You've summarized here the thoughts that have been bouncing around my head for years. TULIP is all about the triune God working without division to make wretches his treasure! Thank you for your labors, Pastor!
Love your videos! Perhaps you could do a video on the Reformed view of confirmation. I’m a 1689 guy who is currently challenging my Baptist convictions. One area I struggle with is why not paedocommunion? I see a lot of Baptists bring this up in the paedobaptism debates. Thanks!
I was in the exact same spot a few years ago. That question was one of the main ones that took me a while to answer before I got all my kiddos baptized in our local PCA church. For me, it came down to the nature of the sacraments as well as the scriptural warnings. For one the verbs on baptism are passive: "be baptized"... Vs in communion, they are active: "take and drink". This implies a different nature of the thing itself. Additionally, we have scriptural warnings of self examination before partaking in the super, lest we eat and drink judgment to ourselves. Plus the baptism is something that can easily be done to infants. Even if the proper mode was immersion (which is not necessarily the case), the Eastern church has immersed babies for centuries. Solid food, however, is not given to babies. Even Paul happens to mention this fact. The ancient passover feast was given to children who could ask questions but not to babies. So there is logical reason to withhold the supper for some time anyway. It wouldn't be very strange to have a pretty young child communed in a traditional reformed church either. It just depends on the child.
I am a Roman Catholic who has switched from Molinism to Thomisim. I actually made a video on the Catholic OCD Podcast on RUclips called Predestination for newbies, in the video I show how the reformed and the thomist are actually way closer than people think. I do believe that limited atonement is the actual difference. I don't think total depravity or unconditional election are contrary to Thomisim. I do think that there is a unique prayer of intersession that Jesus makes for the Elect, but I think that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas allow for a Biblical regeneration that does not have sustaining grace attached to it. The seed that grows and is choked off by the pleasures and anxieties of this world, seems to be a regeneration of efficacious grace but not sustaining (perseverant) grace. In your view of the cooperation of the Trinity, I think this is why Catholics place Sanctification under the umbrella of Justification. The Spirit is described as the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8 ( filio que), and therefore when we are filled with the Spirit, it is a filling of the Righteousness of Christ, based on the incarnation of Christ. Thats why I think Sanctification is tied to the righteousness (Justice) of Christ. I'm curious your thoughts. I think the reformed views of soteriology are closer to thomistic Catholicism than many people think. God bless
@@nickynolfi833 Hi Nick, You mention different types of grace: sustaining grace, and efficacious grace. I’ve also heard people mention prevenient grace. Can you point me to verses in the Bible that support these different types of grace? Thank you!
@sheldon3996 prevenient grace means when you are touched initially by the calling of the Holy Spirit before you are brought into a relationship ship with God. If you want a relationship with God and to be indwelt by the holy Spirit, then the holy Spirit has already interacted with you. We call this first contact and excitement of the soul, prevenient grace.
@@nickynolfi833 Thank you for the explanation. Are there verses in the Bible to back that up or that suggest God’s grace is administered in different fashions to the believer?
@sheldon3996 the parable of the sower is a good example. The seed( Gospel) was the same but the tilling of the soil is what makes the difference. The seed that lasted was saved by grace. Obviously it was a sustaining grace because it sustained. The seed that fell among the thorns had efficacious grace, Obviously it was efficacious because the seed took root and grew. It didn't have sustaining grace because it didn't sustain. The seed that fell upon the hard ground had sufficient grace. Even though it was hard, it could have truly had roots and not just emotions. The grace was not efficacious because it didn't cause roots. The seed being sown at all to soul that doesn't ask for it is prevenient grace. It is contact with the seed that the ground didn't ask for. We are the soil in this parable. The way God tills us is the differences in grace
@ Nick, please don’t take offense at my reply, just brother to brother, iron sharpening iron. The problem is that these “types” of grace are not in the Bible anywhere. Not a single verse. They are man’s attempt to define the grace of God in salvation; man’s philosophy. Each of them is eisegetically derived. In your example using the parable of the sower, you added to scripture by including efficacious grace, sustaining grace, sufficient grace, and prevenient grace that simply are not there. We are warned about man’s philosophy in Colossians 2:8. We are certainly warned not to add or subtract from the Holy Scriptures.
