"And you know you watch Growing Pains every night!" Classic!!! As a Reformed Baptist, I still agree with most of the video. Its a bit sad that I typically agree with Confessional Lutherans more than I would most Baptists. But hey...
@ShownMercy And Peter makes the same point in the verse you referenced, where in the flood, the wicked of the earth were drowned and Noah and his family came out of those waters to new life, and how that's what happens in baptism. The sinful nature is killed and a new nature arises. That's why Peter says "baptism now saves you."
Thanks so much for making and posting this video. I noticed the "pastor" start to clench his fists as the "Biblicist" repeated the mantra "the Bible doesn't... (fill in the blank with whatever was just said)" one too many times. I have felt that urge to clench my fists many times, as you probably have, also, when such tripe tumbles out of someone's mouth. It's all I can do to stay civil! Rock on.
My adorable Jesus, May our feet journey together. May our hands gather in unity. May our hearts beat in unison. May our souls be in harmony. May our thoughts be as one. May our ears listen to the silence together. May our glances profoundly penetrate each other. May our lips pray together to gain mercy from the Eternal Father. Amen.
I'll pray for you, too. Heavenly, Father, (or should I say "Father God I just wanna say") please bless the efforts of the video producer, than many more episodes may be forthcoming, and that we can all have a good laugh.
Something that’s been more and more obvious to me is the difference between faithfulness to scripture and biblicism. All the times I’ve talked to biblicists I’ve seen a common denominator is failing to understand their own traditions while attacking those of others.
@HeyMike7 1) yes, we aren't instructed to pray the Psalms, but if we pray them as David prayed them, then we are worshipping him with our hearts. 2) again, if we pray it with the Lord on our heart, then it is pleasing and acceptable in God's eyes. Your argument would also suggest that we shouldn't sing hymns or songs that someone else wrote. But then there goes over half of worship!
@ShownMercy If you've read Luther's Small Catechism, I don't understand why you'd say that he bases his entire argument for baptism on Mark 16 when he also quotes Matthew 28, Titus 3 and Romans 6. The Romans 6 passage makes clear that salvation, that dying to sin and rising to new life, happens in baptism. That's where Paul locates it. That's also what he says in Titus 3.
I just wish you would explain to me - or some Lutheran would - how it is that Stalin, Hitler, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Bundy, and millions of others who were baptized in infancy nonetheless died unredeemed. I ask this question as a PCA Presbyterian who was infant baptized in the Lutheran Church, is more sympathetic than not to the Lutheran view of communion, yet has never been able to reconcile this matter. Your videos, which I discovered only last week, are marvelous.
@@johnnyraymond429 But now you are making the insinuation that infant baptism directly saves the soul of the infant, and that they can only lose it later. This would mean that it is not the individual making the choice, as infants cannot understand much less choose salvation, but rather the community around the individual making the choice for them. That is simply not Biblical.
Also like Dick Van Dyke and Carrie Fisher! For "deezynar" - no one clinging to the simple, clear WORDS of Jesus and/or the Scriptures clings to errors! Of course, all depends on the correct exegesis and interpretation (letting the clear interpret the unclear and taking the words in their simple, direct sense), not adding to and not taking away, and not going BEYOND what is written! Fairly simple. The "Book of Concord" explains it all in super and correct detail!
In John Jesus is talking about the sins people committed against YOU not all of their sins. That's a message that runs through the entire new testament.
Great....I've posted on Facebook.... :-) My only suggestion? Use different voices for the two characters...they're too similar to tell apart.... But spot on for the conversation.... LOL
@ruckmaknight He says Baptism is the anti-type of the Flood. You are exactly right. Noah and his sons were not saved by getting wet. They were saved by being dry. And Peter says that Baptism is the anti-type. Anti-type means opposite picture or opposing image. So whatever the Flood did, Baptism does in the exact opposite way. If, as you have already clearly said, the figure had 8 people [called a few] NOT getting wet, then the mirror image would have a multitude of people getting wet.
I don't think you can apply the passage about the apostles to priests and pastors today. I mean if we were consent with that then priest and pastors should also be raising the dead. I think it's safe to assume that some abilities were given specifically to the apostles.
The first edition of the encyclopaedia Britannica (1771) says that all protestants either are, or should be, Biblists. E.g., those Christians who make the Scripture the sole rule of faith and practice. Oh, on Baptism, see 1 Cor 10:1-3 all Israel, including babies, were baptised into Moses.
HeyMike, 1. Jesus prayed the Psalms. 2. Just because people have memorized the words they pray doesn't mean they are repeating them mindlessly. 3. You don't seem to understand the Lutheran teaching of baptism. Lutherans do not believe baptism is an act of man, but an act of God. Parents bring their children to the waters of baptism, certainly, but baptism itself is God's work, not theirs.
As far as praying prewritten prayers goes. I think Jesus is referring to the nature of ideal prayers as opposed to this prayer specifically. And I would also put forward that prior to the Psalms presumably there were no prewritten prayers. While I think its ok to do a prewritten prayer, I don't think it should be considered essential for a church. And finally, I'll admit more personally, that reading off a script just feels less personal when praying.
@HeyMike7 All nations means that baptism is for everyone, if they want it. obviously, we can baptize infants without their consent because they aren't congnizant of what's happening. You can't recieve Holy Communion without believing in Christ and understanding the Word of God. This is why adults are baptized and youths are confirmed before recieving Holy Communion.
@brycepatties Christ is in us because we are in Christ. We are in Christ because we were baptized by Christ into His own death and resurrection. Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine whether Christ is in them and they in Christ. It is not a question of physical maturity. Christ in us and us in Christ is Baptism, the heavenly birth. Paul told the Corinthians to remember their Baptisms and to eat that bread, to drink that cup, in the Spirit of Baptism, not the spirit of their flesh.
@HeavenlyFloodofRegen "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself." 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. This means that the person recieving the Lord's Supper needs to understand that coming to the Lord's Supper unrepentant is a sin against Christ Himself. Kids will be kids, and they won't always understand the gravity of the Lord's Supper and its consequences.
@HeyMike7 That's what the verse, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" means. the Eunuch clearly believed what Philip had told him, therefore believing. He then was baptized. Therefore, the Eunuch was saved. You need to consider the context of the verse instead of blindly quoting it.
Isn't it interesting that parents give their children the family last name as soon as they are born. They do not wait until an "age of accountability" ( which is not biblical anyway) to allow them to make a decision to be a part of the family. In Genesis it is no mistake that only God walked between the parts when He made a covenant with Abraham. God is the covenant maker, initiator and keeper, Man is a covenant breaker.
@brycepatties You reason for yourself what he means. Let Paul interpret Paul. Later, to the same congregation in Corinth he writes, "Test yourselves, whether you are in the faith. Examine yourselves." 2 Corinthians 13:5 This alone shows that children can examine themselves. We examine them at Baptism. We speak the faith they believe but cannot articulate for the weakness of their childhood. But Paul makes it more clear, "Or don't you recognize yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?"
@brycepatties No. That's a double standard. Baptized children, even infants, believe in Christ and understand the Word of God. Or do you deny that "out of the mouths of nursing babes you have perfected praise"? John the Baptist as a fetus discerned the body of Christ really present in Mary. Also, the words of Christ, "Suffer the children come to Me and do not hinder them," apply to the Lord's Supper as well as Baptism.
@TheLutheranSatire.. "Not the putting away fo the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"...... Did the water save Noah and his family? Or, is it very OBVIOUS that the ARK saved Noah and his family? Heb 11:7 "prepared an ARK to the SAVING of his house"... The problem with Lutheran theology is that Martin Luther had a serious problem with only using half-verses. Its not prudent to build doctrine on half a verse.. Nevertheless, I love your videos. Great job. God bless
… Then finishes the sentence by saying that it is not as of washing of dirt from the body, but the answering of a clean conscience towards God. Therefore, could not be argued that baptism is, as you put it, a loving active obedience? Also, second Thessalonians does seem to preach the rapture, and even though the word Trinity is never used in the Bible, it is clearly taught.
@ruckmaknight John 3:5. Anyway, none of the verses talking about Jesus and incarnation have spinal cord, gravity, or carbon anywhere in the passage. Maybe it should of said if any man be IN A SPINELESS, FLOATING, NON-LIVING THING he is a new creature! Wow. That was easier than I thought. ...but seriously? βαπτιζω and βαπτισμα imply the presence of a liquid unless used figuratively, as our word soak. If I only say, "I'm soaked," what is the initial assumption? I'm soaked in love clearly!
@HeyMike7 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." The Eunuch had just been explained the Gospel. By asking this question, it is evident that he believed. Then he was baptized. Therefore, he has been saved. You need to consider the context of the story or verse instead of blindly rattling off a verse from memory.
@tharsiskenobi2 Well why don't Roman Catholics become Orthodox? We have valid apostolic succession, we are as old as you, and we don't have all the medieval accretions like purgatory, transubstantiation, the treasury of merit etc .. : )
People should read the Didache before they are allowed to read anything in the bible and if you think that is harsh in the early Church no one heard the words of Paul until they were Baptised
Jesus is not allowed to use metaphors? When Jesus says "This is my body", and "This is my blood', the purpose is clear: "Do this in *remembrance* of me". Jesus also said that He is the Rock - though no one would argue that this means that Jesus was made out of rock?
I believe you are mixing up your accounts. He renamed Simon as Peter, saying that on this rock (his confession of who Christ is) Jesus will build his church. I don't think he says that He is the rock. His other I am statements in John should be taken literally though. He is the Door, the only passage through which we can enter eternal life. He is the Vine, and we are the branches. Branches that are not connected to the vine are thrown into the fire and burned. He is the Good Shepard who lays down his life for his sheep - the church. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We do have the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Jesus. But that doesn't negate what he says about it actually being his body and blood - given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.
