessgodprayer.shop
🤝: Access Exclusive Podcasts Here / kingsdream
📲 Presave My New Song! ruslantothemoon.com
💪: The Empty Your Bucket Plan That Caused 30 pound transformation: ruslankd.krtra.com/t/2VyOcAJQ...
📚: My Favorite Study Bibles: amzn.to/3Xy1ynk
💪: The Empty Your Bucket Plan That Caused 30 pound transformation: ruslankd.krtra.com/t/2VyOcAJQ...
📰: Bless God Newsletter: www.mastermyhabits.com/newsle...
🔓: FREE Freedom Habits (Course w/My Therapist): www.mastermyhabits.com
📚: FREE How to Study the Bible Course: www.mastermydevo.com
📹: My Equipments (Amazon Affliate): www.amazon.com/shop/ruslankd
▶️: Apparel I'm wearing: www.Ruslankd.com
►: FREE Find Your Niche RUclips Training: www.mastermyniche.com/
🥇: Make a One Time Donation Via Paypal: bit.ly/3m1ivWg
🥳: Cashapp: cash.app/$ruslankd
🏅: Venmo bit.ly/3nuoMJB @ Ruslankd
🎥: How I Live Stream (Course) www.masteryoutubelive.com/
🙏: My Testimony: bit.ly/2Qmq6Bw
💦: Intro/Outro Song: go.ruslankd.com/new
💰: Get debt free with Dave: • Follow The 7 Steps To ...
📲: www.superphone.io/?aff=ruslankd
💵: Start investing with Acorns now: bit.ly/3vzVG0m
💸: Invest with robinhood: join.robinhood.com/ruslank30
► Subscribe: goo.gl/A3eVy8
► Text Ruslan (Don't Send Links Please) 714-710-1017
Tip the Stream Here: bit.ly/3ILNPBH
My Equipment: kit.co/RuslanKD/livestream-st...
![Gunna - one of wun [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w_JtBYqMgk8/mqdefault.jpg)
🤝: Check Out The Bless God Leadership Planner Here: blessgod.shop
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
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 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.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Just because man makes up the word orthodoxy and says this doctrine is orthodoxy, it does not mean that doctrine is true.
Saying what Christendom has accepted for 1700 years and is BASED OFF THE BIBLE and was made to refute heresies has "issues" I'm just...
You think it is based on the Bible. SBC thinks otherwise. The Creed affirms baptismal regeneration. SBC doesn't agree because they believe that is not taught in the Bible.
Typical Protestant L
@@codywork-us7wu typical??? Most Protestants accept all the creeds. Have the creed stopped heresies in those churches? Nope. Neither have they stopped heresies within catholicism
If you all can't honestly say the creed, I encourage you to research what heresies the creed was responding to. The truth of the creed has its foundation in scripture.
Edit:
As the author of the comment that seeded the following comments, I want to thank you all for engaging in this conversation. For Christians to truly unite in deed and in truth, I believe we must continue this discussion and I am confident that as we humble ourselves and follow Christ that we can discover how unity is actuated. I do not believe this is a fruitless discussion. I pray God uses our perspectives and misunderstandings to conform us into the image of Christ and share the hope of salvation in Jesus to the world. I understand there are seemingly impossible breakages in communion, but I lay myself down and call upon the LORD God Almighty to be our Redeemer in this time of the history of those who seek Him.
Amen
I reject the creed, not all Christians are bound by later Christian creeds
@@scripturequestIf you cannot accept the Nicene creed then you cannot accept scripture it is a one for one summation of scripture.
@@justchilling704 I disagree, as protestants our attitude shoud be in alignment with our forefathers who believed in sola scriptura. Creeds may contain some truth but they are not binding as scripture is and therefore not necessary. Scripture alone should be our authority not creeds that came hundreds of years after Christ.
Amen
My understanding is that little c catholic simply means world-wide or universal. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches specifically.
It's usage in the Creed means whole, complete, nothing lacking to be the true church of God.
@@ronfeledichuk531 which has been continued, unchanged in the Orthodox church
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic definitely refers to the Catholic Church. This includes the Orthodox Churches. Protestantism wouldn't be created until Halloween of 1517, long after the creed was written.
@@SethEdwards-hq9pmyes at the time of the writing the catholic church was basically all Christianity. Martin Luther didn't come onto scene till 1000 years later
@@dat8835 you left out orthodoxy, which has continued since the apostles until now
Unifying the Church should be a priority of all Christians. We should try as much as possible to have a dialogue with each other and to keep communication open. The Nicene Creed is something that transcends denominations. It is a unifying force in our Church. Discarding it is very dangerous.
Any unity is a false union since we don't even share a common theology. Ecumenism is a satanic theology
People have been trying since the Œcumenical Council of Nikæa. It has not worked and will never work. People will never surrender their agency. Monotheism is a political ambition. Polytheism is a cold hard reality.
That is not going to happen when people follow their own interpretation of the Bible.
I don't know why people are shocked Southern Baptist doesn't accept the Nicene Creed. Most Protestants don't believe in the whole Creed. The Creed believes in baptismal regeneration, and that goes against their beliefs.
Protestants believe creeds are fallible. They will denounce any creed if it goes against their interpretation of the Bible.
Should not be surprised. In revelation, the brides waiting for the bridegroom, we'll most of them didn't make it. If the bride were to be chatting it up and agreeing that she didnt need oil in her lamp either, well its pointless. Even something as simple as baptism, most churches don't Babtise in the name of Jesus, which is what they did in the book of acts, and is the only name given to men that we must be saved. Super controversial, but really a basic interpretation.
@@daveuerk4030, The purpose of Revelation is to reveal the mystery that will end the purposeful deception. Whether the purpose is achieved, or succumbs to the law of unintended consequences, we shall see. The world is stochastic.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ. His only begotten Son.