There is a biblical foundation for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Jesus said, "This is my body." And the inferences that produce Transubstantiation are coherent and compelling, but Lutherans reject Transubstantiation. Even though it has a biblical leg to stand on, the doctrine does not come to us from God's Word. It comes from our desire, as creatures bent toward unbelief, to answer the question: "How is this Jesus' body?" God does not answer that question, and so we must also hold our tongues. Lutherans reject Limited Atonement for much the same reason. Does it have a biblical leg to stand on? Yes. God's people are chosen by the Father in Christ before the foundation of the world. The inferences drawn from this are coherent and compelling, but what is driving the motion from premise to conclusion? That is a subject this video completely ignores. Why are we moving down this path from Election to Limited Atonement? It's because we want to answer the question: "Why does God save some people, but not all people?" When Jesus is first introducing the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in John 3, He explicitly tells us that the answer to that question is out of bounds. It is not given to us. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." So, your video is interesting and informative. Thank you for making it. But from a Lutheran perspective it doesn't really explain the major difference between Reformed Theology and Lutheranism.
@@ericmatthaei9711 Of course in the video I want to argue for the Reformed approach but that’s not necessarily the only point. The point is to show the reasoning the Reformed make. As a Lutheran I understand why you’d disagree with how we apply these trinitarian doctrines, but I hope you can see the line of reasoning even if you believe that reasoning to be going too far. I’d encourage you to watch Dr. Jordan Cooper’s video I mentioned where he does mention our approach to election as being a core difference. In this video I’m essentially saying, “Yes, that’s right, and here’s why.” But thanks for watching!
@@RevDonBaker I appreciate that you are addressing a real distinction between Lutherans and Reformed, and your presentation is very good. Like I said before, Reformed inferences are coherent and compelling. My question would be: If you take the crux theologorum out of the picture, if you do not ask or seek to answer the question, "why some, and not others," how does Scripture take you from the doctrine of election to the doctrine of limited atonement?
@@ericmatthaei9711 In the Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 we have, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This is one of those areas where we deduce from good and necessary consequences. Just as Jesus’ highly priestly intercession is limited to the elect in union with the Father’s will in election, we deduce that the Son’s high priestly sacrifice is consistent with His intercession. This is one of the more commonly spoken of differences between the Reformed and Lutheran approaches. Lutherans are more likely to leave things alone if not expressly taught while the Reformed are more willing to make deductions. A prime example is Lutheran single predestination with election and Reformed double predestination with both election and reprobation.
@@jackcrow1204 Well….”The whole efficacy of baptism therefore-the whole of its saving use-is to be sought for in elect infants.” - Herman Witsius The administration of baptism is given to all those who come to faith and to those under them who are being raised in the faith-disciples. However even baptismal efficacy is limited to the elect in Reformed theology. This is why we don’t hold to baptismal regeneration. Only the elect receive the benefits of their baptism.
@RevDonBaker sure, I get that I understand that baptism does not have the same effect as it does in common baptist theology, nor does it have the same effect in lutheran theology. It works for the elect alone. The Father elects individuals for salvation. The Son, through his life death and resurrection, accomplishes salvation. The Spirit applies salvation to the individuals and causes them to be born again in time and space. So, all of that is understood. Yet, Christ establishes the new Covenant, and in some sense, his death has an effect on all those in the New Covenant. Yet those benefits are given to those the Father did not elect, and the Spirit will not regenerate. Wouldn't it make more sense in reformed theology that you would have the new covenant filled with only the elect? Otherwise, there is disunity. The father elects, the son established the promises to the new covenant (including those that the father did not elect and the spitit will not save), and the spirit regenerates
@ Ah I see what you mean. As in from a Reformed Baptist perspective with only administering baptism to the elect. We aren’t told to administer baptism only to the elect as that’s not something we can see. All we can see is discipleship. Adult converts become disciples upon a profession of faith and by baptism are marked off to nurtured in the covenant community. That nurturing will be effectual to the elect. Children of believers become disciples from infancy as parents are still commanded to raise their children in the nurture and discipline of the Lord. That nurturing as well will be effectual to the elect. All who are visibly in the covenant are heirs to the promise but only the elect receive it by faith.