Bryce Van Velson When you take Matthew 16:18 in context, you will see that He is - in fact - making himself the Rock. The exact Greek words used in the text is "You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church." It is often lost in translations that Jesus is not using the same word when saying "on this rock I will build my church". The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. So clearly, when Jesus is saying "On this rock I will build my church", He is not referring to Peter, otherwise He would've used the same word. So what is this rock Jesus refers to? In the greater context, Jesus makes this statement in response to what Peter said: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”, to which Jesus replies: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Since Jesus say this in response to Peter's testamony, the "Rock" refers to that testamony: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God". That is what Jesus builds His church on, not on a mere man. And Peters own name "Petros" derive from his testamony: Since Peter builds his faith on the Rock, he himselfs becomes a rock, but not of the same type. Just as Christians are called "Christians" for their faith in Christ - thereby deriving their names from Christ, so too Peters name was derived from the Greater rock, that is Jesus. There are numerous verses that also confirms that it is infact Jesus who is the Petra. As for the rest of you remarks, no those are not literal. Jesus did not turn into an actual door, nor did he turn to an actual vine, and neither did he ever Shepard actual sheep. These are all metaphors used to explain actual spiritual truth: Just like a door is the only entrance into a building, Jesus is the only way into heaven. Just like the vine provide the life juices to the branches, so too Jesus provides us with spiritual life, without which we can't live. Just like a Shepard knows, care and protect His flock, so to Jesus knows, care and protect His people. In the same way, referring to the bread and wine as the blood and body of Christ is figurative. The communion is done in remembrance. Of what? The cross. It is through sacrifice of Jesus that we are saved, and as Hebrews says: He was sacrificed "Once and for all". In fact, Hebrews elaborate quite a bit by demonstrating that the Old Testament sacrifice had to be repeated, precisely because they were insufficient. And because the one sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient, it is not repeated. By making the bread and wine the literal blood and body of Christ, you are saying that Jesus is still repeatedly being sacrificed. That won't do. If that was the case, Jesus would not have said "Do this in remembrance of Me", He would've said "Do this for the forgiveness of your sins". Jesus's blood was shed. Once. On the cross. The wine is to remind us of that.
Hannodb1961 First, allow me to commend you for taking the time and interest to look up the original words in this text. You are correct that without doing so you cannot rightly understand the text. Unfortunately, you then draw conclusions that are contrary to text due to grammar. When Jesus says that "upon this rock I will build my church" it is important to note the grammar. The word Jesus uses is petra, a feminine noun. Jesus is therefore NOT referring to Himself but to Peter's CONFESSION of Jesus as The Christ (please note I use the caps not as screaming but simply for emphasis). While you are correct that it ultimately refers to Jesus the referent to the word "rock" employed by Jesus is the confession. Secondly, Is always means is. One of the most important rules for interpretation that everyone of us uses in everyday life, without which we could not communicate is: we always interpret the words in their normal, literal sense unless a figurative sense is indicated. In EVERY case in the Gospels where Jesus uses language of being a shepherd, door, vine, etc. He explains in the context how He is using the words. It is in the immediate context where we discover what "kind" of door Jesus is (to the Father in heaven); what kind of Shepherd (the one that watchers over His "sheep", the church), the nature of Him being The Vine (the source of true life without which we cannot help but die eternally), etc. In EVERY case (if you require me to illustrate them I would be happy to exegete the texts) we are told how the NOUN refers to Himself. In the Matt. 26 text on the Lord's Supper you err by insisting that the figure-of-speech is given, not in the noun, but in the state of being very, eimi. "This is . . ." Is always means is. You are making the same error that Zwingli made when insisting that Jesus meant that "this is" meant "represents, symbolizes, etc." THAT IS eisegesis. No where in the context does Jesus indicate that He is employing any manner of figures of speech. No where in the Bible does is/ "I am"/this is mean represents. That is imposing your own view upon the text in order for it to make sense to you. Jesus is God! If Jesus says something is, it is! This is nothing more than rank rationalism. Try using your logic on a text such as Matt. 3:17: "This is my beloved Son" which by your way of reading "This represents my beloved Son." You would undoubtedly argue, "No, no. There is means is." However, how do you know. Since you interpret is as represents according to no actual rule but your own reason, then why cannot someone else (who denies that Jesus is the Son of God) insist that there is means represents. You would then be left with no logical argument against such a practice. Please understand, I mean no offense, it is simply the truth of the matter. And when Jesus talks about doing this "in remembrance of Him" He does not mean to keep thinking about it. Remember, the Bible was not written in English to our culture. When Jesus uses this language He is using it as we see it throughout the O.T. Whenever the text says that "and God remembered His covenant . . ." to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. it means that He is DOING something. God is not simply "thinking" about words He once spoke but it is a Hebraism indicating that God is taking some action. So too, in our Matthew text when Jesus calls us to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM" He is using language admonishing us to do what He has called us to do, receive the Lord's Supper which is His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. When you insist that it cannot be His actual body and blood but MUST be a reference to His blood on the cross, that is a rationalistic response, not a biblical one. Allow me to quote on this issue from a man who for 40 years was a Baptist pastor, high-up in the ranks, one responsible for ordaining more than 500 men for ministry in the Baptist church. Pastor Dennis McFadden is now an LCMS pastor. Why would a man of 60 years of age switch from being a Baptist to a Lutheran? Here is only part of his answer. "What would lead a 60-year-old to walk the Wittenberg Trail? How does one make such a significant journey when he has logged a lifetime as a Baptist, nearly 40 years as a Baptist minister, a current position as the president and CEO of a large Baptist affiliated retirement home ministry, not to mention a son who pastors a large evangelical church and a daughter who teaches Bible in an evangelical high school? "For more than three decades, it was my role on a judicatory committee to examine 500 candidates for ordination in the Baptist Church and to certify them ready. Yet doubts nagged at me and left me disquieted. Evangelicalism seemed so earnest, yet dependent on flimsy human efforts and beset with a thoroughly moralistic orientation; fervent in its desire to experience God, yet stunningly shallow in its theory of how to do it; proclaiming to be "Bible-centered," yet forced to practice hermeneutical gymnastics in order to reconcile the witness of the biblical record with our teaching, particularly our non-sacramental interpretations. Evangelicalism as practiced in America suffers from moralism, mysticism and rationalism. This critique appears commonly enough in Lutheran writings. However, it accurately reflects my experience on the ground as an evangelical insider of nearly six decades who served in leadership in numerous evangelical congregations, denominational posts and institutions. "Coupled with the moralism, evangelical practice eschews the biblical means of grace in favor of immediacy in the experience of the divine. Revivalism and the Second Great Awakening helped create the modern American mind; and yet the American mind, with its voluntarism and individualism, powerfully defined and shaped the modern religious experience of Americans as well. The resulting direction is one of a faith turned inward and inveterately individualistic. Rather than expecting to meet God in the objectivity of the Word and the Sacraments, evangelicals seek an audience that takes place in the subjectivity and inner recesses of the human heart. In place of a mediated means of grace, evangelicals crave an immediacy of a mystical sort. In charismatic and Pentecostal circles, this type of connection with God can come with experiences ranging from "words of knowledge" and prophetic visions to the ever-present evidence of speaking in tongues. For non-charismatic evangelicals, the pattern may involve more Keswickian, or holiness style, spirituality or simply the individualized decisional theology of revivalism. "The lack of sacramentology and the tendency toward moralism, mysticism and rationalism led me to begin a quest to re-examine our Reformational roots. As a Baptist, it was not too difficult to read Calvin. Even in its most non-Calvinistic instantiation, the theological architecture of Baptist theology follows closely the forms and patterns of the great Reformer of Geneva. And with the growing interest in Reformed theology among evangelicals, Baptists like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Al Mohler were not much different from more Presbyterian R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton or other five-point Calvinists. "Luther, however, was a tougher read. He sounded more medieval, less modern; more bombastic, less moderate; more radical, less incremental. Yet Luther’s stubborn insistence on being Christ-centered, cross-centered, catholic and always delivering forgiveness to comfort troubled consciences won me over. His doctrine of vocation, theology of the cross and hammering away at God’s use of Word and Sacraments as the means of grace were transformational. Both my wife and I yearned to participate in a church that fit our theology." [From Baptist Minister to Lutheran: My Six-Decade Journey on the Wittenberg Trail! by Dennis McFadden!]
