Does Baptism SAVE?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- This video is partially a response to a video just put out by Pastor Matthew Everhard (who has a great channel btw, you should check it out) who said the Reformed teaching is that Baptism DOESN'T save after the interview he had with me where I asked him about that. It is also meant to correct the very common misunderstanding that Reformed theology teaches Baptism doesn't save.
Dr. Everhard's video: • Baptism Now SAVES You!...
Southern Baptist here.
Thanks for the clarifying video, Zoomer. It seems to me, then, that the difference between Presbyterian and Baptist doctrine on salvation is more of less how we talk about the subject. When Baptists talk about Baptism, we mean the physical act. That’s why we say it doesn’t save. You said the same thing in your video. When Presbyterians say Baptism, they mean both spiritual and physical baptism, which is why you *do* say it saves. In which case, we actually agree. It’s just a semantic difference. The substance of what we’re talking about is the same.
As a Catholic, I would say exactly the same thing. If an adult atheist wants to become Catholic, he first goes through so called Initiation, and the purpose of it is to tell him about the faith, so that he understands and believes it. When he does, he is already saved, even before he goes through the sacrament of baptism itself. If a person undergoing initiation dies before they can be baptized, we believe they go straight to heaven, no strings attached. So technically, we agree with both Baptists and Presbyterians that you first believe, then you get saved because of it, and only last but not least, you get baptized to put an official seal on what already happened. The difference, once again, is in the semantics. Catholics would say that the REASON why you are saved before you got baptized is because of "baptism of desire", in other words, you WANT to be baptized, so the fruits of it already are present in you. But that's just digging into HOW, it doesn't change the fact that we all agree on what has to be done (hear about the the faith > believe it > get saved > get baptized).
If it’s a semantic difference only, would you baptize an infant? Do you believe in multiple baptisms?
@@mitromney Wouldn't they go to purgatory?
i agree the physical act doesn't save, nor do i believe it's required for salvation. to me, physical baptism is a 'work' and we are not saved by works but by faith. i'm taking pause at the statement zoomer makes at 2:39 re: rejecting the physical act. i'm just not sure i can get behind the idea that rejecting the physical act means you're "probably rejecting the thing signified." churches i've been to require you to be a member before they will baptize you, and not everyone has that opportunity or has a church they feel fully comfortable with to become a member.
i was raised baptist, was never physically baptized - my parents left the church we were members in before i'd even reached my teenage years due to...well, let's just say it was a good reason, but it so deeply affected them (especially my mom, who was very involved playing piano and organ) that we didn't go to church for many years after. we got into another church for a few years not long before i started high school, but they stopped going there as well and i'm not sure why. anyway, long story short (sort of lol), i don't belong to any church, i'm a bit jaded when it comes to trusting church leadership for a myriad of reasons. i listen to pastors online, in podcasts, etc, which i know isn't ideal, but..... sigh. this would be easier if we could physically baptize ourselves. ;-)
Some baptists actually say that baptism is so closely tied to faith and regeneration that 1 Peter 3:21 means the latter by the former. It's really a difference of language at that point.
I think Jesus never intended us to believe that a baptism was a guaranteed trip to heaven. I think everyone who believes they are saved just because they got dunked should tread carefully and do some careful reflection
it's not because you say Lord Lord that you will be saved
baptism is NECESSARY for salvation, but nothing is a GUARANTEE of salvation
@@pedropaulom.ribeiro6511 no, Baptism doesn’t save us.
Yeah. Think of it like marriage, is it valid if you don’t take vows but live a loving life caring for your spouse? If you live like you had giving vows but just somehow never made those in the first place from an honest mistake, it’s still a marriage.
I disagree on reflection, we should doer of the word. Be willing to sell everything and give everything to one-another with Christian’s AND to the needy. Not necessarily-say (addicts or habitual sinning) but those who desperately need goods to LIVE. Pray when tempted by evil: anger, lust, etc. Cause’ if we reflect, we reflect “dead flesh” since God promised us we’d be saved not “feel” saved. When we are controlled by subjective feelings centered on ourselves rather than by objective truth centered on God, we live in a constant state of defeat. Because feelings can confused or lead to trickery by Satan and minions. Rather, let us focus on the authority of the Word of God (the Bible), The father’s sovereignty, Jesus High priestly intercession and divinity, promise of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of the Eternal glory. Understanding these great truths, centering our thoughts on them, and rehearsing them in our minds will enable us to reason from truth in all of life’s trials, and our faith will be strong and vital. Reasoning from what we feel about ourselves-rather than what we know about God-is the sure path to spiritual defeat. The Christian life is one of death to self and rising to “walk in the newness of life” (Romans 6:4), and that new life is characterized by thoughts about Him who saved us, not thoughts about the feelings of the dead flesh that has been crucified with Christ. When we are continually thinking about ourselves and our feelings, we are essentially obsessing about a corpse, full of rottenness and death.
God promised to save us if we come to Him in faith. He never promised that we would feel saved.
It’s not some special knowledge or secret potion, rather a understanding by Faith that TRULY sets us FREE!
A few years ago I had walked away from Christianity as a whole. Early this year I reopened my heart to God and it’s been one of the best decisions I’ve made in my life so far. I have been attending my local church again as well as praying & reading my Bible. I haven’t been Baptized and I want to soon but there are many things I need to work on. I’m a Seventh Day Adventist and your channel has been showing me to find common ground with my brothers and sisters in Christ as well as provided a great deal of intellectual stimulation. Finding your channel has truly been a blessing.
What made you choose to be a SDA, if I might ask?
@@ABSTRACTSHNITZEL That’s a good question. Honestly one of the main reasons is that it’s the Church I grew up in. However I chose to stay in the SDA church for two reasons. The Saturday Sabbath and the concept of Annihilationism. There are things within the SDA church I disagree with such as the rule of not eating unclean meat for example. I also have never read any writing’s by Ellen G. White and don’t plan to. I guess I’d be more non-denominational if it weren’t for the Sabbath part.
@@dillpicklemanI'm so happy for you God bless you 😊
@@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136 thank you
@@cactisiusninja I can best answer that question with another question that can also give insight into the Adventist View of God’s nature. If God is loving and all good and if pain will cease to exist and every tear shall be wiped away why would there be this pocket of existence where suffering continues eternally?
As a Baptist one I must say I really respect zoomer for sharing what he believes and two I have to say that we deem baptism at least at my church and said that baptism a sign of an inward change so once you're saved your safe then the holy spirit will lead you to take a symbolic dumped in the water for baptism
Yes, any person at my church including me are eventually pulled aside after church and we get to talk about baptism and how it’s a symbol to us. It’s just like a wedding ring. If you take it off you’re still married.
(I do respect that some people believe it does save, this is just what I believe)
@@CommonApplea better analogy in terms of wedding and marriage when it comes to baptism is that the initial belief or faith we have is like when you first are engaged or courting someone. But you aren’t truly married until you are baptized and the marriage ceremony is what makes you married, just like the baptism is what officially brings you to the church, washes you of sin and gives the holy spirit
@@Justin-yn5py That analogy falls too easily into baptismal regeneration. Here's a better one: water baptism (the sign of our inner spiritual baptism) is like a coronation ceremony. A coronation is not what makes a person king or queen, but it's the visible representation of them becoming the sovereign of the nation. Baptism is the ceremony that brings a person into the Church, even though it is faith, not the earthly water, that actually saves.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 well I believe baptismal regeneration is biblical and well attested to by the early church fathers. This is one of the few uncontroversial issues in the early church. I encourage you to read any early Christian father on baptism and they will all affirm regeneration
@@BenjaminAnderson21 the water in baptism is not earlthly but divine. I find that today many Protestants view of the sacraments has a similar philosophy to gnostic ideas. The physical waters and spiritual regeneration cannot be separated. God created us as embodied souls, and the physical aspect of our nature matters. That is why he issues sacraments which have a physical sign and spiritual power
Thank you for this video brother. I had a discussion with my Presbyterian grandmother (I’m baptist) this past weekend and came to this conclusion based on my coming to faith story. I was baptized when I was in elementary school. I didn’t really know why it meant at the time but I wanted to do it. I wouldn’t say that was the day I was saved, it took many many years leading to where I am as an adult today. However, that day was what planted the seed of my faith. My diligence and involvement with my church waxed and waned over the years, but I still had that firm foundation. Today I can confidently say The Lord has redeemed my soul and saved me from a bad path where I was headed.