@RevDonBaker you replied by justifying non elect infant baptism with what you believe scripture to command. Obviously, this dispute won't be solved in a YT comment section. 😂 However, I think it is important to note if the heart of reformed theology is trinitarian application to the elect alone, then the reformed baptist is even more reformed than the Presbyterian since they believe that this applies to the command to baptize as well.
@ But we don’t know which infants are non elect. Many adults who profess faith prove to be non elect as well. In fact the efficacy of the Word is also limited to the elect, but it wouldn’t be more Reformed to wait until someone gives evidence of election to preach the gospel to them. I’d also say that we have just as much reason to presume the election of a covenant child as we would a new convert. I recognize an adult convert to the faith as a Christian based on their profession, and I recognize a child born into the church as a Christian based on God’s promise to be God to us and to our children. That’s why we don’t baptized the children of unbelievers as that promise isn’t given to them. I honestly view the infants I baptize the same as I view the adults. I don’t know whether they’re elect or not, but they have the promises of the covenant made them which they are to receive by faith. It isn’t until either apostasies that I regard them as a Gentile or tax collector. I think the problem with Baptist theology is children of believers are viewed automatically as Gentiles when I don’t believe that’s what the New Covenant was meant to do. Did this YT comment solve the dispute? haha Even if not, I really do appreciate you watching an even commenting. Reformed Baptists are one of our closest brothers in the faith.
You've summarized here the thoughts that have been bouncing around my head for years. TULIP is all about the triune God working without division to make wretches his treasure!
Thank you for your labors, Pastor!
That's such a clear and beautiful way of putting the Reformed understanding of election and predestination.
Working in perfect harmony and unity … “The Father elects; the Son protects; and the Holy Spirit perfects.”
Amen
One of the nost clarifying videos ive ever watched. Thank you
Fantastic video!
Fantastic Video! Glad to see someone point out the unique parts of our tradition other than TULIP
Love your videos! Perhaps you could do a video on the Reformed view of confirmation. I’m a 1689 guy who is currently challenging my Baptist convictions. One area I struggle with is why not paedocommunion? I see a lot of Baptists bring this up in the paedobaptism debates. Thanks!
Who should check out r. Scott clark on the heidelcast and heidelblog made me become member of a Dutch reformed church
I was in the exact same spot a few years ago. That question was one of the main ones that took me a while to answer before I got all my kiddos baptized in our local PCA church.
For me, it came down to the nature of the sacraments as well as the scriptural warnings.
For one the verbs on baptism are passive: "be baptized"... Vs in communion, they are active: "take and drink". This implies a different nature of the thing itself. Additionally, we have scriptural warnings of self examination before partaking in the super, lest we eat and drink judgment to ourselves.
Plus the baptism is something that can easily be done to infants. Even if the proper mode was immersion (which is not necessarily the case), the Eastern church has immersed babies for centuries.
Solid food, however, is not given to babies. Even Paul happens to mention this fact. The ancient passover feast was given to children who could ask questions but not to babies. So there is logical reason to withhold the supper for some time anyway.
It wouldn't be very strange to have a pretty young child communed in a traditional reformed church either. It just depends on the child.
@@loganpeck5084 thank you, that was helpful. My wife and I will continue to pray and study this topic.
@@ryanperalta5128 you're very welcome. I will pray for both of you as well. I know it is a difficult decision. It was for us too.
@@ryanperalta5128 Thanks! I’m trying to put together a list of topics to discuss so I’ll keep it in mind.