* and the Holy Spirit
Begotten of the substance of His Father before all ages not made of nothing as Arius said, nor a beginningless emanation as the state church heretics Alexander and Athanasius said. Dare he bring it before the rulers of the world by which the devil worked mischief
What ever for ?
@@Rosiedelaroux do you reject Psalm 2:7? If so you also reject the book of Hebrews
And the Holy Spirit!
The problem in the pig story wasn't the ecumenism, it was the dancing.
We should be unified as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ amen....
Look at the histories of the Anabaptists, specifically why they were given "3rd Baptisms" by Protestants.
Who were the divisive ones looking back at history?
I agree though on unity under the truth, and my statements aren't purely doctrinal, but matters of the heart.
Heretic.
@@georgepierson4920 "They will kill you thinking that they do a service unto God"
"Do not be deceived, for Satan himself masquerades as an Angel of light"
Dominionism, while appealing looking, is no different than Golden Calf worship of Israel.
How can you be unified when Protestants can’t even agree with many nuances within the Christian theology?
@@georgepierson4920 that's not what psalms says
They did not reject the creed. They just didn't add it to their charter. Saying they rejected it is misleading and only causes division. Same with the female "pastor" issue. Their doctrinal statement still prohibits them; they just failed to add it to their constitution. Rather than bashing our brethren we should be rallying and fortifying them.
It was the basis of Christianity for 1054 years… it should be in everyone’s charter.
It's the profession of our faith
@@DustyBooks2020 Far longer than that even if we forget about the whole Filioque controversy.
@christologian1518 ok, in your opinion what is the foundation for Christian beliefs?
You don’t rally and fortify “brethren” when they stray!
At least they're being consistent in that they can't affirm the Creed because it explicitly teaches baptismal regeneration. The majority of Evangelicals don't believe in baptismal regeneration, yet they affirm the Creed, which teaches a doctrine that contradicts their beliefs? Huh?
They could just recite the creed of the 318 fathers. Problem solved.
...
Pick and choose the tradition you want, protestant moment
@Chromebreaks
Exactly. The SBC is at least consistent in this regard. I don't know why this channel claims that Evangelical/Baptist Protestants believe in the Creed. If they know what the Creed teaches (baptismal regeneration) and they're honest and consistent, then they'd reject the Creed... This is the definition of reducing yourself to absurdity, lol.
>Protestant
Unfortunately what they will probably do is reinterpret baptism to mean baptism of the spirit and then claim that they affirm it
As someone who was in attendance I feel like this is a very poor representation of what took place. Please do further research or I invite you to attend the SBC meeting 2025 in Dallas so you can finally see and hear what actually goes on. It sounds like a lot of criticism coming from a lot of ignorance.
Would you care to share what REALLY led to the rejection of the Nicene Creed? As a former Methodist, I learned the Apostles Creed as a child many, many decades ago.
@@randycarson9812of course! At the most basic form this was a motion brought to the floor by a messenger. The process requires for that motion to be made, then seconded (which it was), then the motion is handed in for review. The reason for this is that every single motion that is brought to the floor in that manner must go through a process. And actually there was 2 versions of this brought to the floor. Ultimately instead of voting a for or against, it became a vote for a referral to the Executive Committee for them to just review the implications of the vocabulary of the motion itself, because if something passes it passes as it is written so sometimes they need to take a pause so the specific committee can take time to review things like this and make a recommendation at the following SBC annual meeting. Remember that they are dealing with 100s of motions made within just 2 days. So it sounds like a lot for something seemingly simple but you must understand they are representing over 50,000 churches and must carefully consider everything. It’s not that we can’t affirm the Nicene creed but sometimes it’s the politics of why should we? We have our own statements of faith or “confession” called The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, I recommend you read it. You will see that it covers everything the Nicene Creed covers and more. So one might be inclined to ask what is the purpose of affirming redundant statements? If this video is any example of just how poorly every action the SBC takes is twisted then we have to be careful. If we would have affirmed it, the headlines would read “SBC adopts Catholic Creed” or “SBC adopts statement that says Baptism for the forgiveness of sin” and so on… so ultimately while some want it and some might not there are implications to every action so we must tread slowly and carefully especially on matters like these which are not necessary because we have our own Confession. Hope this somehow helps. God bless
The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
@@mjrjolt "Sun"day, huh? Is there any verse in the New Testament which indicates that the early, pre-Constantinian Church celebrated the Lord's day on Sunday?
@@randycarson9812 Randy, you're making my point, Why aren't we observing the Sabbath? The 4th Commandment. Where in the Bible did God establish Sunday as worship instead of the Sabbath? Where did God do away with the observance of Passover??? The Nicene Creed was especially designed to drive a wedge between Gentile and Jewish believers. It
Didn’t have this one on my bingo card. Gonna be a wild year.
Clearly SBC knew more than the early Church fathers regarding baptism. 😂😂😂
The church Father's hardly agreed with each other on many things and referred to the Scripture (Sola Scriptura) to defend and advance their positions when debating. Don't elevate them higher than any other legitimate Christian Scholar that uses Scripture of any time period. They didn't have super powers
@@alan21usa-ey5ms Perfect Answer! Thank you. SBC pastor here.
Yeah, the Didache is really friendly to infant baptism. ROFL. 😅😂😂 Yeah, we read patristics, too.
Yes we do as a matter of fact. Without going into a long explanation which many here wouldn't read, many church "fathers" believed things which Baptists reject immediately. The so-called Church fathers didn't in fact always agree among themselves on various things. The dear Lord Jesus Christ warned us against calling any man father in Matt. 23:9 and the context is religious leaders. So, the vast majority of Baptists don't pay any attention to them at all. We have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide us. We don't need the so-called church fathers. We need the real Church fathers: Paul, Peter, Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke to guide us with their inspired writings in the New Testament. We make much of them, not the fake Church fathers.