This has been my experience as well. I was baptized (I'm also a baptist) as a teenager, but it was only in my last semester of university earlier this year that I truly started taking my faith seriously.
@@huntergallant5655I find it interesting that this is the experience of a lot of Christians, myself included. We tend to feel comfortable and asleep in our faith until we are plunged in the secular world that really tests who we are. That’s when the LORD’s calling is typically most effectual and emphasized.
@@zahd35music It seems that for a lot of people, including me, we can only appreciate what Christ has to offer us once we've gotten a chance to see just how dire things are without Him to have hope in. Now I look at all the people in this world who take part in all sorts of unhealthy, awful behaviors and beliefs, and it terrifies me that I could've ended up just like them if God hadn't called me back to His side. I still struggle every day to move past the unhealthy habits I picked up, but after years of feeling listless and adrift in this world, I finally have hope again, and I thank God every day for that.
@@huntergallant5655 yes dude exactly! Praise GOD, man, He is so merciful enough to show us a mirror of our sins and He is so gracious to show us as much as we can handle. The more we see and turn to Him, the bigger the cross gets, and the more able we are to see our sins and turn to Christ! This is why spreading the Gospel is so necessary. Because we have no idea who GOD has chosen to save. So we spread the truth and the diagnosis of the ailment of damning sin, and then deliver the sweet Gospel truth that saves.
In addition, I would heavily encourage you. As you grow in Christ, you don’t struggle less. You struggle easier. Not because you are stronger, but because Christ is strong in you! GOD is your father and Saviour and you are His child!
Baptism is a commitment in body while Spiritual Birth is internal commitment.
I grew up Lutheran. Currently I call myself Lutheran-ish. Through my study of theology, I feel that Lutheranism is the most accurate theology. With that being said, there are parts of Lutheran theology that I disagree with, and parts of other theologies that I do agree with. The Presbyterian view of baptism is the only one that ever made sense to me based on the word of god. I’m grateful for this video
Dont lutherans believe baptism is a means to receive grace? They don't believe the unbaptized are damned, at least not LCMS, I'm researching lutheranism currently because I want to join LCMS
@@Lucas-wk3nr yes and no. Their views on baptism are very similar to that of Catholics. Though not every Lutheran is the same, traditionally they believe that baptism saves.
Not presbyterian, but your explanations of this on instagram really convinced me of this view. It is consistent with the scriptures language while also acknowledging the reality of regeneration before water baptism. Thank you zoomer!
This type of content really helps clarify Christianity for me! I'm in a very similar position that you were in when you converted. In New York and I was in a really anti-Christian school. Thankfully, I moved to a different school where there are more Christians, and I am definitely better off.
Brainwashing is terrifying and that leaving religion was the best decision of your life. You'll improved as a person, became more compassionate and helpful to other fellow man, and had greater mental freedom to grow when I became an apostate. And I do good not because I want to be rewarded or get "salvation" in the end (though I have to admit I'll appreciate it if it ever happens), but because for the sole fact its the right thing to do and it brings me joy to aid my fellow.
I'm Lutheran. Pretty similar view. I would say the Lutheran view is more vague, as it tends to be in a interpreting scripture by simply stating that it's stated as truth in the scriptures.
The Lutheran view tries not to separate the baptism of water and the Spirit, because we don't want to take away from either.
Ya I think the biggest difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian theology is really just that Lutherans appeal to mystery more often and Presbyterians tend to try and create logical systems of faith. We often actually agree on things, but the difference comes down to "I'm not so sure I would put it that way" from the Lutheran, and "but it's obvious that... *blah blah blah blah*" from the Presbyterian.
Sincerely, a Presbyterian.
@@bushbladesnbows.2378 I'm not too concerned about differences as long as a Christian appeals to scripture, exegesis, historical context, etc. The biggest fallacy is definitely when someone appeals to something that only applies in their language, such as English, that wouldn't even work in the original text, such as Son/Sun. This has been happening with progressive Christianity, such as interpreting "male and female he created them" as "he created males, females, and thems," and there are actual believers doing that.
@@litigioussociety4249 100% agree
_"The Lutheran view tries not to separate the baptism of water and the Spirit, because we don't want to take away from either."_
As a WCF holding Presbyterian, I have to say I appreciate the way Luther does distinguish them in the Large Catechism. On the one hand, I love his turn of phrase about it being nothing more than a "bath-keeper's baptism when you try to separate the Word from the ordinance of Baptism (22) or say that it isn't God's work but something man is doing (35), and he clearly isn't saying that magical properties are conveyed by the mere water ceremony, but calls repentance "nothing less than Baptism" and "produces, begins, and exercises" a new life (74-76). To be honest, it worries me when I see Lutheran's say they basically have the Roman view, as the Book of Concord seems to make distinctions that Rome rejects. Luther seems to thread the same line we do.
If anything, I think the biggest difference between the Reformed and Lutheran view (with the framing of WCF 27.2) is that we tend to speak in terms of the sign (the ordinance), and Lutherans in terms of the thing signified (regeneration, salvation). As such, I think we can talk past each other when we do agree. My confession says that either way of speaking is correct, and I appreciate the boldness Lutherans state that baptism (understood properly) indeed does save. Amen!
But I do appreciate the concern from Lutherans that we speak where scripture is silent. I think sometimes Lutherans leave to mystery where scripture does speak further, and to that end, I hope our respective traditions can be a check to each other's blind spots. Lutheranism has such a rich confessional history that I appreciate, especially the earlier statements.
Oh my goodness, this video is SOOO GOOD!!! IT DESCRIBES IT ALL SO PERFECTLYY! Thank you Redeemed Zoomer, this video is extremely helpful even though I'm not personally Presbyterian. Thank you.
As a Catholic I like to say we are saved at Baptism, being saved now, and hope to be saved in the future. It's journey with Christ, we live our salvation.
No. We have to be saved BEFORE baptism.
@@Guitar-qv6gu says who?
@@leandrestrash says the BIBLE.
I'm confused. I thought Catholics believe that baptism forgives original sin, but not that it guarantees you into heaven. What does "saved" mean in this video? Does it mean go to heaven? Also I'm catholic
@@Guitar-qv6guplease explain
As a baptist, I agree actually. Either way believers should be baptized regardless.
Hi there! If you are reading this you are loved by God and he wants to be with you in his kingdom for an eternity! ❤️✝️
*Romans 10:10-11 - We believe with our hearts, and so we are made right with God. And we declare with our mouths to say that we believe, and so we are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be disappointed.”* 💗🙂🌸
You are amazing and have an amazing day!!! 😎⭐️💗🌎
👇 If you love Jesus :)
I Love Jesus ❤ God Bless You
Brainwashing is terrifying and that leaving religion was the best decision of you life. You'll improved as a person, became more compassionate and helpful to my fellow man, and had greater mental freedom to grow when I became an apostate. And I do good not because I want to be rewarded or get "salvation" in the end (though I have to admit I'll appreciate it if it ever happens), but because for the sole fact its the right thing to do and it brings me joy to aid my fellow.