Rick Pettey I'm going to apologize in advance if my post seem a bit chaotic and long. I've got a lot to say, and very little time to order my thoughts. It would only be fair to say where I'm coming from: I'm Reformed (Calvinist), and I'm not a nominal Christian either. Through personal struggles with sin, I found the practical application of the Gospel in my live: That salvation is through grace, and good deeds is the unavoidable result of gratitude. Having said that, most of what you wrote is completely irrelevant at the topic at hand. I would completely agree that traditionalism on the one hand, and Pentecostalism on the other hand is a serious problem in all denominations (Including Lutheran), and is nothing new. We already read in Malachi of the Jews who lost the heart of their religion, and what remained was just an empty shell of rituals. When I listen to dr James White from Alpha & Omega ministries, I get the impression that the Baptist church is somewhat of the default denomination in America, and dr White (himself a Reformed Baptist) does not shy away to criticize the shallowness in this denomination. Getting to the topic at hand, I find myself agreeing with your interpretation of Matt 16, so there is no argument there. Regarding your interpretation of the metaphors, I must disagree. I would argue that it is you who have tradition clouding your interpretation. When Jesus says: "I am the door", then no further contextual evidence is needed to prove that it is a metaphor. Clearly, Jesus is both God and a human being. No Christian would seriously entertain the idea that Jesus ever was, or ever will be a genuine physical wooden door with a nob and keyhole, either here on earth, or in heaven. The same applies for bread and wine. When Jesus uttered these words, He clearly was in human form, and He was not made of bread and wine, nor did he spill his wine on the cross. It is perfectly consistent with the rest of my interpretation to take this as a metaphor. Given the obvious figurative nature of the language used, I would argue it is you who performs isogesis by making something literal, even when the text does not warrant it. This especially in the light of Jesus himself giving the purpose of the Communion: "Do this in remembrance of me". (Further contextual evidence for this is given below when I discuss the Passover) Your refutation of "remembrance" is seriously flawed, because you equate God's remembrance of His Covenant with Jesus's commandment to us to remember His crucifixion. Surely, you can't be using an action of God - which is obviously not the same thing as human remembrance - as the reason for saying that Jesus doesn't mean "remembrance" when He says "do this in remembrance of me"? So, in effect, you have to turn "Do this in remembrance of me" into a metaphor, so you can have a literal Jesus in the bread and wine. How is this kind of exegesis consistent with anything else in the Bible? You are turning obviously literal passages into figurative, so you can make this one figurative passage literal. But that's not all. There is more contextual evidence that this is meant as figurative In John 6, Jesus uses quite banal language: _"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”_ This is clearly figurative language, since the disciples didn't start chewing on Jesus after these words. They clearly understood the spiritual intent of the words, as Peter said: _"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”_ Clearly, Peter understood Jesus to be referring to His own words (As Peter did not yet know about the fulfillment of these words on the cross.) Indeed, Jesus Himself gave the proper context when He said: _"Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. Very truly I tell you, _*_the one who believes has eternal life._*_ I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die."_ Jesus Himself is equating the "Eating of his flesh and drinking of His blood" with "believing in Jesus". But you would say: No, Jesus means this literally, as He is speaking of the bread and the wine of Communion, but there is a problem with this: Jesus did not yet introduce the communion, so, when he said these words, the context of communion did not exist yet. This is not to say that these words would not have a future fulfillment, but that fulfillment is in the actual work of salvation on the cross, not in the communion, which is just a representation of the cross. Even so, if you want to apply these words to the bread and wine of communion, you are still making Jesus's words figurative, for Jesus spoke of his flesh and his blood, not of the bread and wine that would become his flesh and blood. You are therefore not being consistent with your hermeneutic. But all of this is just details. There is a much more important reason to reject transubstantiation: It doesn't fit Biblical theology. Paul wrote: "For by grace you have been saved through faith". This is the running theme in all the Apostolic Letters: Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ who substituted Himself by paying our penalty for sin. How does the physical presence of Christ in bread and wine fit in with this? What is its function? How does it operate? Why would Jesus choose to indwell bread and wine - to be consumed by us, when we already have the Holy Spirit that indwells in us? Could one be saved by partaking the communion? Could one be lost for failing to partake in it? What role does our choosing to partake in it or not play in our election and salvation? Why - if this is a necessity for salvation, does it not find a more central place in the apostolic letters? Outside the Gospels, there is only one reference (maybe two, but none of which I can think of now) to the Communion in the apostolic letters. In contrast, the Apostolic letters hammers the point that salvation is through grace and faith alone, and that God already dwells in us - not the bread. *we* are the temple of God. The letter of Hebrews likewise refers to the salvathic work of Christ in the past tense. This wouldn't make sense if it's still continuing in the communion. Then there is the example of circumcision. The Jews mistakenly believed that this ordinance from God was a requirement for salvation, when God clearly explained to them that it is merely an outward sign of an inward reality: _For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter._ God frequently explained that what mattered was the circumcision of the heart, while the physical circumcision was just a physical sign and reminder of that inward reality. Likewise, God gave the Israelites many ordinances that was meant for remembrance of God's work: The Passover is another example. Surely, Israel wasn't repeatedly freed from Egypt everytime they ate from it - it was a reminder of what God did once in the past. The Passover also foreshadowed Christ, and was replaced with the communion: Just as the Passover was a remembrance of Israel's liberation from Egypt, the Communion is the *remembrance* of our liberation from sin. The fact that Passover is the root of Communion, gives further contextual evidence that the communion is for remembrance only. Then there is the sacrificial animals. In the Law, it is stated that these sacrifices was meant to atone for the sins of Israel, but in Hebrews, it's made clear that these sacrifices could never atone for sins. Rather they were the reminder of sins, and the sign of the actual sacrifice to come: the Lord Jesus himself. When the Lord has so often implemented so many symbolic rituals in the past that was designed to remind the people of God of something, why should we make a sudden break in our interpretation of communion? Jesus payed for my sins on the cross in full - what does my eating of bread and wine contribute to that? Transubstantiation strikes me as an odd false note that is at odds with the rest of Lutheran theology, and which is a relic from it's Catholic origins. There is no reason for Christ to be present in the bread and wine, especially when He is present in us. It doesn't make sense, either from a exegetical or a theological point of view.
Hannodb1961 thank you for a most thoughtful and irenic response. As I have a lot on my plate at the moment I will only briefly respond to two issues. First, Lutherans do not teach transubstantiation. Nor do we teach consubstantiation. It is frustrating how many times Reformed folk accuse us of either one or the other. We reject both. We have no technical words describing the Lord's Supper except to say that it is the actual, true body and blood of Jesus Christ on account of the Word. As a confessional Lutheran I believe that God's Word is efficacious. (Is. 55:10,11). Secondly, your argument about why the bread and wine cannot be Christ's actual body and blood is based on nothing more than rationalism. While you rightly believe that all the sacrifices in the O.T. were to point to Christ (the message of much of Hebrews), you make declarations that simply are not supported by Scripture. Point, by point, you go to great lengths as to why the bread and wine cannot be Christ's body and blood. However, missing in your argument is any text from Scripture that says that it the case. As a Lutheran I never read a text and say that that cannot mean such and such (i.e., John 3:5ff - regarding baptism) because . . . To do so is to place reason over God's Word. Though I have no doubt as to your Christian faith, and take you at your word therefore regarding you as a brother in Christ (as with those with whom I studied at the Southern Baptist University in West Palm Beach, FL. PBAU), your words further convince me that you are mired in rationalism, as was Calvin. (i.e., "There is no reason for Christ to be present in the bread and wine") That was the point of Pastor McFadden as to why he is now a Lutheran. His switch was not for emotional reasons, (i.e., he liked our liturgy, he felt more comfortable with our practice, etc.) . It was solely him being finally convinced that Luther, unlike Calvin, though he had to use reason (we all do of course), it was God's Word that determined what he believed. Again, I thank you for a most thoughtful exchange, not unlike many I had at the University (being the only Lutheran in the pre-ministerial program). If you are so inclined I would be happy to continue this next week. I must now continue my preparations for the Divine Service tomorrow, especially as we are celebrating the Reformation tomorrow (Friday being All Hallows Eve, the day Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg). Pax.
@kalathetrumpeter.... So you reject Acts 8:13 yet Luther's whole doctrine of baptism is based upon Mark 16:16, (see Larger Catechism section 4) which also is not in early manuscripts. Please don't be a hypocrite when rejecting certain parts of God's Word. God bless
Where in the Bible does it say "Baptism now saves you"? Oh, you mean 1 Peter 3:21 which says "The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"?
Nice use of one of the least accurate translations of the Bible into English we have. Breakout an ESV or an NASB or even an NIV. They are all highly regarded in the community of scholars who work on Biblical interpretation from Greek and Hebrew into English.
4. (continued) This position is further supported by 1 Cor 10, when Paul talks about how all of Israel was baptized into Moses when passing through the Red Sea. A whole bunch of babies were baptized into Moses there. 5. The idea that baptism is a symbol stands in stark contrast to the testimony of Scripture. In Romans 6, Paul directly states that dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ happens IN baptism. He says the same thing in Titus 3.
4. Furthermore, the argument about "all nations including infants" is simply meant to show that the Jewish understanding of "nations" included infants, and therefore that infants were eligible to be baptized. Likewise, when Paul, in Colossians 2, speaks of baptism as a circumcision made without hands, that also indicates that infants ought to be baptized, as Israelite boys were circumcised at 8 days old...
+David Dee So it was in Matthew 28 when Christ delivered the great commission. Is the responsibility to make disciples therefore restricted to the 11 only?
+Andrew Clover The idea of that message is the disciples will make disciples if you know how that whole plan of Jesus' on making disciples works, so your citation was just a bad example to use for making an argument for your case, Patrick! Come on, Patrick!
***** Jesus was not talking about the church in John 20. Jesus was not talking about pastors in the church in John 20. The "you" is the apostles. Apostles are not the same thing as pastors. The Great Commission was initially given to the 11, but it included making and teaching disciples, which would include those disciples making other disciples. Additionally, the rest of the books of the New Testament contains many commands for all members of the church to spread the gospel (i.e. make disciples). What they do not contain is anything equating an apostle to a pastor nor anything about a pastor forgiving sins.
@TheLutheranSatire.... I was really hoping that you would address the comment I addressed to you... Yes, I have read many of Luther's works. I have many Lutheran friends that I love dearly, even though they are narcissist!! LoL! Alright, address my question and then we will talk about scriptures used to clear the conscience of ML... God bless.
No, not really, the thinking on this (from my understanding at least) is that God forgives the congregant through the priest so for a confession to actually be vallid the one making said confession has to have sincere resolve to change his/her ways
@@corylittrell2109 I guess, from a prot view, I don't understand why the priest needs to do that and the believer can't just confess their sin directly to God.
This is more a Video about evangelicals than Biblicists. I know, I grew up in The Churches Of Christ. They are Restoration and thus very Biblicist. However, if you told them the word Rapture is not in the Bible, neither is the Sinners Prayer, or inviting Jesus into your Heart, they'd agree with you. Te Churches Of Chist don't do that. So thi is really of limited Utility and should be called "Evangelical" and not "Biblicist".
Lutheran friends: Stop suffering. Admit Sola Scriptura makes no sense at all and be very welcome at Christ's true and only church: the Catholic Church. We really don't owe explanations to any radical protestant about something being in the Bible or not, because we have the Apostles' Tradition, from which the Sacred Scriptures theirselves came. :)
During Jesus ministry He healed and cast out demons. Those miracles are directly related to forgiving sins. This is kind of the point of Mat. 9:5. Jesus sends out His disciples with the power to cast out demons...not unrelated to forgiving sins. Jesus ordains the apostles to go out and forgive sins as the fulfillment of what he sent them out to do the first time. Still, it is not them, but Christ through them. "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me." Mk 9:37
@ruckmaknight Would you suffer me to become Mr. Grammar? The word αντιτυπον::anti-type is functioning as an adjective modifying the relative pronoun. The relative pronoun needs an antecedent. It has no meaning otherwise. The antecedent of this relative pronoun is ὐδατος::water. Please my good man, understand that Peter says the water of Baptism saves you. We Lutherans say Baptism now saves you to make it shorter for our amnesiac brains. We also really hate all that ex opere operato jazz.
My response would be I disagree with your view of Baptism as long as you believe in salvation by grace through the completed work of Christ upon the cross and not of works and the fundamentals of the faith guess what you are my brother ,I am not going to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.And as a Freewill Baptist pastor,I have a confession,For most of my life (I was raised a Southern Baptist and pastored SBC churches but could not accept the greasy Grace that was taking hold say a few words repeat after me and bam you are saved so keep on sinning your in )anyway I taught the "rapture" as a future event,but in the last 3 years or so I have come to the conclusion that this is an erroneous teaching and anyway did not Jesus tell us that if we live Godly in Christ we would suffer persecution?Job suffered why? because he was a just and Godly man,so what makes the modern church think she will escape persecution?My only question is how will the church age end and those 144000 Jewish evangelist become the voice of repentance with the church still here?I really would like some feedback on this thanks.