@@ruckanitepreacher5618 Evangelical Christians who are in church leadership or theological education should be aware of "the church fathers" simply so TradCaths on RUclips don't momentarily confuse us with half-baked assertions that "the early church taught infant baptism, Transubstantiation, and Papal infallibility, because here's some quote." The quotes are nearly always out of context or else they're from someone 250-600 years after Jesus. Nobody would think Donald Trump understands the American Declaration of Independence better than George Washington, but TradCaths and the Orthodox think someone like Cyprian or Augustine - who didn't even speak the same language as Peter and Paul - is 99% as authoritative as Jesus himself.
There is a ton of support for Baptist doctrines the closer we get to Jesus. The first century church manual called the Didache teaches only adult baptism and restricts baptism to those who have been taught, ruling out any possibility of infant baptism. Even Augustine himself, centuries later, describes his believer's baptism as a young adult - unfortunately, he left the faith and spent time with a Gnostic sect that taught that human bodies and the material world were evil, so by the time he re-converted to Christianity, he brought back a bunch of harsh, anti-human ideas that helped shape peculiar notions of Original Sin, the superiority of celibacy, etc.
When TradCaths and other one-true-churchers bring up the "church fathers," we say, "Bring it on!"
I’m saddened for our family deceived 😢
Well yeah, most Baptists actually have a low view of baptism. Conservative, classical Lutherans, like myself believe in baptismal regeneration and that it is a means of grace. They are only called Baptists because they only believe in immersion.
The baptist distinctive are these B stands for Biblical authority in the church, A stands for autonomy of the local church, P stands for priesthood of all believers, T stands for two ordinances baptism and the Lords table communion, I stands for individual soul liberty, S stands for separation between church and state, T stands for two or can be three offices in the local church , pastor and deacons but if the local church wants elders that church can include that, the autonomy of the local church is very important to the baptists because they can disregard what the SBC wants and requires
They didn’t reject the creed, they referred the decision to a committee of whether or not to add it. Many modern Baptists definitely have an unnecessarily negative view of creeds (historically Baptists have affirmed many creeds), but the SBC did not reject the Nicene Creed
I go to a baptist church, I don't know why anyone would reject the nicene creed
It's a trojan horse.
Not all Christians believe in the trinity
You can't be a Christain and not believe in the Trinity. It is one of the core doctrine beliefs that are required to call yourself a Christian.
@@jasongossage8017 You can't say it's a core belief when the word trinity isn't even in the Bible. Other words not in the Bible: Co-equal, Co-substantial, Co-eternal. Phrases not in the Bible: "God is three persons" or "God is three..."
Yeah the trinity sure is a core belief. The core belief is that Jesus is God the Father himself.
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t You’re making a big assumption, that the creed use of words reflects the b modern day post 1054 Roman Catholic Church’s use of baptism and Catholic.
The use of “catholic” in the creed simply meant universal church, or body of Christians any and everywhere, and baptismal regeneration is not at all necessitated either.
Protestant moment
To me it seems that if you already have a statement of faith that agrees with the Nicean creed, it is redundant and unnecessary to officially adopt the Nicean creed.
Jesus said let your yes be yes and your no be no. Because of this I don't feel like affirming any creed should be of the importance it's being given. If the SBC makes their doctrinal positions clear then why is it so important to adopt anything more? I'm not a Baptist so I don't know if they make their doctrine clear or not. However, I wonder how a Jewish believer in Yeshua would feel about this creed? I'm not Jewish so I don't know the answer to that either. But I also wonder what are the motives of the people pushing it? I guess I just do not see what the big deal is. I can see why it might have been important back then since people did not have their own Bible to get the crucial information. But currently it seems like the issue is blown out of proportion.
The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
It would probably be less distracting with all the ads on websites if (when you're showing articles on screen) that you view them with a browser that is using ad blocker to clean the page up.
I attend and work at a church that is SBC, we certainly affirm the Creeds. However, the issue is that the SBC is firm on the "No creeds, just the Bible" and that due to our convention's frustrating policies it is quite difficult to get something through. Congregations all around my state are frustrated that SA is not being examined but rather we continue to worry about women preachers (they're not Biblical, but we've been addressing this issue for a while). SBC's bureaucracies are what is hurting itself seemingly.
I was there, article definitely misses a lot of the conversation and reasoning behind the decision.
Dude, love your videos. The title of this video is not accurate. We do not reject the Nicene Creed. We chose not to add it to the BFM 2000 because many interpret it differently. Anything saying we reject the Nicene Creed is divisive and dishonest.
@@codyandrewwynn To open up it up to personal opinion is ecumenical and by definition unorthodox. I reject the anathema and affirm that the consubstantial Son and Spirit have not only cause, not only logical sequential cause, but also have true beginning of their individual persons from the shared substance of the Divine Triad. Doe that make me "unorthodox" it sure does and I won't join any Arian cult or emanationist cult and I don't care you can scream anathemas all the way to the judgement seat of Christ at me and i won't recant the apostolic constitutions definition of the Divine Triad. Anathema right back at all you. Burn me if you like, banish me to the desert, I will go to Hades as a cathecumen of the true church that never had the high priest of Mithras as pontificate maximus
@@JoshuaLeibrant-dr3xv I won't scream at you at all. Southern Baptists do affirm the Nicene Creed. That was my point.
@@codyandrewwynn the say that the one GOD is one He who manifests HImself as three "He's also. Are you not aware that 1+3=4? It is ludicrous to believe that GOD is a triangular circles. Affirming and denying opposites simultaneously is at its base doctrine shows they are sick with prelest
@@JoshuaLeibrant-dr3xv Well, we would never use the word "manifest" because God is not 3 forms but 3 persons. When I say "God," I am speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no separate god person that goes along with the Trinity. There are only 3. Not 4.
@@codyandrewwynn That is anti biblical, the Trinity is biblical. The Bible teaches the Monarchy of the Father, hence the creed says "we believe in one GOD the Father" not "one GOD the Trinity"
God have mercy.