@@GAF2234 Christianity to me isn't Brainwashing, but Brain WASHING (making cleaner.) It has helped me truly become a better version of myself to help and serve others. You may know this, but good works do not bring salvation, for they will never outweigh the bad works, but rather faith in Jesus. Yet good works and helping others is the fruit of salvation. So if you would truly appreciate salvation, want to grow mentally, and want to help others, then I would recommend even opening a bible.
@@miakel126 Makes sense, your totally brainwashed by your cult.
Unless you are gay, of course
i grew up baptist. I literally just had coffee a few days ago with a local PCA pastor who was trying to help me understand infant baptism. This video helped sum up the groundwork necessary for infant baptism. Thanks Zoomie 🙏
Look up colossians chapter 2; There it explains that baptism is the successor to circumcision; therefore baptism should be applied to infants, since circumcision was too.
@@trompettist You are completely misquoting Colossians 2. Jesus Christ came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick. Little children/babies are whole because they are not capable of committing sin. The curse of Adam is taken from them in Jesus Christ and has no power over us and the law of circumcision is done away in Jesus Christ. It is a solemn mockery before God that you should baptize little children/babies. Repentance and baptism are unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin and little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Baptism is unto repentance to fulfill the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! If little children could not be baptized then they could not enter the Kingdom of God because someone only born of water can enter into it (John 3:5).
Someone that supposes that little children/babies need baptism is deep in bitterness and ignorance and in the bonds of iniquity and have neither faith, hope, nor charity. For how awful it is to think, let alone say, that God saves one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because they had no baptism. Little children are unable to repent so what an awful wickedness by God to deny the pure mercies of God unto them if this were the case. And he that says that little children need baptism deny the mercies of Christ.
This isn’t about infant baptism. It’s about believer’s baptism.
@@Guitar-qv6gu “This video helped sum up the groundwork necessary for infant baptism.” I guess I had gotten confused between the Lutheran reasons for infant baptism and the Presby reasons for infant baptism.
@@mikeyvangelism this isn’t about infant baptism. This is believers’ baptism. The two are totally different.
John 3:5 - how do you know that this verse is talking about baptism? I always interpreted being born of water as our initial, physical birth - we must be born once physically then again spiritually. Not explicitly disagreeing with your concept of baptism, but what is the evidence that Jesus is talking about baptism in John 3:5?
Yes. In fact, right after, he clarifies flesh vs spirit, pretty clearly proving the context of the passage being about the flesh not water baptism.
Baptism is a sign of faith, not a profession of faith, nor a guarantee of faith.
I’m so glad you posted this, was just having a discussion on this last night with two of my closest friends
You should do a video like this on the Lord's Supper! The format is perfectly short, well written and great for sharing. I love the ending btw.
As a Baptist, this makes a lot of sense. At least with this specific issue, I'm leaning towards Presbyterianism. In fact, I've heard something similar said, even in Baptist circles.
Romans 5:1-2 (KJV)
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
You really have a gift for explanation. Better than some of the Presby pastors I've seen explain this. Spot on!
We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone!!🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
Does Baptism save?
Baptists: No. We're saved the moment we come to faith. Baptism is just a sign that we have faith.
Calvinists: Yes- well, I mean, uh... the pouring of water doesn't save, that's just a sign. Baptism of the Holy Spirit saves, but it doesn't happen at the same time as water Baptism, it happens the moment we come to faith, and Baptism doesn't save everyone, cuz if you reject the promises of Baptism by not having faith then it won't save you.
The Reformed view of Baptism just sounds like the Baptist view with extra steps.
Yes in the sense that we shouldn’t separate the sign and thing signified, no in the sense that the act of poring, immersing, sprinkling does nothing in of itself.
As a baptist, this seems like what i believe i guess ? i'm not sure how its different
Same here, seems pretty similar
In the middle, he basically describes what we believe (that baptism doesn't save but that we should all want to be baptized) but then quickly disregards us as he doesn't see any type of Baptists as reformed.
Yeah this is really similar to what most baptists believe with the exception of the idea of a sacramental union
Agreed, although I would probably just simply it as Baptism by the Holy Spirit saves, and that leads to a desire to get a water baptism to show a sign of the covenant.
From my experience, I have heard that "baptism is an outward sign of inward change" from baptists, and there is heavy emphasis on it having nothing to do with salvation, but merely being symbolic. Not to say that all baptists believe this (and I'm not informed on the official and traditonal views of it), as I'm sure you would know more than me.
I always find it interesting reading through the official convention and seminary beliefs from baptists, because when I do I usually think that what they say is pretty solid. It seems to me (on the outside looking in) that there seems to be weird cultural and application mistranslations in the baptist world. Meaning: the offical beliefs on paper don't line up with what is being spit out as far as boots on the ground application and practice is concerned with baptist churches and pastors.
Any insight?
I've been wanting to get baptized since around 2021, when I really understood what it meant to be a Christian and was begining to devote myself completely to God. However, due to the pandemic, my family and I didn't attend an offline church until the end of 2021/start of 2022. I expressed my interest in wanting to get baptized in my church (my family and I would go to a Prebysterian church, but our views on Baptism are definitely Baptist), but apparently one had to take this 6 month long study session in the church bible studies to be baptized and I would be leaving for college, to a different country, in less than 6 months. I've learned a lot about Christianity since then, and it has only motivated me more to be baptized, but I don't know if I should wait for my fellowship in my new church to grow more before expressing my interest in getting Baptized because I'm still relatively new to it and I felt bad being a newcomer and immediately asking for a baptism.
This whole chat about baptism really urged me to get baptized soon! If God allows, it will be soon and the wait will be over!
It’s great to hear about your desire to be baptized, I’m sorry your previous church had so many obstacles in the way. I can’t help but think of the Ethiopian Eunuch who says “look here is water, what prevents me from being baptized?” And I would encourage you to ask about it soon at your new church, don’t be afraid. God bless you!
If you are wanting to be baptized then you should be baptized with authority and into God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You could be baptized 100 times and it would avail you nothing if it is without authority.
If you really want to get baptized get baptized I remember a story in Acts where a disciple (forgot which of the twelve) shared the good news to an Egyptian and when they went past water the Egyptian said "Look water, what stops me from getting baptized?" Which you can guess he got baptized what im trying to say here is "why did they want you to study the bible for an entire 6 months"
TLDR; a question I could've said with 14 words becomes a paragraph
@@dylanwilliams2202 mormons are heretics
This actually clarifies the idea of infant baptism/sprinkling to me, sort of a already but not yet sign and trusting that the dedication of that end of the sacrament can/will lead to the baptism with the Spirit. Of course that still leaves the discussion of the right order of things and such, but still it's a good way to open the dialogue in the first place
This isn’t about that. Infant baptism is different.
Infant Baptism is clarified by reformed covenant theology.
Infant baptism serves as a sign and a seal- a covenant between the parents and GOD. The parents baptize their child in faith, placing their trust in GOD that He will, at some point, call the child to Himself. When the child eventually comes to faith, it’s seen as a fulfillment of the covenant made so many years back, and everyone is blessed that the covenant is kept by GOD and the parents.
Jesus Christ came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick. Little children/babies are whole because they are not capable of committing sin. The curse of Adam is taken from them in Jesus Christ and has no power over us and the law of circumcision is done away in Jesus Christ. It is a solemn mockery before God that you should baptize little children/babies. Repentance and baptism are unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin and little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Baptism is unto repentance to fulfill the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! If little children could not be baptized then they could not enter the Kingdom of God because someone only born of water can enter into it (John 3:5).