This video is hypocritical because in the video where the "wrong guy" claimed that baptism is a public testimony, you said that this was never mentioned in the Bible, and yet you ridicule the same kind of logic here.
No it's not. This video is pointing out that Lutheran practice is closer to early Christianity than most so-called Sola Scriptura religions. They teach a bunch of things that aren't in the Bible, and then demand that other religions give proof texts for everything they do. Nothing could be more hypocritical than that.
Normally I love the Lutheran Satire. Sometimes however funny as it may be , the argument made is just wrong. Using the precise same logic in this video, one can justify baptizing cats, dogs and trees. Just to be clear; one is saved by grace alone through faith alone. This is an imputed action by God. Otherwise the man next to Christ on the Cross would not have been with him that very same day in paradise.
It's Sacramental. God works through means, in this case he works HIS FORGIVENESS via the spoken word of a cleric ('whoever's sin you bind, will be bound in heaven... and whoever's sin you loose, will be loosed in heaven).
Yes he did say that. Office of the Keys Matthew 18:18-20 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:21-23
Part of being a Christian is belonging to a community of believers whose faith is in Jesus Christ (John 17) and whose doctrines are in line with Scripture. You do need time to praise and surrender to God on your own, but an essential part of the Christian Life is community.
Nope its a collective thing. The book of acts and the epistles make it clear (through implication) that part of the christian life is active participation in the church and community. Not necessary for salvation but important none the less.
Andrew Hoffer Where to begin. Well, first of all, the issues brought up by the objecting person are very superficial issues, for the most part. The defenses from the pastor are likewise quite superficial. FYI, I am not currently a Lutheran but was one for many years. I don't have any particular problem with Lutherans. I actually loved those years. One issue brought up in the video was baptizing babies. The objector states that the Bible doesn't say to baptize babies. This is a fact. The pastor's reply was shallow and not accurate. His response was merely that "all nations" includes infants. He doesn't even bother to actually quote the biblical reference in its context. The verse in its entirety states: "Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat 28:19). He leaves out the part about teaching all nations. You can't teach an infant. You must teach them first, then baptize. All of the people baptized in the Bible were adults. There is absolutely no biblical justification for baptizing babies. Yet the Lutherans and several other denominations continue to do it. However, there is a big problem with baptizing infants that goes far beyond the issue of whether or not it is biblical. People who are raised in this kind of tradition grow up with the idea that they were automatically saved because they were baptized as infants. They are completely unaware of the need to come to Christ on their own and establish their relationship with Him through faith. They are led to think that because they "confess" faith in liturgical liturgy each week that they have salvation. They have no idea what the gospel really is or the biblical plan of salvation. The traditions and rituals replace personal accountability and true faith. I have sat through countless sermons by Lutheran pastors wherein the gospel was never presented. In fact, the Bible was rarely quoted or even referred to. They would quote Time Magazine, TV shows, news articles, statements by non-Christian philosophers, etc., but left out the Bible entirely. They would tell people how they should be encouraged and how to love themselves and maybe that God "loved" them, but they were never really given the gospel or any biblical teaching. This takes me back to the original scripture passage that the "pastor" in the video referred to but never quoted: "Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Many Lutheran pastors are big on baptizing infants, but they are very remiss when it comes to teaching. There are countless "Christians" sitting in churches who think they are okay because they were baptized and confirmed and go through the liturgy each week, but they have no idea what the gospel really is. They hear Bible passages read during the liturgy but never even crack open a Bible to read on their own. I remember one time when I was at the Lutheran church and started talking to one of the members. She told me she was an atheist. She had been raised in that church and had been baptized, etc., yet she proclaimed she was an atheist. I asked her why she bothered coming to church. She told me because the building and stained glass window and the music were so beautiful. It made her "feel good." And that is just one of the things mentioned in this video. Does that help?
+dooglitas I am sorry about your experience with the Lutheran Church, but mind you that your experience with one pastor or one church (or even several of either) does not necessarily have much to do with the purity of the doctrine they should be preaching (or lack thereof) and the Lutheran Church is doing what it can to remove this sort of stuff. Nevertheless, a satire video of like 3 minutes in length doesn't obviously capture everything on the topic there is to know, especially when it's not even the main point of that three minute video. The point of the video is that you have to interpret the Bible a bit beyond the direct words of what it says and can't conclude the Bible doesn't say something about a particular topic just because your CNTRL-F search yielded no results for a particular term. You can ignore this section explaining my views on infant baptism as it's not complete as it could be, but there are some great resources explaining this view put out by good Lutheran pastors who know their stuff. 1 Peter 3 does tell Christians that baptism now saves us. Ephesians 2:8-10 makes it clear that grace through faith saves us. Thus, baptism acts to do two things; give us faith and give us God's grace. God's grace is not something that is exclusively for infants. I usually find in my discussions with those whom reject infant baptism to not believe that baptism saves (as 1 Peter 3 says it does). If it does save, we absolutely should baptize infants because not doing so would be to argue, "I will not use water (baptism) to save you from the fires (sin) until you are old enough to choose." I mean firemen would not hold their jobs very long if they used that logic.
Andrew Hoffer I did not say that all Lutheran pastors were as I stated. I did hear some very good ones. But the issue I bring up is a valid one. It is a big problem in Lutheranism and many other traditions. "The point of the video is that you have to interpret the Bible a bit beyond the direct words of what it says and can't conclude the Bible doesn't say something about a particular topic just because your CNTRL-F search yielded no results for a particular term." This is true. I don't necessarily disagree. However, if something is not in the Bible in principle or if something is contrary to what the Bible does say, then it should be rejected. Also, any part of the Bible should be interpreted in its historical context its textual context and in context with the entirety of the Bible. My mention of infant baptism was only one of the issues. I didn't go into others because it would make the comment too long. You mention salvation by faith. The answer in the video concerning "all nations" was taken out of context and ignored the fact that Jesus commanded to teach first, then baptize. Infants are incapable of being taught. Therefore, they should not be baptized. 1 Peter 3:21 does state that baptism saves. However, you did not mention the very important part of the passage where Peter clearly states: "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." How can an infant have an answer of a good conscience toward God? Baptism by itself does not save. It is worthless without the conscience answering to God. It is useless if it is not accompanied by faith and teaching. Your metaphor of a fireman is not accurate. Baptism is not the same thing. If baptism were some magically powerful act that could save without the necessity of faith and "the answer of a good conscience to God," then why not go around forcing everyone to be baptized? Then they could be saved whether they wanted to or not. Go through public places grabbing people and sprinkling water on them. The Catholic church has done this in the past. Your argument is unsound on this issue. It leads people to a false sense of security and prevents them from coming to true faith in Christ. Instead of saving them from the "fire," you are actually making it nearly impossible to truly save them because they think they already are.
+dooglitas I mean Lutherans don't argue baptism itself is all we need for salvation. We argue it's a means by which we physically receive the grace of God so we can know of His presence. The word for this is also "sacrament." Now I take it we have no real disagreement in the words of Ephesians I stated before. However, I do not find the claim that "having a clean conscience before God" speaks against infant baptism and I find the context of the passage doesn't easily allow that interpretation either. It appears to me we have a clean concious before God because we receive His grace in baptism and since we receive His grace in baptism, we are turned to Jesus. No, baptism itself does not save. It gives us grace and faith (since we do need both for salvation). I feel as though my baptism (though it be a Catholic baptism) is one of the many ways I know God has instilled grace into me and I know the Holy Spirit has created faith in me. Thus the "clear conscience" that is talked about is in my opinion clearly referring to how we can have a clean conscience because we receive grace and again, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the Bible that says infants cannot receive God's grace.
"And you know you watch Growing Pains every night!" Classic!!!
As a Reformed Baptist, I still agree with most of the video. Its a bit sad that I typically agree with Confessional Lutherans more than I would most Baptists. But hey...
Yeah, Reformed "BIblicism" is usually a fair bit smarter than other evangelicals
doing so :)
This is why I'm an Anglican or Catholic Lite if you will
Love these videos. As a Catholic I had no idea how close we are.
God Bless!
Sola Fidae
become Luderan (evangelical catholic)
Actually while the word trinity is not mentioned in scripture the concept of a trinity is very clearly spelled out
@ShownMercy And Peter makes the same point in the verse you referenced, where in the flood, the wicked of the earth were drowned and Noah and his family came out of those waters to new life, and how that's what happens in baptism. The sinful nature is killed and a new nature arises. That's why Peter says "baptism now saves you."
"I'll pray for you" after a long awkward silence. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have seen this video dozens of times over the better part of a decade and I just noticed that there is milk in the water cooler!
Me (as a Baptist): sees comment debates between Lutherans and Catholics.
*Grabs Popcorn*
Thanks so much for making and posting this video. I noticed the "pastor" start to clench his fists as the "Biblicist" repeated the mantra "the Bible doesn't... (fill in the blank with whatever was just said)" one too many times. I have felt that urge to clench my fists many times, as you probably have, also, when such tripe tumbles out of someone's mouth. It's all I can do to stay civil! Rock on.
One of the best. Thank you for Law & Gospel!
My adorable Jesus,
May our feet journey together.
May our hands gather in unity.
May our hearts beat in unison.
May our souls be in harmony.
May our thoughts be as one.
May our ears listen to the silence together.
May our glances profoundly penetrate each other.
May our lips pray together to gain mercy from the Eternal Father. Amen.
"that footprints poem"
genius
The first time I read the Didache it blew my mind.
I'll pray for you, too. Heavenly, Father, (or should I say "Father God I just wanna say") please bless the efforts of the video producer, than many more episodes may be forthcoming, and that we can all have a good laugh.
thanks from an Episcopalian who feels the same frustration with fundamentalists who don't consider me Christian!
I mean there's myriad of unbiblical reasons Episcopalians are anathema.
Something that’s been more and more obvious to me is the difference between faithfulness to scripture and biblicism. All the times I’ve talked to biblicists I’ve seen a common denominator is failing to understand their own traditions while attacking those of others.
jmj I love the growing pains song at the end!!! too much!!!