I am a Roman Catholic who has switched from Molinism to Thomisim. I actually made a video on the Catholic OCD Podcast on RUclips called Predestination for newbies, in the video I show how the reformed and the thomist are actually way closer than people think. I do believe that limited atonement is the actual difference. I don't think total depravity or unconditional election are contrary to Thomisim. I do think that there is a unique prayer of intersession that Jesus makes for the Elect, but I think that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas allow for a Biblical regeneration that does not have sustaining grace attached to it. The seed that grows and is choked off by the pleasures and anxieties of this world, seems to be a regeneration of efficacious grace but not sustaining (perseverant) grace. In your view of the cooperation of the Trinity, I think this is why Catholics place Sanctification under the umbrella of Justification. The Spirit is described as the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8 ( filio que), and therefore when we are filled with the Spirit, it is a filling of the Righteousness of Christ, based on the incarnation of Christ. Thats why I think Sanctification is tied to the righteousness (Justice) of Christ. I'm curious your thoughts. I think the reformed views of soteriology are closer to thomistic Catholicism than many people think. God bless
@@nickynolfi833 Hi Nick, You mention different types of grace: sustaining grace, and efficacious grace. I’ve also heard people mention prevenient grace. Can you point me to verses in the Bible that support these different types of grace? Thank you!
@sheldon3996 prevenient grace means when you are touched initially by the calling of the Holy Spirit before you are brought into a relationship ship with God. If you want a relationship with God and to be indwelt by the holy Spirit, then the holy Spirit has already interacted with you. We call this first contact and excitement of the soul, prevenient grace.
@@nickynolfi833 Thank you for the explanation. Are there verses in the Bible to back that up or that suggest God’s grace is administered in different fashions to the believer?
@sheldon3996 the parable of the sower is a good example. The seed( Gospel) was the same but the tilling of the soil is what makes the difference. The seed that lasted was saved by grace. Obviously it was a sustaining grace because it sustained. The seed that fell among the thorns had efficacious grace, Obviously it was efficacious because the seed took root and grew. It didn't have sustaining grace because it didn't sustain. The seed that fell upon the hard ground had sufficient grace. Even though it was hard, it could have truly had roots and not just emotions. The grace was not efficacious because it didn't cause roots. The seed being sown at all to soul that doesn't ask for it is prevenient grace. It is contact with the seed that the ground didn't ask for. We are the soil in this parable. The way God tills us is the differences in grace
@ Nick, please don’t take offense at my reply, just brother to brother, iron sharpening iron. The problem is that these “types” of grace are not in the Bible anywhere. Not a single verse. They are man’s attempt to define the grace of God in salvation; man’s philosophy. Each of them is eisegetically derived. In your example using the parable of the sower, you added to scripture by including efficacious grace, sustaining grace, sufficient grace, and prevenient grace that simply are not there. We are warned about man’s philosophy in Colossians 2:8. We are certainly warned not to add or subtract from the Holy Scriptures.
There is a biblical foundation for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Jesus said, "This is my body." And the inferences that produce Transubstantiation are coherent and compelling, but Lutherans reject Transubstantiation. Even though it has a biblical leg to stand on, the doctrine does not come to us from God's Word. It comes from our desire, as creatures bent toward unbelief, to answer the question: "How is this Jesus' body?" God does not answer that question, and so we must also hold our tongues.
Lutherans reject Limited Atonement for much the same reason. Does it have a biblical leg to stand on? Yes. God's people are chosen by the Father in Christ before the foundation of the world. The inferences drawn from this are coherent and compelling, but what is driving the motion from premise to conclusion? That is a subject this video completely ignores. Why are we moving down this path from Election to Limited Atonement? It's because we want to answer the question: "Why does God save some people, but not all people?" When Jesus is first introducing the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in John 3, He explicitly tells us that the answer to that question is out of bounds. It is not given to us. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
So, your video is interesting and informative. Thank you for making it. But from a Lutheran perspective it doesn't really explain the major difference between Reformed Theology and Lutheranism.
@@ericmatthaei9711 Of course in the video I want to argue for the Reformed approach but that’s not necessarily the only point. The point is to show the reasoning the Reformed make. As a Lutheran I understand why you’d disagree with how we apply these trinitarian doctrines, but I hope you can see the line of reasoning even if you believe that reasoning to be going too far. I’d encourage you to watch Dr. Jordan Cooper’s video I mentioned where he does mention our approach to election as being a core difference. In this video I’m essentially saying, “Yes, that’s right, and here’s why.” But thanks for watching!