Someone that supposes that little children/babies need baptism is deep in bitterness and ignorance and in the bonds of iniquity and have neither faith, hope, nor charity. For how awful it is to think, let alone say, that God saves one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because they had no baptism. Little children are unable to repent so what an awful wickedness by God to deny the pure mercies of God unto them if this were the case. And he that says that little children need baptism deny the mercies of Christ.
@@dylanwilliams2202
1) We all sinned in Adam, we all are born in sin (original sin):
Romans.5:12 - Romans.5:12 (NKJ)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
2) We do not believe that a baby is unsaved just because he has not been baptized with water. What saves is the baptism of the holy spirit which can happen any given time, but we believe that every person baptized with the holy spirit will, under normal circumstances, want to be baptized with water. As the baby is not aware of this, he can be saved despite his parents not having baptized him with water. Now, baptism remains a means of grace given by God to his people and the symbol that the person (whether adult or baby) belongs to the people of God. Thus, well-educated Christian parents should baptize their children. We believe that circumcision was not simply abolished and thrown away by God, but that it was REPLACED by baptism. When Baby gets older, he will still have to make a public profession of faith to continue as a member of a Presbyterian Church and partake of the Lord's Supper.
3) To say that someone who believes pedobaptism does not have faith is both unbiblical and also ridiculous since a lot of great christians through the history of cristianity have believe in that. In fact, in the history of Christianity, including biblical Christianity, the rejection of paedobaptism is the exception.
1 Peter 3:21 single-handedly made me leave the Baptist faith I was born in. I’m currently an Orthodox Christian due to other things, but all that stemmed from one verse.
I don’t understand, I looked it up and to me, atleast it just reinforces it, could you please elaborate
@@AntiAzovIndividual Baptists believe that baptism doesn’t save, meanwhile 1 Peter 3:21 outright says that it does.
@@user-db7bv6qt8v hmmm, ok thank you, although I’m not fully Baptist, more non denominational but baptism is the closest thing to that so I just go with it
I'm a Baptist, and I think 1 Peter 3 is one of the best and most succinct descriptions of the Reformed Baptist view of the sacrament. Baptism saves, not as the removal of filth from the body, but as the visible sign of our repentance and rebirth in Christ.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 Please forgive me of any ignorance, I was raised as a non-Reformed Baptist, but from what I learned Baptists believe that baptism does not save, but 1 Peter 3:21 outright states that Baptism does save.
Thank you for reading the comments, and answering peoples' inquiries.
As a Baptist that's trying to learn about other traditions, this kinda just sounds like the baptist view, but with different semantics? Like the ideas and concepts seem to be basically exactly the same (the sign doesn't save, the thing signified does), just the definitions we use are different (baptism = sign, vs baptism = sign + thing signified)
Makes me wonder how much of theological debate is just semantic in nature?
Well it’s more than semantics cuz we baptize babies believing God will work through that to save them
Dr. Everhard and you both made videos after your and his conversation 🤣😂😆. You guys are hilarious and great!
yup! I had a nice discussion with him on twitter about all this. We're planning to do something together again soon
@@redeemedzoomer6053 right on!
Kind of ironic how Baptists don’t think baptism saves.
Cos it doesn’t. The video is about water baptism.
@@Guitar-qv6gu it does
Will you make a part 2 about Baptism and Original Sin? I remember seeing an old Instagram post you made saying the reformed view is that Baptism doesn’t remove original sin, is that still true?
i’ve had an opportunity to be baptized once, but i was hesitant and didn’t follow through because i didn’t know what baptism does or what it means, and what the difference would be before and after being baptized. i would like to be and i’m even planning on it, but i often feel scared because i had an opportunity and didn’t take it. if i’d known what i know now i would have.
@@danielschmude the person hasn’t been baptised. They said that.
@@Guitar-qv6gu Oops. I misread that. I'll delete my comment. Thanks.
Romans 5:1-2 (KJV)
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Thank you for this video! It was very well explained, and I appreciated the point you made at the end that we are still brothers and sisters regardless of our views on this issue
Great video, Zoomer! I would appreciate if you explain different topics of Reformed Theology in this way, like every point of the Tulip, pedobaptism, Presbyterian Hierarchy etc.
I think you are strawman-ing the Baptist view. If they truly believed baptism itself was not a part of the salvation process, then they would not practice it. If you asked the average Baptist off the street this question, I think most would give you some variation of the reformed view you gave, while emphasizing it's not the water itself that saves, but the baptism of the Spirit which occurs simultaneously.
Also, when you say "Baptist view", are you talking simply about some kind of specific Baptist theology, or just the "Believer's Baptism" view? Baptists are not the only significant denomination that holds the "Believer's Baptism" view. I have been commenting on some of your videos to no success urging you to consider Anabaptists more in your denominational discussions. Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren in Christ, Hutterites, etc) are arguably the first group of the reformation to hold the "Believers Baptism" view, and are a sizeable enough denominational group to be considered in your discussions. Not to mention they have a vastly different history and theology than Baptists, and should not be conflated with them. Would be happy to offer more information. Thanks!
Baptism isn't part of salvation but it is a commandment for us to follow after salvation. What you are saying is basically, "If they don't believe making disciples doesn't save them, then they would not practice it"
@@Ironica82 Not sure if I caught the point you're trying to make
@@funbukit5366 You stated, " If they truly believed baptism itself was not a part of the salvation process, then they would not practice it." However, that is a false dichotomy as it makes you think there are only two options yet there is a third option. Jesus command the church to go make disciples. In fact, he stated that command before even instructing the disciples to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To believe that just because we don't believe it is part of our justification, we shouldn't practice it is to also believe that because disciple making isn't part of our justification, we shouldn't do that either. Only a truly repentant faith in Christ saves people. However, we are commanded to be baptized just as we are commanded to abstain from s3xual desires.
@@Ironica82 My intention was not to create a dichotomy of any kind with the statement you quoted from me. It was merely a statement of observation that Baptists must hold Baptism with some significance in the salvation process since they continue to practice it.
I will say, I have a really hard time reading through the grammar in your comments. I believe you are trying to explain that Baptism is merely a practice a Christian should follow similar to Christ's command for righteous living, and not a significant part of the salvation process beyond that. I suppose that would be the Baptist view Redeemed Zoomer is talking about. Perhaps I'm wrong about my observation.
If I'm wrong about my view on your stance, let me know. But please try to phrase your explanation in proper grammar and understandable sentences.
Okay, let me see if I understand your position correctly:
1. Efficacy means that it has the ability to produce the desired/intended result. If the result is Salvation, then Baptismal Efficacy means that Water Baptism has the ability to save you, but it doesn't actually save you.
2. You are actually saved by grace alone through faith alone, at which point you receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
3. But Water Baptism and Baptism of the Holy Spirit are just two sides to the same coin, and you cannot have one without the other. This is the sacramental union that you talked about. If you accept Jesus Christ as your *LORD* and Savior (emphasis mine), then you would obey his commandments, one of which would be to receive Water Baptism.
The Baptist and Reformed views appear identical in your final statement. Both distinguish between baptism of water and the spirit. Both claim baptism of water does not save. Both claim faith/baptism of the spirit are what saves. Both claim the former is a sign of the latter. I don't understand how you can say "the reformed view tries to distinguish the sign from the thing signified without separating them". How is that any different from the Baptist view?
Honestly, is just seems like a difference in semantics. Would not the real difference be that Baptists require a profession of faith prior to water Baptism, and some Reformed groups do not?
Because of the stuff he said about timing. To the Baptist, timing is essential: you have to produce faith first before you can be Baptized, hence why it isn't licit to baptize infants. But for the Presbyterian, that doesn't matter. Baptism is effectual, and God works that effect in his own timing separately from the timing of the ordinance. Hence why household baptisms, even of infants, is fine.