Ephesians 5 does actually use 'mysterion' (rendered sacramentum in Latin)
@HeyMike7
1) yes, we aren't instructed to pray the Psalms, but if we pray them as David prayed them, then we are worshipping him with our hearts.
2) again, if we pray it with the Lord on our heart, then it is pleasing and acceptable in God's eyes.
Your argument would also suggest that we shouldn't sing hymns or songs that someone else wrote. But then there goes over half of worship!
Thank you. You spared me the effort to say exactly what you said. --see you on the other side.
@ShownMercy If you've read Luther's Small Catechism, I don't understand why you'd say that he bases his entire argument for baptism on Mark 16 when he also quotes Matthew 28, Titus 3 and Romans 6.
The Romans 6 passage makes clear that salvation, that dying to sin and rising to new life, happens in baptism. That's where Paul locates it. That's also what he says in Titus 3.
I just wish you would explain to me - or some Lutheran would - how it is that Stalin, Hitler, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Bundy, and millions of others who were baptized in infancy nonetheless died unredeemed.
I ask this question as a PCA Presbyterian who was infant baptized in the Lutheran Church, is more sympathetic than not to the Lutheran view of communion, yet has never been able to reconcile this matter.
Your videos, which I discovered only last week, are marvelous.
@@johnnyraymond429 But now you are making the insinuation that infant baptism directly saves the soul of the infant, and that they can only lose it later. This would mean that it is not the individual making the choice, as infants cannot understand much less choose salvation, but rather the community around the individual making the choice for them. That is simply not Biblical.
Both sides have good points, and both sides cling to errors.
Also like Dick Van Dyke and Carrie Fisher! For "deezynar" - no one clinging to the simple, clear WORDS of Jesus and/or the Scriptures clings to errors! Of course, all depends on the correct exegesis and interpretation (letting the clear interpret the unclear and taking the words in their simple, direct sense), not adding to and not taking away, and not going BEYOND what is written! Fairly simple. The "Book of Concord" explains it all in super and correct detail!
Haha love this :) keep em' coming!
This is awesome!
to many stand on tradition and do not want to build on the rock.
Kevin Costner I can agree on, but James Van Der Beek? That was totally uncalled for!
In response to Ricky Bobby. Means of Justification of Faith, blows the similarities out of the water…sadly. Check Ephesians 2: 8-10. Soli Deo Gloria!
Not the footprints poem 😭
lol i love the part about the stuff that comes out of kirk camerons mouth. so true he doesnt say much biblical stuff.
I love this.
You should consider putting the biblical references you use in the descriptions of the video.
awesome video
In John Jesus is talking about the sins people committed against YOU not all of their sins. That's a message that runs through the entire new testament.
Great....I've posted on Facebook.... :-) My only suggestion? Use different voices for the two characters...they're too similar to tell apart.... But spot on for the conversation.... LOL
Thank you
These voices are so funny
It's *supposed to be* lame. THat's what makes it so good!
@ruckmaknight He says Baptism is the anti-type of the Flood. You are exactly right. Noah and his sons were not saved by getting wet. They were saved by being dry. And Peter says that Baptism is the anti-type. Anti-type means opposite picture or opposing image. So whatever the Flood did, Baptism does in the exact opposite way. If, as you have already clearly said, the figure had 8 people [called a few] NOT getting wet, then the mirror image would have a multitude of people getting wet.
Right. On. The. Money!
The word "prooftexting" isn't in the Bible either and yet here we see it in action!
It's a 3 minute, satirical cartoon dude. Some assumptions are going to have to be made. Lighten up.
awesome
I don't think you can apply the passage about the apostles to priests and pastors today. I mean if we were consent with that then priest and pastors should also be raising the dead. I think it's safe to assume that some abilities were given specifically to the apostles.
The first edition of the encyclopaedia Britannica (1771) says that all protestants either are, or should be, Biblists. E.g., those Christians who make the Scripture the sole rule of faith and practice. Oh, on Baptism, see 1 Cor 10:1-3 all Israel, including babies, were baptised into Moses.
HeyMike,
1. Jesus prayed the Psalms.
2. Just because people have memorized the words they pray doesn't mean they are repeating them mindlessly.
3. You don't seem to understand the Lutheran teaching of baptism. Lutherans do not believe baptism is an act of man, but an act of God. Parents bring their children to the waters of baptism, certainly, but baptism itself is God's work, not theirs.
@ShownMercy Have you read Luther's Small Catechism?
As far as praying prewritten prayers goes. I think Jesus is referring to the nature of ideal prayers as opposed to this prayer specifically. And I would also put forward that prior to the Psalms presumably there were no prewritten prayers. While I think its ok to do a prewritten prayer, I don't think it should be considered essential for a church. And finally, I'll admit more personally, that reading off a script just feels less personal when praying.
Brilliant. Not being able to dialogue with Hans, I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it is still funny.
@HeyMike7 All nations means that baptism is for everyone, if they want it. obviously, we can baptize infants without their consent because they aren't congnizant of what's happening. You can't recieve Holy Communion without believing in Christ and understanding the Word of God. This is why adults are baptized and youths are confirmed before recieving Holy Communion.
To bad my Lutheran brothers and sisters reject Matthew 16:18
God love you
We don't reject it; it simply doesn't mean what you think it does
ruclips.net/video/znTo8uH4Tw8/видео.html
@brycepatties Christ is in us because we are in Christ. We are in Christ because we were baptized by Christ into His own death and resurrection. Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine whether Christ is in them and they in Christ. It is not a question of physical maturity. Christ in us and us in Christ is Baptism, the heavenly birth. Paul told the Corinthians to remember their Baptisms and to eat that bread, to drink that cup, in the Spirit of Baptism, not the spirit of their flesh.
Baptism is efficacious. The fact that some people reject the Word of God does not detract from the power of either the Word or Baptism.
I am sure the John 20 19-23 was going to get some debate in here. But seems people did not see a reason to or everybody bypassed it :)
@HeavenlyFloodofRegen "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself." 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. This means that the person recieving the Lord's Supper needs to understand that coming to the Lord's Supper unrepentant is a sin against Christ Himself. Kids will be kids, and they won't always understand the gravity of the Lord's Supper and its consequences.
Like it!
That's quite an overreach to claim the disciples acting in place of Christ have the same powers and abilities of Pastor Jim's bible tent.
Is that a True Detective deference?
@HeyMike7 That's what the verse, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" means. the Eunuch clearly believed what Philip had told him, therefore believing. He then was baptized. Therefore, the Eunuch was saved. You need to consider the context of the verse instead of blindly quoting it.
How does one without language declare?
John 20:19-23 Doesn't even come close to saying that pastors can forgive sins. This is just one of the reasons I left Roman/Lutheran/Catholicism.
How does 1 Timothy 3:16 refer to saying Creeds?
Isn't it interesting that parents give their children the family last name as soon as they are born. They do not wait until an "age of accountability" ( which is not biblical anyway) to allow them to make a decision to be a part of the family. In Genesis it is no mistake that only God walked between the parts when He made a covenant with Abraham. God is the covenant maker, initiator and keeper, Man is a covenant breaker.
@brycepatties You reason for yourself what he means. Let Paul interpret Paul. Later, to the same congregation in Corinth he writes, "Test yourselves, whether you are in the faith. Examine yourselves." 2 Corinthians 13:5 This alone shows that children can examine themselves. We examine them at Baptism. We speak the faith they believe but cannot articulate for the weakness of their childhood. But Paul makes it more clear, "Or don't you recognize yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?"
@brycepatties No. That's a double standard. Baptized children, even infants, believe in Christ and understand the Word of God. Or do you deny that "out of the mouths of nursing babes you have perfected praise"? John the Baptist as a fetus discerned the body of Christ really present in Mary. Also, the words of Christ, "Suffer the children come to Me and do not hinder them," apply to the Lord's Supper as well as Baptism.
@TheLutheranSatire.. "Not the putting away fo the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"...... Did the water save Noah and his family? Or, is it very OBVIOUS that the ARK saved Noah and his family? Heb 11:7 "prepared an ARK to the SAVING of his house"... The problem with Lutheran theology is that Martin Luther had a serious problem with only using half-verses. Its not prudent to build doctrine on half a verse.. Nevertheless, I love your videos. Great job.
God bless
… Then finishes the sentence by saying that it is not as of washing of dirt from the body, but the answering of a clean conscience towards God. Therefore, could not be argued that baptism is, as you put it, a loving active obedience? Also, second Thessalonians does seem to preach the rapture, and even though the word Trinity is never used in the Bible, it is clearly taught.
Baptising the nations doesn't refer to every individual. If it did, we failed big time and never had a chance.
@ruckmaknight John 3:5. Anyway, none of the verses talking about Jesus and incarnation have spinal cord, gravity, or carbon anywhere in the passage. Maybe it should of said if any man be IN A SPINELESS, FLOATING, NON-LIVING THING he is a new creature! Wow. That was easier than I thought. ...but seriously?
βαπτιζω and βαπτισμα imply the presence of a liquid unless used figuratively, as our word soak. If I only say, "I'm soaked," what is the initial assumption? I'm soaked in love clearly!
@HeyMike7 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." The Eunuch had just been explained the Gospel. By asking this question, it is evident that he believed. Then he was baptized. Therefore, he has been saved. You need to consider the context of the story or verse instead of blindly rattling off a verse from memory.
@tharsiskenobi2 Well why don't Roman Catholics become Orthodox? We have valid apostolic succession, we are as old as you, and we don't have all the medieval accretions like purgatory, transubstantiation, the treasury of merit etc .. : )
liked the content but found it hard to follow because the voices were too similar
People should read the Didache before they are allowed to read anything in the bible and if you think that is harsh in the early Church no one heard the words of Paul until they were Baptised
Jesus is not allowed to use metaphors? When Jesus says "This is my body", and "This is my blood', the purpose is clear: "Do this in *remembrance* of me". Jesus also said that He is the Rock - though no one would argue that this means that Jesus was made out of rock?
I believe you are mixing up your accounts. He renamed Simon as Peter, saying that on this rock (his confession of who Christ is) Jesus will build his church. I don't think he says that He is the rock. His other I am statements in John should be taken literally though. He is the Door, the only passage through which we can enter eternal life. He is the Vine, and we are the branches. Branches that are not connected to the vine are thrown into the fire and burned. He is the Good Shepard who lays down his life for his sheep - the church. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
We do have the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Jesus. But that doesn't negate what he says about it actually being his body and blood - given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.