The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
The Nicene Creed refutes the heresy that some were claiming that God the Father, came before Jesus, meaning Jesus is not eternal. It’s important that all protestant religion subscribe to the doctrine layer out in the Nicene Creed.
Don't the Catholic and Orthodox churches also affirm the creed?
Why is that important? Does affirming the Nicene Creed make someone follow Jesus better? Will you love your brother better by affirming the Nicene Creed? Will you perform less sins by affirming the Nicene Creed?
The SBC affirms, and has since its beginning, the eternal deity of the Son, along with the Father and the Spirit. It does not need to accept the Nicene Creed to do so.
@@dmoffitt1914 because it's a flat out lie to say Jesus isn't God. Part of becoming a Christian is to confess Jesus is LORD, which is a title of God.
@@christiancrusader9374with your point considered, again I ask does having or not having that belief affirmed make you follow Jesus any better/worse?
We say the Apostles Creed every Sunday at my AG church and they always mention we say it in communion with believers everywhere and I love it.
Hey hey hey… we didn’t reject it. I was in the room. The question is nuanced. It was referred to our exec committee to affirm in the preamble and include as an appendix. Hit me up if you want more than whatever that article said.
So which version of the creed did they submit (with or without Filioque)?
@@nozedicexec committee will determine any action to bring back to the convention, including the actual text. It also included apostles’ and Athanasian.
They do not want the truth. They want an agenda and talking point. This channel is trash.
What's really wild to me is that the guy quoted in the article says, "Though the language is directly from Scripture in Acts, the language was interpreted by many among the Church Fathers... to mean baptismal regeneration" and then says that Baptists would reject that.
Over the past year, I have had to reconsider many of my long-held, non-sacramental views because of what the Church Fathers taught. That is, if my exegesis goes against the consensus of the Church Fathers, who knew Greek as a living language (and often a first language) and who were very close to the apostles, maybe I am the one missing something.
Proud to be Southern Baptist!
Not sure God cares if you’re a Southern Baptist. He would probably rather us say, “Proud to be a follower of Christ.” We need to be cautious of attaching ourselves to human constructed organizations when they can go astray since they are led by sinful people. Let’s cling to Jesus and His Word.
I have no idea who you guys are or how this ended up on my YT front page but as someone who is Lutheran and studies church history and grew up in Texas this should in no way be surprising. Baptists aren't protestant, the protestant churches all come from churches that were established before the reformation and broke off in various ways, the Baptists much like their Anabaptist brethren are not. I would have been shocked to hear that they adopted the Nicaean Creed. Their concerns on that passage is absolutely correct. Catholic churches view that under normal circumstances there is no salvation without baptism. Those saved without baptism used to be called baptism by blood because the only way to salvation as a Christian without baptism is death right after conversion.
So luckily the world will not end this week because the SBC did the right thing.
The Baptists don't reject baptism. They reject baptismal regeneration.
The line the Baptist are wary of in the Nicene Creed is the line that says "I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."
They are saying this line could be twisted to mean that they believe in baptismal regeneration which they don't. And they are just trying to be careful and faithful to the Scriptures.
The Holy Spirit regenerates not baptism.
Then what do you do with Mark 1:4? And how do you get past the fact that all of the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration? Do you just not think their opinion mattered?
Says your interpretation….
Regeneration comes before faith or baptism, period.
Acts 2:38
@@dondgc2298 I had questions. Not statements. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
SBC is struggling now days. I say that as a member of a Baptist church myself that’s a part of the SBC. Lots of these issues stem from the issue of denominations existing to begin with. Rather than having independent churches that find their mission statement and absolute truth in Gods word.
When you're scrolling a website on air, use reader mode so you don't worry about ads and layout issues.
The problem with the baptismal regeneration interpretation is that it ties baptism to salvation. At the same time, Roman Catholics and Orthodox will also claim that baptism isn't necessarily required for salvation. It's contradictory. It's either required or it's not.
Catholic here. Baptism is Ordinarily required meaning that, for the typical Christian (99% of us), it is required as part of being in a sacramental Church. HOWEVER we believe that God is merciful and He can freely gift salvation to those who have no access to His Church or Sacraments as He sees fit. God is merciful to those who are truly ignorant of His Church AND of good will but there is no certainty of salvation without His Church.
Note: The original and only version agreed by council reads "...The Holy Spirit, the Lord, Who proceeds from the Father; who together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified."
Despite what the eastern Orthodox claim, the filioque does not change the doctrine; it clarified the doctrine. The Holt Spirit always proceeded from the Father and the Son in Church teaching. That was the whole point of the creed.
Does not deserve centuries of schism over a few words that can mean the same thing.. The schism was more of a political nature than theology.
@@brianstacey2679 It alters the hierarchical distinction within the Trinity. In the Bible two words are used, with the one meaning "proceeds eternally" used to describe procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father only. Procession from the Son used a word implying temporal procession only.
@@joekey8464 Disobeying the church by adding problematic theology to a council creed without a council, accusing those who object of taking it out and yes, putting politics ahead of revelation of the Spirit... doesn't seem like a bad reason to schism to me.
@@colmcille9669 The East West Schism has zero to do with the filioque or any issue of doctrine for that matter. It has very little to do with 1054 either. Most historians agree now that the major cause of the current schism between East and West is the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. That was the point of no return. Everything before that was either overblown or an acceptable disagreement between the 2 ancient sees that did not majorly affect the universality of the Church.