@@RevDonBaker I appreciate that you are addressing a real distinction between Lutherans and Reformed, and your presentation is very good. Like I said before, Reformed inferences are coherent and compelling. My question would be: If you take the crux theologorum out of the picture, if you do not ask or seek to answer the question, "why some, and not others," how does Scripture take you from the doctrine of election to the doctrine of limited atonement?
@@ericmatthaei9711 In the Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 we have, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This is one of those areas where we deduce from good and necessary consequences. Just as Jesus’ highly priestly intercession is limited to the elect in union with the Father’s will in election, we deduce that the Son’s high priestly sacrifice is consistent with His intercession. This is one of the more commonly spoken of differences between the Reformed and Lutheran approaches. Lutherans are more likely to leave things alone if not expressly taught while the Reformed are more willing to make deductions. A prime example is Lutheran single predestination with election and Reformed double predestination with both election and reprobation.
Everything in reformed theology is limited to the elect
Except for baptism 😜
@@jackcrow1204 Well….”The whole efficacy of baptism therefore-the whole of its saving use-is to be sought for in elect infants.” - Herman Witsius
The administration of baptism is given to all those who come to faith and to those under them who are being raised in the faith-disciples. However even baptismal efficacy is limited to the elect in Reformed theology. This is why we don’t hold to baptismal regeneration. Only the elect receive the benefits of their baptism.
@RevDonBaker sure, I get that
I understand that baptism does not have the same effect as it does in common baptist theology, nor does it have the same effect in lutheran theology. It works for the elect alone.
The Father elects individuals for salvation. The Son, through his life death and resurrection, accomplishes salvation. The Spirit applies salvation to the individuals and causes them to be born again in time and space. So, all of that is understood. Yet, Christ establishes the new Covenant, and in some sense, his death has an effect on all those in the New Covenant. Yet those benefits are given to those the Father did not elect, and the Spirit will not regenerate.
Wouldn't it make more sense in reformed theology that you would have the new covenant filled with only the elect? Otherwise, there is disunity. The father elects, the son established the promises to the new covenant (including those that the father did not elect and the spitit will not save), and the spirit regenerates
@ Ah I see what you mean. As in from a Reformed Baptist perspective with only administering baptism to the elect. We aren’t told to administer baptism only to the elect as that’s not something we can see. All we can see is discipleship. Adult converts become disciples upon a profession of faith and by baptism are marked off to nurtured in the covenant community. That nurturing will be effectual to the elect. Children of believers become disciples from infancy as parents are still commanded to raise their children in the nurture and discipline of the Lord. That nurturing as well will be effectual to the elect. All who are visibly in the covenant are heirs to the promise but only the elect receive it by faith.
@RevDonBaker you replied by justifying non elect infant baptism with what you believe scripture to command. Obviously, this dispute won't be solved in a YT comment section. 😂
However, I think it is important to note if the heart of reformed theology is trinitarian application to the elect alone, then the reformed baptist is even more reformed than the Presbyterian since they believe that this applies to the command to baptize as well.
@ But we don’t know which infants are non elect. Many adults who profess faith prove to be non elect as well. In fact the efficacy of the Word is also limited to the elect, but it wouldn’t be more Reformed to wait until someone gives evidence of election to preach the gospel to them. I’d also say that we have just as much reason to presume the election of a covenant child as we would a new convert. I recognize an adult convert to the faith as a Christian based on their profession, and I recognize a child born into the church as a Christian based on God’s promise to be God to us and to our children. That’s why we don’t baptized the children of unbelievers as that promise isn’t given to them. I honestly view the infants I baptize the same as I view the adults. I don’t know whether they’re elect or not, but they have the promises of the covenant made them which they are to receive by faith. It isn’t until either apostasies that I regard them as a Gentile or tax collector. I think the problem with Baptist theology is children of believers are viewed automatically as Gentiles when I don’t believe that’s what the New Covenant was meant to do.
Did this YT comment solve the dispute? haha Even if not, I really do appreciate you watching an even commenting. Reformed Baptists are one of our closest brothers in the faith.