Thanks for clearing that up! Will you make a video on communion and whether or not that saves? I'm currently non-denominational but 95% agree with your takes on theology.
When you say communion do you mean Divine Liturgy?
@@TW-fs3fj Like the partaking in consuming the bread and wine
@@andrewwetzel5491 that's Divine Liturgy. Communion is an established relationship between a church and other churches.
Also it's not bread and wine, it's the blood and body of Jesus Christ.
Do you think Christ was offering salvation to the Apostles at the Last Supper?
Another requirement for non negotiable doctrines is that salvation is by faith alone through Christ. Alone.
This is fascinating. So close to the Lutheran View. You reformed people are cool.
You usually do a pretty good job of presenting Catholic doctrine, but you definitely misrepresented it in this video. I’m not accusing you of doing this intentionally, I just think you actually understand the Catholic view.
Hey Zoomer, so would you say in Ephesians 4:5 where Paul says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." he's talking about water and Spirit baptism being connected?
Youre wrong about what Catholics belief on this. If we were to baptize an adult that didnt have faith it wouldnt do anything. Theres not a well informed catholic that would agree that baptism by itself saves. It says you cannot wnter the kingdom unless you are reborn of water and spirit. It requires both! No catholic drops the spirit part. Proper baptism saves. As our first pope said:
"And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him."
Catholics and presbys are super close on this one. Dont try to create more division than we already have.
Doesn’t a pregnant woman’s water breaks when she gives birth? Wouldn’t that be the born of water part in the scripture?
This is so helpful for understanding the Reformed view on this topic! The Baptist view is simple, and therefore easy to understand, as is the Catholic view. But the Reformed view was less easy to understand for me because it mixed both of the previously mentioned views.
Amen! the only baptism that matters is the baptism of the holy spirit, Acts 1:5, Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38
I was confused about this. This video was very illuminating.
True Baptism saves.
The Koine Greek word for Baptism - βαπτίζω (bap-tid'-zo) - just means to immerse or pass through.
John the Baptist himself said "And I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The One upon whom you see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him, this is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’"
So True Baptism is immersing your life into Jesus.
Physical water baptism is a declaration of faith and nothing else.
That makes SO much more sense than the other answers I've gotten, I actually understand this now. Thanks zoomer!
AMEN!❤
Keep doing what you’re doing Zoomer!! God bless
In John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Amen 🙏🙏
1:58 Christ saves "through" faith, but I know what you mean
Hi Redeemed Zoomer, Sir< I respectfully disagree with your principle of water baptism doesn't save but it signified the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A person is sealed with the Holy Spirit and is saved upon trustingin the word, the gospel of our salvation, and upon believing he is sealed simultaneously with the Holy Spirit and thus baptism is not a condition for salvation.
Read the following verses; Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
That's upon placing his faith in Jesus is when a person is saved and there's nowhere mentioned water baptism in the above verses.
However, water baptism is important as it' a command in scripture but water baptism is not a condtion for saalvation.
Appreciate any comments. Thank you
Where would you put the order of salvation for water baptism? Would it be under regeneration and union with Christ? Or under progressive sanctification?
Baptism is what Jesus said by water and Spirit
Kilroy was here ( I feel like you’ve explained very well why we don’t baptize our babies and why we think it’s a choice)
Wow! What a clear and precise explanation! Thank you!
Hey do you have a video on liberation theology and if not what is your opinion on it?
Im reaserching LCMS lutheranism because im intrested in joining, they say baptism saves, but people who are unbaptized dont necessarily go to hell as long as they have christ, i think they view it as a sacrament and as a way to recieve grace, but im a little confused
Can you speak to the idolatrizing nature that feels present in the Catholic church?
a big component where I see a lot of Christians debate the doctrine of Catholicism where I'm from revolves around Catholics worshipping figures and saints.
@musicianscrub458 Where you’re from is it the idea of saints praying for us or is it the artwork that seems to be the issue?
catholic here, i been trying to study all of the 73 books of bible and cathecism and well, yes baptism saves , and from what i noticed baptists have combined two sacraments into one, baptism and confirmation, from what catholic church teaches to salvation you need both faith and works, not one or the other but both, and what are the works? easy, they are the 7 sacraments of baptism, confession of sins, holy communion, confirmation(done in the age of understanding and basically renewal of the vows of baptism),anointing, anointing of the sick,marriage
I would interested to understand your view on Ephesians 2:8-9 if you believe it is both faith and works, what's the Catholic interpretation of this? Thanks.
@@returnedword it's adressed in the cathecism of the catholic church, plus i already mentioned, faith by itself and works by themselves don't save, it's when they are combined, aka, 7 sacraments where you proclaim the faith where it trully saves, just faith does not grant you the state of grace, penance and eucharist do but then again you also need faith in order to recieve those sacraments, for no works can save you without faith and faith without works is dead
@@returnedword as i said, the cathecism of catholic church has the real answear, i just gave you my own summary, so do not take this as what all catholics belive, it's what i believe
Good video. It laid to rest some fear I had not going to lie, and it seemed pretty self-evident in hindsight, but I never want to close my ears off to others, reinforcing my thoughts or otherwise. I had experienced the Spiritual Baptism well before I received a Water Baptism, and in my earlier days of being Born Again, I was petrified as a disabled young person, with low prospects of getting to Church, yet I *knew* at that moment everything had changed forever. Thankfully within a few months I had a standing Baptism the week before Covid shut down churches. Now my question is, in Protestant theology, is receiving the sacrament of communion necessary for the forgiveness of sins? Surely I would think not, essentially for the same reasons, but I would also certainly believe it is a beautiful thing for our relational understanding of Christ. Reading Luther's Small Catechism explaining the "poured out for you" really brought a thankfulness and awareness of the "personal assurance" of Christ's redeeming act on the cross.
I love your videos brother, but sola fide is an essential part of the Gospel and I will die on that hill. Rejecting sola fide, wether it's by roman catholics or anybody else, is creating a different gospel (Gal 5:4 and really all of Galatians).
I kinda disagree with how you box denominations into specific mindsets. Even if you are being broad- Bapists don't necessarily say "baptism doesn't save" (we are talking about how catholics believe that its simply the water) . From previous videos i'd say not to put so much emphasis on denominations because even if we disagree on certain things if you are truly seeking christ,
(Again there are exceptions because some people believe things completely farfetched) christ will order your footsteps and show you they way. Baptism with water at least from the knowledge I am blessed with is the open declaration that you choose to serve/follow God, but baptism of the holy spirit is the true sign of salvation in the sense once you repent and believe in jesus he breathes his spirit into you and you are made new. God bless my brother im not trying to start a war btw
@Senpai-Choco You can say what certain denominations believe. Just because certain members of that denomination contradict the official stance of the denomination doesn’t mean that the denomination itself doesn’t have a position. Christians who contradict what their denomination believes either need to learn why their denomination holds that view and embrace it, or find a different denomination.
i do have a question for you mr. zoomer. i do not find denominations to be biblical due to the strict call of unity in the bible, not that we have to all agree but that the body should not be divided on scriptural interpretation differences or who’s theology we follow. this is clearly taught especially in 1 cor 1-3. what are your thoughts
Unity is easier said than done. Non-denominationalism actually just turns each person/church into their own denomination, so it’s INFINITELY denominational. It’s the opposite of unity. Denominations are a statement of unity around a shared set of beliefs
@@redeemedzoomer6053 fair enough. not judging you or your position at all because i know you’ll be in heaven. however, i agree with your stance that unity is difficult but i believe most christians prefer to argue their stance of their theological positions rather than focus on the glory of Christ.