I expected as much. The part Baptists object to most is the bit about the catholic church, which a huge amount of people across varying denominations mistake as a reference to the Catholic Church (that claim the name) as we know it. The word used means "universal". In English, the line would read: "In one holy and apostolic (sent forth) universal church, we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen" The "one baptism part for the remission of sins" is a mixed bag, as they believe in a single baptism marks you for life, but they may still be iffy on the "for the remission of sins" bit. They'll point to things like people who were absolved of sins by Christ himself weren't baptized, which to them further solidifies their claim that baptism is not a pre-requisite of salvation but rather an indicator. The relationship between salvation and baptism in the Baptist tradition is often viewed in a manner similar to the relationship between faith and works in a wide variety of Protestant denominations. Good works are not required but they are an inevitable and indicatory result of earnest faith. In the same way, water baptism isn't required but is an inevitable result of true faith and salvation. In many ways, all denominations adhere to credobaptism to some degree. For example, in the Middle Ages, a lot of pagans (particularly of the Norse variety) underwent baptism as part of a political maneuver. Part of the conditions of an alliance would sometimes be for the pagan ruler(s) to be baptized. I guarantee you those baptisms were worth sweet nothing, because they were still pagans through and through. Some even demanded another baptism because a different king's baptism was more extravagant. It was purely for show and political gain on their part.
First I find it so weird that a group called Baptist would be the only group so against Baptism! How could you read the Bible and somehow conclude that Baptism is somehow not "necessary" or it'd a "work"!? Also, why do people always bring up the thief on the cross? You can't use an anomaly as the standard! First, Jesus hadn't finished his work yet. 2, he can save who he wills. The Bible says to go and BAPTIZE! I won't step anywhere near a Baptism church for that reason
Plus the thief was baptized with Christ, in a sense: Baptism certainly means confessing Christ and dying with Him. The thief is the only christian ever to have literally done that. But granted, he missed the immersion part.
I go to a Southern Baptist church (didn't realize it was SBC specifically when I started attending, or I may not have because I'm uncomfortable with the history of the denomination), and I was already having a hard time because I've become interested in the church fathers and church history and tradition. I'm fairly ecumenical, but I'm in a place where people flat out think Catholics aren't Christians. And I no longer believe that the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic. This whole Nicene Creed situation might be the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
I couldn't help reading your comment and identifying with it. You are a lot like me - I was raised Southern Baptist. In my mid-thirties I started taking my faith more seriously, and wanted to learn about the history of Christianity. Like you, I started reading the early Church fathers (I strongly recommend the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch and the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr if you haven't read those ones yet). Even after only a little research, I quickly got to a point in my studies when I could no longer ignore the obvious - the early Church was Catholic (and no - my capitalization of that word is not a mistake - the early Church was Catholic with a capital 'C' - the earliest form of Christianity held the same beliefs that the modern Catholic Church does). This is so evident when you read about their unanimous views on baptism, the Eucharist, Church structure and authority, etc. I converted to Catholicism and I truly know it is the best decision I have ever made. I encourage you to keep researching and discovering. If you have questions or need recommendations, feel free to ask me. God bless!
Raised Southern Baptist (although I’ve bounced around) and currently becoming Orthodox. Let me know if you have questions.
Remember the apostles ordained Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp of Smyrna. These left us the true traditions not communicated in scripture. The Apostalic Constitutions were acknowledged by Irenaeus of Lyon as being truly Apostolic in his fragments. He is the first to affirm Revelation as scripture. I believe he compromised and cannot be fully trusted, but I nonetheless affirm Justin Martyr was truly orthodox. Since then according to Hegiseppius gnostics took over all the churches and a generation that didn't know the Lord took over just as it says in the book of Judges. Since then it is just a guessing game to know what is true
What’s wrong with Southern Baptists. Proud to be SB!!!!
I agree with you that the LORD's Supper is not symbolic, and I'll go a step further, neither is baptism. Read Paul's writings on baptism in Romans 6:4-12 and see if he is talking about something "symbolic"?? He's talking about a spiritual reality, which he himself experienced. As for the Nicene Creed, here is my reason for no longer subscribing to it:
The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
The more I learn about protestants. The more I realize it's not for me.
I was an independent Baptist for years and then I read the Bible. I'm now Catholic.
Come to Orthodoxy!
@@michaelkemple1113 And you equate Mary to Jesus Christ? Mary is not co-mediator(1 Timothy 2:5) nor is she perpetually a virgin(Mark 10:5-6)! She was not immaculately conceived, for only Jesus Christ is! (Isaiah 7:14/ Jeremiah 31:22!) If you would study the Holy Bible, you would leave Roman Catholicism!
You could also transfer your membership to the Anglican Church of North America or the Reformed Episcopal Church. Both are a part of the wider Anglican communion that inherited the faith and teachings of the Apostles and affirm the primacy of Holy Scripture.
@@KennyFisher-io4dm before you remove the spect from my eye, you should consider the log of the unbiblical doctrines of the rapture and physical Israel as the "chosen people"...to name a few.
ACTS 2:38 .. read the Bible yall!! Be humble and ask Jesus to reveal Truth and obey Truth
My heart breaks for our Southern Baptist brethren. Jesus, come quickly.
There is literally nothing wrong with this, SBC is not a creedal denomination.
@aaronbarkley539 everything that is in the creed is directly from scripture
@@aaronbarkley539 Amen!
The Baptists, like most organized " churches" lost when they became incorporated and began to be run like a business. Then came government influence, politics, and inevitably political correctioness. Game over. Christ came to remove corruptible man out of the equation. So don't allow anyone to come between you and your Lord. Godspeed pilgrim.
For me, this is one of the most insightful things to come out of the So. Baptist Church: The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
I was raised Catholic, but I go to a Baptist church now. I can still recite both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed by heart. Neither of them have anything in them that a protestant couldn't also recite.
Who says it’s their call to make? They don’t speak for me or the 13million members of the SBC. I believe in the unification of the church and all believers of the Triune God.
And that, my dear friend and fellow Baptist, is why Baptist churches are described as “non-creedalistic and independent.” Each congregation is allowed to choose for itself what creeds to follow and is not bound to any one document if they feel the Holy Spirit is convicting them otherwise. The BFM 2000 effectively reiterated the Nicene creed anyways. The reason they chose not to add it to the charter was because of the purpose of the charter. It is meant to define what, out of all other Christian denominations, makes a Southern Baptist. It is not, however, meant to define basic Christian doctrine and combat heresy, as is the general purpose of most creeds.