Bryce Van Velson When you take Matthew 16:18 in context, you will see that He is - in fact - making himself the Rock.
The exact Greek words used in the text is "You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church."
It is often lost in translations that Jesus is not using the same word when saying "on this rock I will build my church". The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. So clearly, when Jesus is saying "On this rock I will build my church", He is not referring to Peter, otherwise He would've used the same word. So what is this rock Jesus refers to? In the greater context, Jesus makes this statement in response to what Peter said: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”, to which Jesus replies: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Since Jesus say this in response to Peter's testamony, the "Rock" refers to that testamony: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God". That is what Jesus builds His church on, not on a mere man. And Peters own name "Petros" derive from his testamony: Since Peter builds his faith on the Rock, he himselfs becomes a rock, but not of the same type. Just as Christians are called "Christians" for their faith in Christ - thereby deriving their names from Christ, so too Peters name was derived from the Greater rock, that is Jesus.
There are numerous verses that also confirms that it is infact Jesus who is the Petra.
As for the rest of you remarks, no those are not literal. Jesus did not turn into an actual door, nor did he turn to an actual vine, and neither did he ever Shepard actual sheep. These are all metaphors used to explain actual spiritual truth: Just like a door is the only entrance into a building, Jesus is the only way into heaven. Just like the vine provide the life juices to the branches, so too Jesus provides us with spiritual life, without which we can't live. Just like a Shepard knows, care and protect His flock, so to Jesus knows, care and protect His people.
In the same way, referring to the bread and wine as the blood and body of Christ is figurative. The communion is done in remembrance. Of what? The cross. It is through sacrifice of Jesus that we are saved, and as Hebrews says: He was sacrificed "Once and for all". In fact, Hebrews elaborate quite a bit by demonstrating that the Old Testament sacrifice had to be repeated, precisely because they were insufficient. And because the one sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient, it is not repeated.
By making the bread and wine the literal blood and body of Christ, you are saying that Jesus is still repeatedly being sacrificed. That won't do. If that was the case, Jesus would not have said "Do this in remembrance of Me", He would've said "Do this for the forgiveness of your sins". Jesus's blood was shed. Once. On the cross. The wine is to remind us of that.
Hannodb1961 First, allow me to commend you for taking the time and interest to look up the original words in this text. You are correct that without doing so you cannot rightly understand the text. Unfortunately, you then draw conclusions that are contrary to text due to grammar.
When Jesus says that "upon this rock I will build my church" it is important to note the grammar. The word Jesus uses is petra, a feminine noun. Jesus is therefore NOT referring to Himself but to Peter's CONFESSION of Jesus as The Christ (please note I use the caps not as screaming but simply for emphasis). While you are correct that it ultimately refers to Jesus the referent to the word "rock" employed by Jesus is the confession.
Secondly, Is always means is. One of the most important rules for interpretation that everyone of us uses in everyday life, without which we could not communicate is: we always interpret the words in their normal, literal sense unless a figurative sense is indicated. In EVERY case in the Gospels where Jesus uses language of being a shepherd, door, vine, etc. He explains in the context how He is using the words. It is in the immediate context where we discover what "kind" of door Jesus is (to the Father in heaven); what kind of Shepherd (the one that watchers over His "sheep", the church), the nature of Him being The Vine (the source of true life without which we cannot help but die eternally), etc. In EVERY case (if you require me to illustrate them I would be happy to exegete the texts) we are told how the NOUN refers to Himself.
In the Matt. 26 text on the Lord's Supper you err by insisting that the figure-of-speech is given, not in the noun, but in the state of being very, eimi. "This is . . ." Is always means is. You are making the same error that Zwingli made when insisting that Jesus meant that "this is" meant "represents, symbolizes, etc." THAT IS eisegesis. No where in the context does Jesus indicate that He is employing any manner of figures of speech. No where in the Bible does is/ "I am"/this is mean represents. That is imposing your own view upon the text in order for it to make sense to you. Jesus is God! If Jesus says something is, it is! This is nothing more than rank rationalism. Try using your logic on a text such as Matt. 3:17: "This is my beloved Son" which by your way of reading "This represents my beloved Son." You would undoubtedly argue, "No, no. There is means is." However, how do you know. Since you interpret is as represents according to no actual rule but your own reason, then why cannot someone else (who denies that Jesus is the Son of God) insist that there is means represents. You would then be left with no logical argument against such a practice. Please understand, I mean no offense, it is simply the truth of the matter.
And when Jesus talks about doing this "in remembrance of Him" He does not mean to keep thinking about it. Remember, the Bible was not written in English to our culture. When Jesus uses this language He is using it as we see it throughout the O.T. Whenever the text says that "and God remembered His covenant . . ." to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. it means that He is DOING something. God is not simply "thinking" about words He once spoke but it is a Hebraism indicating that God is taking some action. So too, in our Matthew text when Jesus calls us to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM" He is using language admonishing us to do what He has called us to do, receive the Lord's Supper which is His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.
When you insist that it cannot be His actual body and blood but MUST be a reference to His blood on the cross, that is a rationalistic response, not a biblical one. Allow me to quote on this issue from a man who for 40 years was a Baptist pastor, high-up in the ranks, one responsible for ordaining more than 500 men for ministry in the Baptist church. Pastor Dennis McFadden is now an LCMS pastor. Why would a man of 60 years of age switch from being a Baptist to a Lutheran? Here is only part of his answer.
"What would lead a 60-year-old to walk the Wittenberg Trail? How does one make such a significant journey when he has logged a lifetime as a Baptist, nearly 40 years as a Baptist minister, a current position as the president and CEO of a large Baptist affiliated retirement home ministry, not to mention a son who pastors a large evangelical church and a daughter who teaches Bible in an evangelical high school?
"For more than three decades, it was my role on a judicatory committee to examine 500 candidates for ordination in the Baptist Church and to certify them ready. Yet doubts nagged at me and left me disquieted. Evangelicalism seemed so earnest, yet dependent on flimsy human efforts and beset with a thoroughly moralistic orientation; fervent in its desire to experience God, yet stunningly shallow in its theory of how to do it; proclaiming to be "Bible-centered," yet forced to practice hermeneutical gymnastics in order to reconcile the witness of the biblical record with our teaching, particularly our non-sacramental interpretations. Evangelicalism as practiced in America suffers from moralism, mysticism and rationalism. This critique appears commonly enough in Lutheran writings. However, it accurately reflects my experience on the ground as an evangelical insider of nearly six decades who served in leadership in numerous evangelical congregations, denominational posts and institutions.
"Coupled with the moralism, evangelical practice eschews the biblical means of grace in favor of immediacy in the experience of the divine. Revivalism and the Second Great Awakening helped create the modern American mind; and yet the American mind, with its voluntarism and individualism, powerfully defined and shaped the modern religious experience of Americans as well. The resulting direction is one of a faith turned inward and inveterately individualistic. Rather than expecting to meet God in the objectivity of the Word and the Sacraments, evangelicals seek an audience that takes place in the subjectivity and inner recesses of the human heart. In place of a mediated means of grace, evangelicals crave an immediacy of a mystical sort. In charismatic and Pentecostal circles, this type of connection with God can come with experiences ranging from "words of knowledge" and prophetic visions to the ever-present evidence of speaking in tongues. For non-charismatic evangelicals, the pattern may involve more Keswickian, or holiness style, spirituality or simply the individualized decisional theology of revivalism.
"The lack of sacramentology and the tendency toward moralism, mysticism and rationalism led me to begin a quest to re-examine our Reformational roots. As a Baptist, it was not too difficult to read Calvin. Even in its most non-Calvinistic instantiation, the theological architecture of Baptist theology follows closely the forms and patterns of the great Reformer of Geneva. And with the growing interest in Reformed theology among evangelicals, Baptists like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Al Mohler were not much different from more Presbyterian R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton or other five-point Calvinists.
"Luther, however, was a tougher read. He sounded more medieval, less modern; more bombastic, less moderate; more radical, less incremental. Yet Luther’s stubborn insistence on being Christ-centered, cross-centered, catholic and always delivering forgiveness to comfort troubled consciences won me over. His doctrine of vocation, theology of the cross and hammering away at God’s use of Word and Sacraments as the means of grace were transformational. Both my wife and I yearned to participate in a church that fit our theology." [From Baptist Minister to Lutheran:
My Six-Decade Journey on the Wittenberg Trail! by Dennis McFadden!]
Rick Pettey I'm going to apologize in advance if my post seem a bit chaotic and long. I've got a lot to say, and very little time to order my thoughts.
It would only be fair to say where I'm coming from: I'm Reformed (Calvinist), and I'm not a nominal Christian either. Through personal struggles with sin, I found the practical application of the Gospel in my live: That salvation is through grace, and good deeds is the unavoidable result of gratitude.
Having said that, most of what you wrote is completely irrelevant at the topic at hand. I would completely agree that traditionalism on the one hand, and Pentecostalism on the other hand is a serious problem in all denominations (Including Lutheran), and is nothing new. We already read in Malachi of the Jews who lost the heart of their religion, and what remained was just an empty shell of rituals. When I listen to dr James White from Alpha & Omega ministries, I get the impression that the Baptist church is somewhat of the default denomination in America, and dr White (himself a Reformed Baptist) does not shy away to criticize the shallowness in this denomination.
Getting to the topic at hand, I find myself agreeing with your interpretation of Matt 16, so there is no argument there.
Regarding your interpretation of the metaphors, I must disagree. I would argue that it is you who have tradition clouding your interpretation.
When Jesus says: "I am the door", then no further contextual evidence is needed to prove that it is a metaphor. Clearly, Jesus is both God and a human being. No Christian would seriously entertain the idea that Jesus ever was, or ever will be a genuine physical wooden door with a nob and keyhole, either here on earth, or in heaven.