@amirsmith9269 The Catholic Church was established by Christ.
@@buckarooben7635 yes the catholic lower case c as in universal church. many of the practices you see in the Roman Catholic church as well as many other churches were not instituted by Christ
As a Catholic, I think you need baptism to be saved, but just because you are baptized does not mean you have a free ticket to heaven. You need to live out your faith.
John 6:40:
⁴⁰ And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Eph 2:8-9:
⁸ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
⁹ Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I knew this was coming after seeing Matt Everhard’s video and your comment 😂
P.S. I’m definitely still a baptized. Cool video tho
What this video lacks, I think, is an explanation as to why you think this view is true as opposed to Catholic or Baptist view, so perhaps it would be good to make a separate video about this
When Jesus was baptised He pre-figured His death. We have to understand this in relation to His coming straightt back out of the water because death could not hold Him (Acts 2) and Romans 6. The Jordan is 'the descender'. It drops 1200 feet into the DEAD Sea. This is what we ard baptised into by the Holy Spirit, which gives us power over sin.. This is also where circumcision of the heart is relevant because it represents the change in our attitude towards sin (through godly repentance) and the cutting off of the power of the flesh to lead us astray.. Colossians 2 vv 8 to 15. Romans 3 v 25. IF we sin 1 John 1 vv 7 to 9; 1 John 2 vv 1 and 2. Romans 8.
Romans 5:1-2 (KJV)
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit and of Water is not the same.
As an agnostic from Russia(where 70% is Orthodox), who was never taught about religion in general. I don't really get it. All these complications with branches of Christianity and even more layers under it, and then some of them are official and some are not.
I'm not talking about this video, it might be great(as other commenters responded), I'm just not well educated in this area.
I understand some basic concepts of religion and faith. So I want to learn more about baptism and everything. Is there some must read literature that I need?
Respond if you have time. Thank you.
1. If you are considering the Christian faith, the one source that you can always rely on 100% is the Bible. Read a KJV or NKJV if you want a direct translation almost down to the letter, but if you want a Bible that's easier to read (and therefore less likely for you to misinterpret a verse), read an NLT, or NIV.
2. Like the video says, Christian views on Baptism can vary wildly throughout each denomination. In general, Protestants believe physical Baptism does not save, but rather the Baptism of the Spirit that saves, and Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (though I'm Protestant myself and don't know too much Catholic and Orthodox theology, so take that with a grain of salt).
_"Is there some must read literature that I need?"_ The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth. We know and teach the Bible and gospel better than any other denomination.
If you are currently in Russia then I am not exactly sure how missionaries work there because we are heavily restricted in what they can do however the effort to learn of my Church would be worth it. If you live anywhere else then you can just look us up lol.
Please don’t listen to the Mormon man. Christianity is the truth and Mormonism is not that. Read the Bible
Why does the reformed baptized infants?
1. We see one faith throughout the OT and NT in two administrations. Some things change, but some things stay the same between them. The NT is rather clear about what changes and seems to presume continuation for the things it doesn't bring up.
2. The pattern of the covenant sign has always been that when one comes to believe, the convert and their household receive the covenant sign. Gen 17 sets up the pattern, and Peter repeats it in Acts 2. When the disciples baptized a new convert, we are told that their household was baptized without any concern raised about their ages or whether each individual member believed.
If there was a change, I would think we would find an example of an infant being refused baptism or similar turmoil around baptizing children as we see regarding other notable changes like the kosher laws and whether or not to circumcise gentiles.
3. It seems to have always been the practice of the church with no recorded controversy surrounding it. When people did start questioning the reason for baptizing infants, we see that the practice was already established, and the reasons given weren't for Baptist reasons. The sorts of reasons Baptists raise didn't appear until many centuries later with the Anabaptists, and later the English separatists that would go on to become modern Baptists.
That said, it is in the end an argument from silence either way. I think the silence speaks more loudly for household baptisms, but I think it is the sort of thing Christians can have passionate debates over yet come together in unity as brothers in Christ at the end of the day. The disagreement is important, but no where near to the point of heresy.
As a Free Methodist I believe that Baptism is more symbolic but I got to say I can really agree with this. IMO I think if u can get baptized u should and there are many ways to be baptized. When I was baptized at 8 I actually couldn't swim so my dad (who's a pastor and was the one that baptized me) offered me to have a baptism by pouring a cup of water over me but I declined since I said that if I'm going to be baptized I want the full baptism (note im not saying u have to be dunked under water to be fully baptized it was just a dumb thing I said as a kid). My dad basically had to hold on to me but I was fine. Some other ways to be baptized if u cant/uncomfortable with what I called "Dunking baptism" (Officially I think its called full immersion baptism) such as water over the head "Prison baptism" or symbol of the cross drawn on the forehead which is often done with people who are baptized as they are dying/terminally ill.
The thief on the cross next to Jesus was saved because he accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. He never had a physical baptism. He was saved by his faith.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with the video? The video doesn't contradict that at all. In fact it says baptism is only effective with faith. Did you even watch?
@@dutchcalvinist5564 never said it did, I just want to comment :)
@@collinbroom7119 oh, alright. Well, God bless.
So can babies be baptized in the spirit?
Hello, I just want to add something.
You might want to add a little more context to the Catholic one, as it would seem to suggest every baptized Catholic is saved, and that is not the case. The purpose of the baptism is to cleanse throught this sacrament (both the water and the sacramental union with the holy spirit) the original sin, and marks us as children of God. While this technically means you are saved, the person can STILL sin, as the Catholic Christianity (I do not know if others) mandates we should follow Jesus' path, and if we get astray, we should regret our sins if we want to keep the holy communion.
To give an example:
- If a baby is baptized, and passess away before having a real conciousness for the actions the baby has done, the baby is saved and will go to heaven. Which is why Catholics worry a lot about abortions, as those would have to go to purgatory, and can be saved by prayers and the will of God.
- If a person is baptized, grows up, stops being a Christian and does evil deeds, salvation is not guaranteed.
The baptism is only the start of the Journey for Catholics.
Thank you for reading, feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong, I do have understanding this is our belief as Catholics, but let me know.
Honestly this is starting to feel similar to discussions that involve the two natures of Christ where things have to be clarified. It's like how Mary is the mother of God, but this has to be clarified so that people don't think Mary is a goddess, and people just start to avoid the title altogether.
Fair enough. Good video. 👍
Man- it is awesomely entertaining to listen to your explanations of all the esoteric and bizarre traditions of Christianity with that tone in your voice of : “nailed it”
2:53 is slightly misleading as it implies the Catholic vision is that baptism just has some independent power somehow. Obviously Catholics believe that baptism works through God, the difference is that Calvinists think it “might” work through God if you’re already saved, while we Catholics acknowledge that God gave us the sacraments as visible signs, that when done properly can bring total assurance that God has acted through them.
Calvinism implies that the sacraments are are only a sign if you’re already saved, and may or may not really transfer grace. This sort of nullifies their purpose in the first place.
your position to me has been off putting to me but saying the baptism of the Spirit makes me agree with you as a reformed baptist
I've been raised with baptists that preach the same thing you just preached.
That would be surprising. One of the things taught here is that the timing doesn't matter, but Baptists teach that the timing does matter, that Baptism must come after conversion. The consequence of this is that Presbyterians view infant baptism as licit and Baptists view it as illicit.
@@oracleoftroy I should have clarified because I don't think that was a part that was taught to me. It's been 10 months so I'll have to rewatch to remember what I was saying.