In effect, it’s just the SBC not wanting to interfere with the individual church’s freedom to worship as they see fit. A few centuries of being forced to acquiesce to the opinions of kings and questionable officials on church doctrine made Baptists a bit stiff-necked on the issue of religious freedom.
@@alphatyrant8677 well said! Nothing is stopping individual churches from adopting any creed, as many that are Calvinistic already use the 1689 London Baptist Confession. To add the Creed to the BF&M2000 is to force churches who want to be in cooperation with the SBC to adopt something that they may very well disagree with. The SBC isn't a top down organization, but this would certainly move it that way.
The idea of baptism bringing forgiveness of sin could be the problem. We must understand that Through the blood of Jesus our sins are forgiven. Baptism is a sign that finishes and seals our salvation. So this could be a problem.
Of which baptism are you referring to? John the baptist speaks of 2 and 3 different baptisms in Matt 3:11, Mk 1:8, Lk 3:16. Paul also asks these disciples in Acts 19:1-7 about what baptism did they receive.
To me, if I am interpreting it correctly, it sounds like you are speaking of water baptism, or what Paul the apostle says, John's baptism.
I think this is where many have gotten into error, including the southern baptists. I think they have yet to find and receive the revelation that there are multiple baptisms, and each one has a different significance.
Mr. Allen's metaphor about the pigs is truer than he may of intended. As other Christians are experiencing the joy of Christ's message, Baptists (Southern Baptists in particular) are standing off to the side frowning in judgmental disapproval.
This channel is for causing division and nothing else...I definitely don't envy you brother..
As someone who grew up southern baptist but never learned the Nicene Creed, I do not understand the problem here. I totally agree. Too much deliberating, not enough doing.
I’ve been a Southern Baptist all my life, and have pastored Southern Baptist churches for over 50 years. You do not know the denomination. We have never identified as Protestant because we never descend from the Roman church but rather Anabaptist.
Also, we had from our beginnings, denied to follow creeds due to the identity with the Roman church and those that broke away, Though not a creed, the Baptist Faith and Message is our statement of faith. And each SBC church is autonomous. The statement is clear in its position on the Bible, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, The substitutionary atonement, Baptism, and all other major doctrines that we agree in unity. Thus we need no creed because although we basically agree on these, the denomination holds no authority over the individual church nor members. If a church breaks away from the basic foundation doctrines, the convention can remove fellowship if they wish.
Hope this helps.
Many Protestants don’t realize how much of the pillars of their faith are based in the creeds
No idea why this is coming up now. How long have the Baptist been around? Why was it not adopted in the past?
I have no problem with rejecting a creed, Paul wrote Ephesians 2:20 which the foundation of our faith is built upon the writings of the prophets, apostles and Jesus Christ (the Bible).
You lower the risk of presuppositions and eisegesis going this route.
many that dont fully like the creed is because it states that Baptism is needed for Salvation. thats what people mean by the theology behind the creed. This is not new.
The more of this loonyness the more I understand why God sent me and my family to the Orthodox Church. Hold fast to the faith and TRADITIONS.
excited to see more evangelicals using the term "sacraments" and moving away from a stone cold Zwinglian interpretation of baptism and communion that it's "just a symbol".
I am so glad I got outta dodge a decade ago. Born and raised CA southern Baptist and even went CBU for a year. I always struggled with a lot of things in that church especially with the pastor. He was a traditional southern baptist from the South down to the dancing/drinking sends you to hell and the MLK was a womanizer (he never celebrated the holiday 🙄 I am now non denominational and I cannot believe any church wouldn’t adopt the Creed. That’s the building blocks of modern Christian doctrine 🤦🏻♀️
Make Gavin Ortlund the Baptist pope. This is an SBC embarrassment.
reject Nicean = accepting islam because in that creed the main goals is to determine which side is legitimate or not and one of those people are Arian's fate the mother of islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah witness today.
rejection toward divinity of jesus
The "Nicene Creed" that you're quoting from includes the Filioque which means its not the original Nicene Creed from AD 325/381.
Filioque is true regardless of when it was written
I agree that it should be recited without the filioque because the creed only contains the bare minimum one needs to believe to be a Christian. However, Leo 1 whose tome was the basis of Chalcedon did affirm it (and if you hold to Nicea 2 then it affirmed it as well). God bless
The Filioque is a semantic issue caused by the inability to translate it from Latin to Greek without adding a meaning that can be heretical. This is why, for the Catholic Church at least, the Filioque is not required when saying the Nicene Creed in Greek. And since there are multiple Greek Catholic Rites, the creed is said quite commonly without it. The Filioque only makes sense in Latin or Latin-based languages, like English.
@@NJWEBER18 It was/is not just an issue of semantics. It was central to the Great Schism of AD 1054. Also, it was not “caused” by any translation issues. I did a quick google search and found two articles (can’t post the links as my previous attempt got deleted by youtube) from Catholic Answers and Dr Taylor Marshall (that you as a Catholic should be able to accept). Neither of these Catholic sources frame the issue as a “translation issue” as you have attempted to.
@@NJWEBER18 It is not a semantic. The clause "And the Son" Makes the Holy Spirit less than. If it was only a matter of semantics, then why was is such a heresy to the other sees? It's not about language. It's about meaning.
I’m a SBC member and I affirm the Nicene Creed. The purpose of these conventions is to bring things to the floor, argue and vote. I believe the willingness to challenge one another is what makes the SBC strong, grow and change in a healthy way.
I agree that this is silly, but this is the process that has made the SBC a strong denomination that hasn’t resorted to progressive pressure like other older denominations (USA Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist).
This is why I identify as an Independent Baptist. The SBC has issues.
@@cokeandasmile like every denomination, but as someone who came from a AOG and then Non-Denominational background, the organizations that are funded through the convention are pretty incredible, specifically its seminaries and mission’s organizations.