The same applies for bread and wine. When Jesus uttered these words, He clearly was in human form, and He was not made of bread and wine, nor did he spill his wine on the cross. It is perfectly consistent with the rest of my interpretation to take this as a metaphor. Given the obvious figurative nature of the language used, I would argue it is you who performs isogesis by making something literal, even when the text does not warrant it. This especially in the light of Jesus himself giving the purpose of the Communion: "Do this in remembrance of me". (Further contextual evidence for this is given below when I discuss the Passover) Your refutation of "remembrance" is seriously flawed, because you equate God's remembrance of His Covenant with Jesus's commandment to us to remember His crucifixion. Surely, you can't be using an action of God - which is obviously not the same thing as human remembrance - as the reason for saying that Jesus doesn't mean "remembrance" when He says "do this in remembrance of me"? So, in effect, you have to turn "Do this in remembrance of me" into a metaphor, so you can have a literal Jesus in the bread and wine. How is this kind of exegesis consistent with anything else in the Bible? You are turning obviously literal passages into figurative, so you can make this one figurative passage literal.
But that's not all. There is more contextual evidence that this is meant as figurative In John 6, Jesus uses quite banal language:
_"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”_
This is clearly figurative language, since the disciples didn't start chewing on Jesus after these words. They clearly understood the spiritual intent of the words, as Peter said: _"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”_ Clearly, Peter understood Jesus to be referring to His own words (As Peter did not yet know about the fulfillment of these words on the cross.) Indeed, Jesus Himself gave the proper context when He said: _"Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. Very truly I tell you, _*_the one who believes has eternal life._*_ I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die."_ Jesus Himself is equating the "Eating of his flesh and drinking of His blood" with "believing in Jesus".
But you would say: No, Jesus means this literally, as He is speaking of the bread and the wine of Communion, but there is a problem with this: Jesus did not yet introduce the communion, so, when he said these words, the context of communion did not exist yet. This is not to say that these words would not have a future fulfillment, but that fulfillment is in the actual work of salvation on the cross, not in the communion, which is just a representation of the cross. Even so, if you want to apply these words to the bread and wine of communion, you are still making Jesus's words figurative, for Jesus spoke of his flesh and his blood, not of the bread and wine that would become his flesh and blood. You are therefore not being consistent with your hermeneutic.
But all of this is just details. There is a much more important reason to reject transubstantiation: It doesn't fit Biblical theology. Paul wrote: "For by grace you have been saved through faith". This is the running theme in all the Apostolic Letters: Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ who substituted Himself by paying our penalty for sin. How does the physical presence of Christ in bread and wine fit in with this? What is its function? How does it operate? Why would Jesus choose to indwell bread and wine - to be consumed by us, when we already have the Holy Spirit that indwells in us? Could one be saved by partaking the communion? Could one be lost for failing to partake in it? What role does our choosing to partake in it or not play in our election and salvation? Why - if this is a necessity for salvation, does it not find a more central place in the apostolic letters? Outside the Gospels, there is only one reference (maybe two, but none of which I can think of now) to the Communion in the apostolic letters. In contrast, the Apostolic letters hammers the point that salvation is through grace and faith alone, and that God already dwells in us - not the bread. *we* are the temple of God.
The letter of Hebrews likewise refers to the salvathic work of Christ in the past tense. This wouldn't make sense if it's still continuing in the communion.
Then there is the example of circumcision. The Jews mistakenly believed that this ordinance from God was a requirement for salvation, when God clearly explained to them that it is merely an outward sign of an inward reality:
_For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter._ God frequently explained that what mattered was the circumcision of the heart, while the physical circumcision was just a physical sign and reminder of that inward reality. Likewise, God gave the Israelites many ordinances that was meant for remembrance of God's work: The Passover is another example. Surely, Israel wasn't repeatedly freed from Egypt everytime they ate from it - it was a reminder of what God did once in the past. The Passover also foreshadowed Christ, and was replaced with the communion: Just as the Passover was a remembrance of Israel's liberation from Egypt, the Communion is the *remembrance* of our liberation from sin. The fact that Passover is the root of Communion, gives further contextual evidence that the communion is for remembrance only.
Then there is the sacrificial animals. In the Law, it is stated that these sacrifices was meant to atone for the sins of Israel, but in Hebrews, it's made clear that these sacrifices could never atone for sins. Rather they were the reminder of sins, and the sign of the actual sacrifice to come: the Lord Jesus himself.
When the Lord has so often implemented so many symbolic rituals in the past that was designed to remind the people of God of something, why should we make a sudden break in our interpretation of communion? Jesus payed for my sins on the cross in full - what does my eating of bread and wine contribute to that?
Transubstantiation strikes me as an odd false note that is at odds with the rest of Lutheran theology, and which is a relic from it's Catholic origins. There is no reason for Christ to be present in the bread and wine, especially when He is present in us. It doesn't make sense, either from a exegetical or a theological point of view.
Hannodb1961 thank you for a most thoughtful and irenic response. As I have a lot on my plate at the moment I will only briefly respond to two issues. First, Lutherans do not teach transubstantiation. Nor do we teach consubstantiation. It is frustrating how many times Reformed folk accuse us of either one or the other. We reject both. We have no technical words describing the Lord's Supper except to say that it is the actual, true body and blood of Jesus Christ on account of the Word. As a confessional Lutheran I believe that God's Word is efficacious. (Is. 55:10,11). Secondly, your argument about why the bread and wine cannot be Christ's actual body and blood is based on nothing more than rationalism. While you rightly believe that all the sacrifices in the O.T. were to point to Christ (the message of much of Hebrews), you make declarations that simply are not supported by Scripture. Point, by point, you go to great lengths as to why the bread and wine cannot be Christ's body and blood. However, missing in your argument is any text from Scripture that says that it the case. As a Lutheran I never read a text and say that that cannot mean such and such (i.e., John 3:5ff - regarding baptism) because . . . To do so is to place reason over God's Word. Though I have no doubt as to your Christian faith, and take you at your word therefore regarding you as a brother in Christ (as with those with whom I studied at the Southern Baptist University in West Palm Beach, FL. PBAU), your words further convince me that you are mired in rationalism, as was Calvin. (i.e., "There is no reason for Christ to be present in the bread and wine") That was the point of Pastor McFadden as to why he is now a Lutheran. His switch was not for emotional reasons, (i.e., he liked our liturgy, he felt more comfortable with our practice, etc.) . It was solely him being finally convinced that Luther, unlike Calvin, though he had to use reason (we all do of course), it was God's Word that determined what he believed.
Again, I thank you for a most thoughtful exchange, not unlike many I had at the University (being the only Lutheran in the pre-ministerial program). If you are so inclined I would be happy to continue this next week. I must now continue my preparations for the Divine Service tomorrow, especially as we are celebrating the Reformation tomorrow (Friday being All Hallows Eve, the day Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg). Pax.
Lutheran's use the mass that would be an easier way to explain it
What Is The Meaning of The Masonic Bible?
LOL!
@kalathetrumpeter.... So you reject Acts 8:13 yet Luther's whole doctrine of baptism is based upon Mark 16:16, (see Larger Catechism section 4) which also is not in early manuscripts. Please don't be a hypocrite when rejecting certain parts of God's Word.
God bless
Where in the Bible does it say "Baptism now saves you"? Oh, you mean 1 Peter 3:21 which says "The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"?
Nice use of one of the least accurate translations of the Bible into English we have. Breakout an ESV or an NASB or even an NIV. They are all highly regarded in the community of scholars who work on Biblical interpretation from Greek and Hebrew into English.
4. (continued) This position is further supported by 1 Cor 10, when Paul talks about how all of Israel was baptized into Moses when passing through the Red Sea. A whole bunch of babies were baptized into Moses there.
5. The idea that baptism is a symbol stands in stark contrast to the testimony of Scripture. In Romans 6, Paul directly states that dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ happens IN baptism. He says the same thing in Titus 3.
So which is worse, the biblicist who corners you 5 minutes before the divine service? Or the youtube biblicist?
4. Furthermore, the argument about "all nations including infants" is simply meant to show that the Jewish understanding of "nations" included infants, and therefore that infants were eligible to be baptized. Likewise, when Paul, in Colossians 2, speaks of baptism as a circumcision made without hands, that also indicates that infants ought to be baptized, as Israelite boys were circumcised at 8 days old...
Also John 20:23 does say that pastors can forgive sins
+cory littrell He is talking to ten of the apostles, not making a statement on pastoral authority in the church. Context is key.
+David Dee So it was in Matthew 28 when Christ delivered the great commission. Is the responsibility to make disciples therefore restricted to the 11 only?
+Andrew Clover The idea of that message is the disciples will make disciples if you know how that whole plan of Jesus' on making disciples works, so your citation was just a bad example to use for making an argument for your case, Patrick! Come on, Patrick!
***** Jesus was not talking about the church in John 20. Jesus was not talking about pastors in the church in John 20. The "you" is the apostles. Apostles are not the same thing as pastors. The Great Commission was initially given to the 11, but it included making and teaching disciples, which would include those disciples making other disciples. Additionally, the rest of the books of the New Testament contains many commands for all members of the church to spread the gospel (i.e. make disciples). What they do not contain is anything equating an apostle to a pastor nor anything about a pastor forgiving sins.
Does baptism save the pro-gay Lutherans, too?
@TheLutheranSatire.... I was really hoping that you would address the comment I addressed to you... Yes, I have read many of Luther's works. I have many Lutheran friends that I love dearly, even though they are narcissist!! LoL! Alright, address my question and then we will talk about scriptures used to clear the conscience of ML...
God bless.
And Peter directly states that "baptism, which corresponds to [the Flood] now saves you."
You know what else the Bible doesn't say? That the Bible is the only infallible authority.
Do Lutheran's teach that the priest can forgive sins? Would that include the impenitent in the congregation? Just wondering.
No, not really, the thinking on this (from my understanding at least) is that God forgives the congregant through the priest so for a confession to actually be vallid the one making said confession has to have sincere resolve to change his/her ways
@@corylittrell2109 I guess, from a prot view, I don't understand why the priest needs to do that and the believer can't just confess their sin directly to God.
This is more a Video about evangelicals than Biblicists. I know, I grew up in The Churches Of Christ. They are Restoration and thus very Biblicist. However, if you told them the word Rapture is not in the Bible, neither is the Sinners Prayer, or inviting Jesus into your Heart, they'd agree with you. Te Churches Of Chist don't do that.
So thi is really of limited Utility and should be called "Evangelical" and not "Biblicist".
Lutheran friends: Stop suffering. Admit Sola Scriptura makes no sense at all and be very welcome at Christ's true and only church: the Catholic Church. We really don't owe explanations to any radical protestant about something being in the Bible or not, because we have the Apostles' Tradition, from which the Sacred Scriptures theirselves came. :)
But whatever....