Your last sentence is the most important. The amount of division within Christianity in an increasingly secular world is heartbreaking. And it’s been my experience that it’s evangelicals who’d rather us more liberal Mainliners just simply leave our seat at the Christian table rather than accept differing interpretations. And that’s sad, because we allow them their own freedom to worship in their own ways.
Well, an interpretation that compromises essentials (such as the authority of the Bible or gospel) shouldn't be accepted.
Accepting a person or a group is one thing, accepting an idea is another. You don't have to agree to love each other.
Anothef thing, Christian unity is only important if the people are actually Christian. The gospel and God are more important than man or man's unity.
So, everyone should be loving to each other, but they don't need to accept each other's ideas, and there is a time and place for separation if the ideas in question are important enough.
@@phyrisl2 But it’s always the fringe groups who spew divisive, anti-intellectual and baseless BS and try to redefine Christian to only refer to themselves. A Christian is someone who believes in the Resurrection and worships Christ, period.
Very well put together video.
You know, I’d really love the opportunity to sit and talk with Redeemed Zoomer. I come from a somewhat IFB background, and I’d love to see what he thinks on ALOT of the most preached on topics.
Modesty. Forced Tithes. Tattoos. Piercings. Movie Theaters. Music. Schooling. Etc.
These days I seem to be falling more and more away from baptist beliefs. And I wonder if that’s because God is working on me, or if it’s my flesh.
I wouldn't put IFB in the same category as other Baptists like Paul Washer for example. If those are the most preached topics, that's pretty sad tbh.
@@DankusMemicus It’s nearly as cultish as Mormonism in some ways.
There’s some creepy IFB camps out there too. Especially down south. Common ground baptist camp In Pennsylvania is pretty cultish and one of the more well known ultra-Fundie types too. This one I’m a little familiar with because I attended it several times when I was younger. I actually still have access to their flyer where they prohibit staff members from attending movie theaters on their own time in their personal life. They also try to restrict what music you’re allowed to listen to in your own free time lol. I’d love to actually provide it to Zoomer if I had the chance lol
And camps like this indoctrinate thousands upon thousands of our youth every year.
@@CC-iu7sq Wow. I've just seen a few Steven Anderson compilations... he's more of a meme than a pastor. I bet they'd have a problem with me, as a Christian metal enjoyer.
I'm a Baptist and after watching this video I think I have a better understanding of what you believe and also have less of a problem with what you said. So really the only big belief difference between us is whether infants should be baptized although I think this is more of a practical issue rather than a Theological one. For me, i think the problem with infant baptism is it gives a person a false idea that they have been saved already when they haven't actually received the Holy Spirit yet. Granted I think this problem isn't excluded from Baptists as I believe that too many people think they are saved ust cuz they go to church and read their Bible but I think that a person choosing to be physically baptized themselves is a stronger indication of faith. I also still find the argument for infant baptism to be not terribly strong but I'm less condemning of it now as I understand what you believe better now.
Another banger from zoomer, god bless you all
This is truly an excellent video! I am Baptist, but i think this clarified a lot of things for people who didn't understand or know this already. I totally agree with what you are saying though!
So, I'm confused. So, if someone has come to Christ, and wants to be baptized, but is in a situation where they can't far into the foreseeable future, are they just not saved yet? Or are they still saved?
This was answered in the video. If you can't get baptized through no will of your own, that's fine. The Thief on the Cross was too busy being tortured and killed to ask Rome to pause his execution so he could get baptized. Likewise, if it was a long term exceptional circumstance (maybe a Prisoner of War with no contact with other Christians would be a good example), that's out of your control.
Its in normal situations where you could be baptized any time but you refuse that is concerning. It indicates a deep refusal of the Holy Spirit.
They're saved.
By happenstance during a lunch break at work I wandered into a Catholic Mass….first time in 40yrs. Lost faith in Catholicism, not faith in Jesus. Involved mostly AOG in 20’s etc, etc.
As I walked in, what first struck me was peace, calmness and zero oppression (whatever oppressed me dared not enter the church) like that of euphoria. Mass was well underway, young priest singing Eucharist liturgy which was so beautifully breathtaking I froze, mouth agape and shaking yet calmness filled my soul.
I was home✝️🙏🏻
Within weeks I went to 1st confession (with the intent of ‘picking his brain’ and declaring my belief in OSAS) to argue my point.
To my amazement this particular priest, very advanced in years, agreed with everything I said about salvation being faith alone.
We hugged.
It was very, very beautiful.
No we don’t worship Mary, saints or Pope. And we don’t bow down to pagan idols😆😂🤣
But if Baptism saves for those who have faith wouldnt the inverse be true as well, i.e. faith without being baptized does not save?
yes. that is why this so called reformed view is actually just the same as the catholic view. which means they did not understand the gospel. get saved today ruclips.net/video/6lzaPqKf2zs/видео.htmlsi=L6ts3J0c-9HY0g_s
I was under the impression that Presbyterians baptize infants.
We do
@@redeemedzoomer6053 doesn't that contradict the entire video?
@@spankyblu no, cuz in the video I said “the efficacy of baptism isn’t tied to when it’s administered”
@@redeemedzoomer6053 why would you baptize a child if it's not actually a fine of their faith?
As a Reformed Baptist, I agree fully. I still do not affirm paedobaptism, but I do agree that spiritual baptism should absolutely by followed by aquatic baptism, and I'm personally of the persuasion that it should be conducted by full immersion, and preferably in natural, running water if you're a hillbilly like me, lol.
_"...I agree fully. I still do not affirm paedobaptism..."_
These don't go together. :)
Baptists don't agree with the video on the point about timing, or else you would accept that it doesn't matter when in time one is baptized relative to when they come to faith. I think if you rewatch the video and pull on that thread, you'll start to see a lot of other differences between the Baptist view and the view laid out here.
The Bible is about the sons of God.
If you read or were told that Genesis 1 is God (El) that's...not wrong... but still has been altered/changed from the original Word which is Elohim.
It's incredibly important that nobody alter or change scriptures so the meaning is not lost.
The Hebrews said "the Names of God are too Holy to be read or spoken aloud"...then, they altered/changed scriptures. Everyone's Bibles are copies of copies of altered/changed scripture, inserting the Tetragrammaton and upgrading Elohim to El.
For millenia before the Old Testament the word Elohim always and only meant "sons of El".
"In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth"...(is what you should see in your Bibles if they cared about Truth). Use the NOG translation it's on most any Bible website. Uncensored.
Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 was adopted into the Bronze Age pantheon of Israel (Canaan) from the broader Levantine polytheism. That's the false Elohim.
The main theme of the Bible is knowing Good from Evil, Holy Trinity from Unholy Trinity and Genesis 1 true Elohim from Genesis 2 false Yahweh Elohim.
The clever snake in Genesis 3 knew Elohim from Yahweh Elohim...
Theology comes from combining two Greek words: theos, meaning God, and logos, meaning word or rational thought.
[The Word is Elohim from Genesis 1]
(not to be confused with Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2)
Compare John 1: 1-5 with Genesis 1: 1-5:
John 1: 1-5
Names of God Bible
The Word Becomes Human
1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was already with God in the beginning.
3 Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
4 He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.
5 The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.
Genesis 1: 1-5
Names of God Bible
The Creation
1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water.
3 Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. 4 Elohim saw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 5 Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.
[Yahweh Elohim, false Elohim from Genesis 2, accepts a child sacrifice]:
(not to be confused with Elohim or Ruach Elohim from Genesis 1)
Judges 11
Names of God Bible
Jephthah’s Vow
29 Then the Ruach Yahweh came over Jephthah. Jephthah went through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah in Gilead to gather an army. From Mizpah in Gilead Jephthah went to attack Ammon.