I haven’t seen an organization as devoted to missionary work like the SBC by a long shot.
That’s why i will always be a Catholic
@@brooksjack45*the Catholic Church enters the chat*
The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
I am pretty sure they don't reject it as a whole, but rather they say that it is not going to be included in a required statement of faith. I think those concepts are a little different.
Good thing Southern Baptist “Powers that be” do not dictate what churches believe. Before joining our SB church, we had to sign that we agreed with bylaws…that included accepting the Nicene Creed points.
I think you are making more of Dr. Allen's statement than it is meant for. Dr. Allen makes a point considering that the SBC is set up more as a cooperative than a denomination. He is saying it is really unnecessary and that individual congregations can adopt the creeds as they wish. Dr. Allen is great on the atonement, traditional soteriology and is a great interview. I'm sure he would join you for an interview to clarify his thoughts on this as well as speak to other theological matters.
It appears to me that identity as Southern Baptist might be more important for some people that the identity as Christian.
I think the objection was to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Baptists (most if not all) do not believe that baptism is anything more than a symbolic gesture. According to Baptists, baptism does not save (which contradicts 1 Peter 3:21).
😂 this is madness. O Lord Jesus, please bring in the harvest and come back soon!❤
"One Baptism for the remission of sins" refers to the fact that the baptism, itself, remits sin. We don't get baptized BECAUSE our sins are forgiven. Baptism remits "original sin" and is regenerative in nature in that it is our second birth, as Jesus says.
This just made people who call themselves Christians but reject the Bible very happy.
The Nicene Creed is NOT as biblical as you might think: The Nicean Council set the new imperial religion on the wrong track. It condemned Sabbath-keeping and established what Constantine called 'the venerable day of the Sun'. Sun worship had been part of Roman worship since the collapse of the classical pantheon in the first centuries. It also banned the Passover and substituted the pagan Easter.
Ok, so you have to understand something very important here: Baptists are a non-creedal people. It's not that Baptists disagree with historical creeds. Baptists believe Scripture is the true creed. Baptists understand why creeds were developed and appreciate their place in history, but Scripture is the only valid creed. As for the line about baptism, Baptists believe in true New Testament baptism, which is believer's baptism, meaning one's sin is already forgiven prior to baptism, because one is already saved prior to baptism. Baptism is of the utmost importance as it is the Christian's first act of obedience, but it is not an act done for the forgiveness of sins. The hesitation is understandable given those historical positions.
If Baptists are truly non-creedal, then why does every Baptist church feel the need to come up with a "statement of faith," which is just another way of saying a creed, if Scripture is the only true and valid creed?
I was raised Native American in a Baptist and i can say at least where i live and the Baptist churches around me rebuke that creed and you can't convince them not too. They are so sure of there certainty that its not even open for discussion and in my ex church you where shown the door if you disagreed with there divine knowledge that no other church seemed to have but them. Like there leanings and support with the KJV only cult they wont listen. So i proudly walked away and went non denom. I can't stand when certainty overshadows truth and common sense
Creed's were useful because people did not have a personal bible like we do today. You went to a Sunday service to hear the Word of God. Today people have their own copy of God's Word. His Word is sufficient.
Babdists are getting hung up on "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. When in the catechism of the catholic church it actually says" one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church". See the difference?
The" apostolic" part is easier for babdists to swallow because, well, everyone believes they are apostolic.
I think the council that wrote it was Methodist and Lutheran Bishops, right?...right my fellow Protestants? 😏
It existed before the schism troll
A lot of Christians don't realize how important the Council of Nicaea and the Nicaean creed is. Without it, and without the tireless work of Saint Athanasius. we would have fallen to Arianism. Instead of affirming that Jesus is of one substance as the father, we would be like JW or Mormons who believed that Jesus is a created being.
I love when you talk about this stuff!!! I really get a lot out of it!!
They made the right call. They cannot affirm it in the original meaning. Of course, they will probably come up with a new meaning and then say they affirm it, just like all the other denominations who don’t really affirm it do.
Affirm it in its original meaning or don’t affirm it at all
The SBC doesn’t reject the tenets of the Nicene Creed. We reject the idea of creeds. Creedalism is is one of the reasons for the genesis of Baptists.
While I would agree with the majority of the Nicene Creed, I would disagree on "He will come again in glory." "He did come again in glory." "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." "I believe in the resurrection of the dead and live in the age that was to come." As far as the Baptism is concerned, as long as it's not affirming baptismal regeneration I have no problem with it.
The denomination Baptist have misappropriated the word, just like the denomination RCC has misappropriated the word catholic.
The paradox that most protestants seem to fail to understand:
1. Baptism is salvific
2. Baptism doesn't guarantee your Salvation
3. Your Salvation is a mystery until the Final Judgment
If people are confused about this 1700 years later.....there is little hope for heterodoxy to recover.....
Also, Baptismal regeneration is about the remission of both original/ancestral Sin and personal Sin. This is why we baptise babies in Orthodoxy yet we claim they are innocent already.
No! Orthodoxy doesn't affirm original sin and baby damnation as the western rationalistic theologians do, they baptized to prepare the infant for entrance into the kingdom, same as the Jews did with circumcision. Inherited Original sin guilt and damnation is a heresy condemned in Ezekiel 18 and condemned by all the east. Augustine is the problem and if "Orthodoxy" would stand up for scripture many Protestants may join you who don't know any better.
I always have the concern of what would happen when the persecuted church in Iran, China, Afghanistan is not longer persecuted and christians from different denominations in the West start to arrive and teach their dogmas and compete for the souls of these countries.