During Jesus ministry He healed and cast out demons. Those miracles are directly related to forgiving sins. This is kind of the point of Mat. 9:5. Jesus sends out His disciples with the power to cast out demons...not unrelated to forgiving sins. Jesus ordains the apostles to go out and forgive sins as the fulfillment of what he sent them out to do the first time. Still, it is not them, but Christ through them.
"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me." Mk 9:37
@ruckmaknight Would you suffer me to become Mr. Grammar? The word αντιτυπον::anti-type is functioning as an adjective modifying the relative pronoun. The relative pronoun needs an antecedent. It has no meaning otherwise. The antecedent of this relative pronoun is ὐδατος::water. Please my good man, understand that Peter says the water of Baptism saves you. We Lutherans say Baptism now saves you to make it shorter for our amnesiac brains. We also really hate all that ex opere operato jazz.
Funny. The Bible teaches the same thing. ;)
My response would be I disagree with your view of Baptism as long as you believe in salvation by grace through the completed work of Christ upon the cross and not of works and the fundamentals of the faith guess what you are my brother ,I am not going to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.And as a Freewill Baptist pastor,I have a confession,For most of my life (I was raised a Southern Baptist and pastored SBC churches but could not accept the greasy Grace that was taking hold say a few words repeat after me and bam you are saved so keep on sinning your in )anyway I taught the "rapture" as a future event,but in the last 3 years or so I have come to the conclusion that this is an erroneous teaching and anyway did not Jesus tell us that if we live Godly in Christ we would suffer persecution?Job suffered why? because he was a just and Godly man,so what makes the modern church think she will escape persecution?My only question is how will the church age end and those 144000 Jewish evangelist become the voice of repentance with the church still here?I really would like some feedback on this thanks.
Taking the bible too literally didn't work out well for Origen of Alexandria!
The word bible isn't in the Bible
This video is hypocritical because in the video where the "wrong guy" claimed that baptism is a public testimony, you said that this was never mentioned in the Bible, and yet you ridicule the same kind of logic here.
No it's not. This video is pointing out that Lutheran practice is closer to early Christianity than most so-called Sola Scriptura religions. They teach a bunch of things that aren't in the Bible, and then demand that other religions give proof texts for everything they do. Nothing could be more hypocritical than that.
Normally I love the Lutheran Satire. Sometimes however funny as it may be , the argument made is just wrong. Using the precise same logic in this video, one can justify baptizing cats, dogs and trees. Just to be clear; one is saved by grace alone through faith alone. This is an imputed action by God. Otherwise the man next to Christ on the Cross would not have been with him that very same day in paradise.
Do you know where paradise is? It is not in Heaven you need to remember Lazarus and the rich man.
Lol! Too bad Lutheran's don't have apostolic succession.
***** No, Lutherans don't have valid Holy Orders.
***** No they don't. Some may claim it, but they don't.
***** Well of course, you have a different opinion. But, even you don't have apostolic succession. Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders either.
Dude, the words 'apostolic succession' aren't even in the bible. ;)
TimotheosCauvin Nor is the word 'trinity' in the bible.
No one can forgive sins except the triune God. It is utter blasphemy to say that priests forgive sins.
It's Sacramental.
God works through means, in this case he works HIS FORGIVENESS via the spoken word of a cleric ('whoever's sin you bind, will be bound in heaven... and whoever's sin you loose, will be loosed in heaven).
Then you're accusing Jesus of blasphemy, since He's the one who said they can in the first place.
Yes he did say that. Office of the Keys Matthew 18:18-20 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:21-23
No, we must all forgive sins, how do you think we might grow?
Being a Christian should be a personal thing, without the need to belong to any organized denomination.
Part of being a Christian is belonging to a community of believers whose faith is in Jesus Christ (John 17) and whose doctrines are in line with Scripture. You do need time to praise and surrender to God on your own, but an essential part of the Christian Life is community.
Nope its a collective thing. The book of acts and the epistles make it clear (through implication) that part of the christian life is active participation in the church and community. Not necessary for salvation but important none the less.
This video is pretty lame. It's a red herring.
Explain.
Andrew Hoffer Where to begin. Well, first of all, the issues brought up by the objecting person are very superficial issues, for the most part. The defenses from the pastor are likewise quite superficial.
FYI, I am not currently a Lutheran but was one for many years. I don't have any particular problem with Lutherans. I actually loved those years.
One issue brought up in the video was baptizing babies. The objector states that the Bible doesn't say to baptize babies. This is a fact. The pastor's reply was shallow and not accurate. His response was merely that "all nations" includes infants. He doesn't even bother to actually quote the biblical reference in its context. The verse in its entirety states: "Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat 28:19). He leaves out the part about teaching all nations. You can't teach an infant. You must teach them first, then baptize. All of the people baptized in the Bible were adults. There is absolutely no biblical justification for baptizing babies. Yet the Lutherans and several other denominations continue to do it.
However, there is a big problem with baptizing infants that goes far beyond the issue of whether or not it is biblical. People who are raised in this kind of tradition grow up with the idea that they were automatically saved because they were baptized as infants. They are completely unaware of the need to come to Christ on their own and establish their relationship with Him through faith. They are led to think that because they "confess" faith in liturgical liturgy each week that they have salvation. They have no idea what the gospel really is or the biblical plan of salvation. The traditions and rituals replace personal accountability and true faith.
I have sat through countless sermons by Lutheran pastors wherein the gospel was never presented. In fact, the Bible was rarely quoted or even referred to. They would quote Time Magazine, TV shows, news articles, statements by non-Christian philosophers, etc., but left out the Bible entirely. They would tell people how they should be encouraged and how to love themselves and maybe that God "loved" them, but they were never really given the gospel or any biblical teaching.
This takes me back to the original scripture passage that the "pastor" in the video referred to but never quoted: "Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Many Lutheran pastors are big on baptizing infants, but they are very remiss when it comes to teaching.
There are countless "Christians" sitting in churches who think they are okay because they were baptized and confirmed and go through the liturgy each week, but they have no idea what the gospel really is. They hear Bible passages read during the liturgy but never even crack open a Bible to read on their own.
I remember one time when I was at the Lutheran church and started talking to one of the members. She told me she was an atheist. She had been raised in that church and had been baptized, etc., yet she proclaimed she was an atheist. I asked her why she bothered coming to church. She told me because the building and stained glass window and the music were so beautiful. It made her "feel good."
And that is just one of the things mentioned in this video.
Does that help?
+dooglitas I am sorry about your experience with the Lutheran Church, but mind you that your experience with one pastor or one church (or even several of either) does not necessarily have much to do with the purity of the doctrine they should be preaching (or lack thereof) and the Lutheran Church is doing what it can to remove this sort of stuff.
Nevertheless, a satire video of like 3 minutes in length doesn't obviously capture everything on the topic there is to know, especially when it's not even the main point of that three minute video. The point of the video is that you have to interpret the Bible a bit beyond the direct words of what it says and can't conclude the Bible doesn't say something about a particular topic just because your CNTRL-F search yielded no results for a particular term.
You can ignore this section explaining my views on infant baptism as it's not complete as it could be, but there are some great resources explaining this view put out by good Lutheran pastors who know their stuff. 1 Peter 3 does tell Christians that baptism now saves us. Ephesians 2:8-10 makes it clear that grace through faith saves us. Thus, baptism acts to do two things; give us faith and give us God's grace. God's grace is not something that is exclusively for infants. I usually find in my discussions with those whom reject infant baptism to not believe that baptism saves (as 1 Peter 3 says it does). If it does save, we absolutely should baptize infants because not doing so would be to argue, "I will not use water (baptism) to save you from the fires (sin) until you are old enough to choose." I mean firemen would not hold their jobs very long if they used that logic.
Andrew Hoffer I did not say that all Lutheran pastors were as I stated. I did hear some very good ones. But the issue I bring up is a valid one. It is a big problem in Lutheranism and many other traditions.
"The point of the video is that you have to interpret the Bible a bit beyond the direct words of what it says and can't conclude the Bible doesn't say something about a particular topic just because your CNTRL-F search yielded no results for a particular term."
This is true. I don't necessarily disagree. However, if something is not in the Bible in principle or if something is contrary to what the Bible does say, then it should be rejected. Also, any part of the Bible should be interpreted in its historical context its textual context and in context with the entirety of the Bible.
My mention of infant baptism was only one of the issues. I didn't go into others because it would make the comment too long. You mention salvation by faith. The answer in the video concerning "all nations" was taken out of context and ignored the fact that Jesus commanded to teach first, then baptize. Infants are incapable of being taught. Therefore, they should not be baptized. 1 Peter 3:21 does state that baptism saves. However, you did not mention the very important part of the passage where Peter clearly states: "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." How can an infant have an answer of a good conscience toward God?
Baptism by itself does not save. It is worthless without the conscience answering to God. It is useless if it is not accompanied by faith and teaching. Your metaphor of a fireman is not accurate. Baptism is not the same thing. If baptism were some magically powerful act that could save without the necessity of faith and "the answer of a good conscience to God," then why not go around forcing everyone to be baptized? Then they could be saved whether they wanted to or not. Go through public places grabbing people and sprinkling water on them. The Catholic church has done this in the past.
Your argument is unsound on this issue. It leads people to a false sense of security and prevents them from coming to true faith in Christ. Instead of saving them from the "fire," you are actually making it nearly impossible to truly save them because they think they already are.
+dooglitas I mean Lutherans don't argue baptism itself is all we need for salvation. We argue it's a means by which we physically receive the grace of God so we can know of His presence. The word for this is also "sacrament." Now I take it we have no real disagreement in the words of Ephesians I stated before. However, I do not find the claim that "having a clean conscience before God" speaks against infant baptism and I find the context of the passage doesn't easily allow that interpretation either. It appears to me we have a clean concious before God because we receive His grace in baptism and since we receive His grace in baptism, we are turned to Jesus. No, baptism itself does not save. It gives us grace and faith (since we do need both for salvation). I feel as though my baptism (though it be a Catholic baptism) is one of the many ways I know God has instilled grace into me and I know the Holy Spirit has created faith in me. Thus the "clear conscience" that is talked about is in my opinion clearly referring to how we can have a clean conscience because we receive grace and again, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the Bible that says infants cannot receive God's grace.