30 Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh. He said, “If you will really hand Ammon over to me, 31 then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from Ammon will belong to Yahweh. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah went to fight against Ammon. Yahweh handed the people of Ammon over to him. 33 He defeated them from Aroer to Minnith and on to Abel Keramim, 20 cities in all. It was a decisive defeat. So the Ammonites were crushed by the people of Israel.
34 When Jephthah went to his home in Mizpah, he saw his daughter coming out to meet him. She was dancing with tambourines in her hands. She was his only child. Jephthah had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in grief and said, “Oh no, Daughter! You’ve brought me to my knees! What disaster you’ve brought me! I made a foolish promise to Yahweh. Now I can’t break it.”
36 She said to him, “Father, you made a promise to Yahweh. Do to me whatever you promised since Yahweh has punished your enemy Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Do me a favor. Give me two months for my friends and me to walk in the mountains and mourn that I will never have an opportunity to get married.”
38 “Go!” he said, and he sent her off for two months. She and her friends went to the mountains, and she cried about never being able to get married. 39 At the end of those two months she came back to her father. He did to her what he had vowed, and she never had a husband. So the custom began in Israel 40 that for four days every year the girls in Israel would go out to sing the praises of the daughter of Jephthah, the man from Gilead.
Note how in verse 3 the Ruach Elohim says there's a true Elohim.
Which means there's false Elohim.
Spoiler Alert: The false Elohim is Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2.
2 Chronicles 15: 1-7
Names of God Bible
15 The Ruach Elohim came to Azariah, son of Oded. 2 Azariah went to Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa and all you men from Judah and Benjamin. Yahweh is with you when you are with him. If you will dedicate your lives to serving him, he will accept you. But if you abandon him, he will abandon you. 3 For a long time Israel was without the true Elohim, without a priest who taught correctly, and without Moses’ Teachings. 4 But when they were in trouble, they turned to Yahweh Elohim of Israel. When they searched for him, he let them find him. 5 At those times no one could come and go in peace, because everyone living in the land had a lot of turmoil. 6 One nation crushed another nation; one city crushed another. Elohim had tormented them with every kind of trouble. 7 But you must remain strong and not become discouraged. Your actions will be rewarded.”
The Manual of Discipline, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, says that God created two great spirits, one of truth and one of perversity, the latter being the angel of darkness.
'Through the angel of darkness, however, even those who practice righteousness are liable to error. All their sin and their inequities, all their guilt and their deeds of transgression are the result of his domination; and thus, by God's inscrutable design, will continue until the time appointed by Him.'
Spirit of Truth: Ruach Elohim
Spirit of Perversity: Ruach Yahweh
1 Kings 22
Names of God Bible
19 Micaiah added, “Then hear the word of Yahweh. I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne, and the entire army of heaven was standing near him on his right and his left.
20 Yahweh asked, ‘Who will deceive Ahab so that he will attack and be killed at Ramoth in Gilead?’ Some answered one way, while others said something else.
21 “Then Ruach stepped forward, stood in front of Yahweh, and said, ‘I will deceive him.’
“‘How?’ Yahweh asked.
22 “Ruach answered, ‘I will go out and be a spirit that tells lies through the mouths of all of Ahab’s prophets.’
“Yahweh said, ‘You will succeed in deceiving him. Go and do it.’
23 “So, Yahweh has put into the mouths of all these prophets of yours a spirit that makes them tell lies. Yahweh has spoken evil about you.”
24 Then Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, went to Micaiah and struck him on the cheek. “How did Ruach Yahweh leave me to talk to you?” he asked.
25 Micaiah answered, you will find out on the day you go into an inner room to hide.”
Jesus the Christ, in plain English, is Joshua the Chosen.
There are two Books of Joshua one from Tribe of Ephraim and one from Tribe of Judah.
Joshua Son of Nun was from Tribe of Ephraim. Born in Egypt.
Everyone agrees the Tribe of Judah's Book of Joshua is not Jesus the Christ (Joshua the Chosen).
Anyone read the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua? It's called the Samaritan Chronicle.
Extra: did you know Joshua Son of Nun was originally named Hoshea Son of Nun? Moses changed his name with the implied meaning "May God save you from the conspiracy of the scouts".
Baptism saves. How?
Thought beliefs put into confirmed action.
Words without proof or action are meaningless and i mean to oneself not the external humanity.
Salve oratio is basically you believe in God is your savior.
You can say "dear God I'm a sinner forgive me amen" by faith,
And yes you are saved.
But if you don't know how to pray,
But you still thought believe,
The man baptizing you will say "do you believe {so} and {so} core Christian doctrine" and you by faith say "i do"
Than yes you're baptism saves you.
Does this sound like sacramental union as you described it?
Yes,
But i feel this is better worded,
This would be the Anglican and Methodist articulation I would say.
As English denominations tend to believe that holy spirit is physically in the water of the faithful.
The water doesn't magic water save you,
The holy spirit saves you through the water.
Or if you are funny,
The holy spirit saves the water 😂.
But that's because I believe there's 3 optional mechanisms of salvation,
Take 1 and the other two become sacraments without saving grace.
Salve baptismus
Salvs Communionim
Salve oratio.
By faith doing whichever, baptism, communion or prayer, you are saved, by faith but activated by one of these.
All 3 are optional means of salvation, but all 3 are demanded means of participation in the relationship with Jesus Christ and must be learned under normal circumstance.
thanks man!
@Redeemed Zoomer, It is possible that the thief on the cross had already been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples. Only through Jesus death and resurrection could his repentance and change attitude towards sin be acknowledged in eternity.
_"It is possible that the thief on the cross had already been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples"_
It's a fair and understandable thought to have, but apart from being really wildly speculative, that isn't even Christian Baptism as instituted as a sacrament by Christ after his Resurrection. Acts 18:25 makes it clear that the Baptism of John is not the same thing as Christian Baptism. To be a recipient of Christian Baptism, someone baptised by John would have to be baptised 'again' (not really again, merely for the first time under the New Covenant). The thief was not, in any conventional understanding, a recipient of the Sacrament of Baptism, as he died before it even existed.
@@Mic1904 You are absolutely correct. BUT, Jesus had already said, This is my body ... This is my blood... It's not as if the doctrine of the new covenant was formed retrospectively, as it is clearly prophesied in the Old Testament. So please read Luke 1 v 6. We do not know if John's parents were still alive when Jesus died, so how were the sins of those who followed Moses' law actually ATONED for? Read Hebrews 9 v 15. It's by the death and blood of Jesus Christ.
However there IS a difference between their status before God and ours. Heb 3 vv 1 to 6; Heb 11 vv 39, 40. Galatians 4 vv 4 to 7.
Can u make a history on the KJV bible?
You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. "They aren't the same, but they are sacramentally united." Yet you deny the Catholic position because you argue it "mixes" the Sign and the Spirit. I'm sorry, if something is "sacramentally united" with something" that seems even more united than "mixing".
Second, let's clarify something. None of us believes that an atheist dunking another atheist in water does anything. No one believes that water by itself does any saving. What we believe is that in a VALID Baptism, the person being Baptized is truly saved. What is doing the work is not just the spirit, but the combination of the Spirit and the Sign. Otherwise there would be no need for a sign. There is a reason Jesus commanded his followers to not only do that, but to do it to all the nations. Baptism, saves, therefore we should try to Baptize as many people as we can.
Baptism saves, but what protestants do not understand about the Catholic position is that being "saved" is not a one time thing. Our salvation can be lost, and regained. This a process. When a person is initially Baptized, they are saved, but later on they can commit apostasy and lose their salvation, but when they come back to the faith, the can regain said salvation.
Could you pleassssse do a video on Lutheran views like on baptism???
It’s very similar to the catholic view as both believe in baptismal regeneration