Hey @RuslanKD, SBC minister here. I affirm the Nicene Creed and disappointed by decision. However, it was proposed as an amendment to the BFM (Baptist Faith and Message) and that proposal was referred to evaluation to the executive committee for the upcoming year. SO do you not think it's MISLEADING to title this video "Southern Baptist REJECT..." when that is clearly not what happened?? Also, several Southern Baptist professors, pastors, theologians are the ones who brought this motion to the floor in the first place. So to paint a picture that there isn't a lot of credible support for the creed within the SBC is misleading. You are making seem as if SBC rejects the apostolic tradition. It seems like you did this for clicks in my opinion, and I think this can be hurtful to the body and especially ecumenism. Hopefully you would reconsider changing the title. If not, God bless and I am subscribed anyway lol
"We don't believe in creeds made by men who knew Greek so we will submit it to a committee of women and effeminate men to redefine" oh how the silliness abounds
They can’t adapt the creed bc they don’t affirm what the originators of the creed affirmed about the creed. When the Church said I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins they actually meant water baptism forgives sins.
Wasn’t surprised by this decision. I was taught the SBC is non-creedal and why in seminary. I haven’t read all the comments nor know your briefs, but this discussion missed the controversy that happened during the last 50 years in the SBC. The SBC survived and grew, unlike a few other denominations. The nature of the issues was holding up the Bible as infallible and inerrant. Creeds can be a guide but the Bible stands as the standard of faith. I am proud of the SBC and what they are trying to do as a collective of autonomous local bodies of worship. I can’t make it make sense to all, but thought I would try to give some insights.
So the version of the creed appearing on screen was not original creed as the original did not have "and from the son". See the Filioque argument. So it is also incorrect that this version was before the split.
"Eternally begotten" is a nonsensical phrase, as is "begotten not made". "Begotten" really only applies to Jesus when talking about His incarnation because everything begotten has a beginning. Perhaps why Arianism continued to be a major heresy for about 1000 years after Nicea, if you are trying to refute an error that says Jesus has a beginning, probably don't use a word that means He has a beginning in your supposed refutation.
It would have surprised me if they would have accepted the inclusion of the creed, for the interpretation of the creed when it was written, goes against the baptist belief of the church.
Baptists believe the church is both the Body of Christ as well as "any" local congregation of Baptized believers.
On the other hand, when the church fathers spoke of a catholic and apostolic church, they not only meant the higher notion of the body of Christ, but also a concrete, unique and global institution tracking its succession all the way back to the apostles. The only churches that currently contend this view are the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.
I know a catholic that doesn't say baptism is required for salvation.
You all do realize that Wesley and the Methodists also reject the Nicene creed right? In fact, the United Methodist Church voted on it in 2016 and rejected it once more
They’re going to accept it eventually. So Let em cook. If they thought they weren’t going to catch strays for not accepting the creed the moment it hit the floor, well that’s on them. Ironically, it doesn’t surprise me that this happened.
The baptists are named because of their different view of baptism. So that is in no way ironic.
Since when do protestants believe in a holy Catholic apostolic Church?
After rejecting the Nicene Creed the Southern Baptists stood and later recited … the Pledge of Allegiance. The Nicene Creed is more important.
I hope this bring you guys to orthodoxy I know you are struggling that would be amazing
Ok, I am going to feel pretty silly but I grew up in a Presbyterian church and we would recite a creed every Sunday (go to a non-denominational church now. I was baptized as a baby but also at a Calvary Chapel in my early 20s) I was like "wait, that doesn't sound familiar" and then realized what would be recited is the Apostles Creed ,not the Nicaean Creed. Pretty sure the Apostles Creed doesn't say anything about baptism, which would make sense for Presbyterians. I always thought the 2 creeds were almost identical, but they are not.
The Apostles Creed is older, so it didn't address the specific issues regarding the Trinity that was the main conflict in the 4th Century Church. The Nicene Creed's purpose was to add the trinitarian language to the creed.
Well, they are rejecting an innovation of the original creed, which included the filioque. Now they should move forward and accept the fully correct Nicean creed that has the proper theology of the Holy Spirit.
"we beleive in one holy catholic and apostolic church'... this is the real language they have a problem with, because those who want to preserve orthodox faith don't want to imply unity with those that are throwing the bible away.
Those who affirm the nicene creed know this refers to the true church (not Roman Catholics or cults).
It's goofy when they say Catholic and they aren't One Body One Mind One Accord.
Well they don't say "Catholic." They say "catholic" - lowercase "c", which just means universal. The catholic / universal church simply refers to all true believers, regardless of what institutional label they sit under.
they try to reinterpret it, they should ask, would the people who WROTE this agree with our interpretation of "one true catholic and apostolic church" ?
We can hardly say the church of Rome is one body, one mind and one accord. There's more catholicity among Protestant believers than there is the church of Rome who have historically considered fellow believers anathema for simply not affirming the Roman ecclesiarchy. This happened to both Orthodox (who returned the sentiment to the Roman church) and Protestants despite both Orthodox and Protestants affirming Christ as the great high priest as outlined in the book of Hebrews. The modern day church of Rome has since tried to bridge some gaps with Orthodox especially and even acknowledges the baptisms of Protestants but historically, the church of Rome has showed very little catholicity to their fellow believers.
@@dugw15 , universally one mind , not a billion denominations, whose members believe differently wherever two or more are gathered.
@@dugw15 Protestants are not "One" in faith. It would be heretical if they were.
"One baptism for the forgiveness of sins" just doesn't fit with a baptist understanding of baptism. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed all rejected the teaching of believer's baptism with good reason.
A person must be “baptized” to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below.
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
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,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 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.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
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.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
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_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
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.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
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. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
No denomination rejects believer's baptism; if someone becomes a Christian because they personally convert, any denomination will baptise him. What the churches you list do is add an unbiblical practice of applying water to infants, calling that baptism, to their practice of worship.
@@SpotterVideo Thank you! The reason it is worded that way is because of the Scriptures in which it is found! Context, context, context!!!
Acts 2:38-39 seems relevant in this discussion
@@hologramjosh The word "water" is not found in Acts 2:38-39. What did Peter say below, which refers also to the Day of Pentecost?
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
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.