Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher here. I have the 1689 baptist confession of faith and the catechism. I just bought a wall hanger nicene creed and apostles creed for my classroom wall.
ah so now we see that a " confession" that I dont believe is now the authority. As an SBCer myself, that just goes to show that none of these things make us anything more than mans opinion
@@caman171 the Bible is my authority my rock whether you agree with the contents of the 1689 is your own convictions even if they're false. The 1689 is only a tool affirming what we believe to be revealed in scripture. The founders of the SBC were reformed. One of the greatest evangelists ever Charles Spurgeon was reformed. His reasoning "Reformed theology is the most God glorifying doctrine." Not to mention the greatest evangelist of all time Paul undoubtedly believed in the sovereignty of God unto salvation. You believe this is wrong I believe this is right. One of us is wrong or both of us is wrong but we are not both right Let God be true and every man a liar
@@Slice_O_Bread94 You obviously need a history lesson. Being a calvinistic Baptist is NOT the same as being "reformed", ask Spurgeon. He said both Catholics and Reformed persecuted Baptists, and that we existed before them. However, the term "calvinist" only meant you affirmed some type of eternal security when the SBC was formed, hence 2 pointers, 3 pointers etc. Southern Baptists were composed mostly of Separate Baptists, who were largely NON Calvinists by todays definition. Read Jesse Mercer's memoirs, who WAS a 5 point Calvinist. He affirms what I say. the sandy Creek Association was the forerunner to most Southern Baptists, and they were not predestinarian at all. So my convictions are false huh? Reformed theology is the most God glorifying? Sop how did God get glory before yall came along? Even Calvinist scholars admit your doctrines didnt exist before Augustine see here th-cam.com/video/-UkCWKzjsVs/w-d-xo.html
@@Slice_O_Bread94 You need a history lesson. The SBC was composed largely of Separate Baptists and werent calvinist by todays definition. Jesse Mercer affirm this in his memoirs, and he was a 5 pointer. Also Spurgeon would be horrified if you called him "reformed" . There's a big difference between a calvinistic Baptist and a Reformed person. As for God being glorified by Reformed doctrine. how did He get glory before it existed? Even leading Calvinist scholars admit it didnt exist before Augustine.
My church recites either the Nicene or Apostles creed each week. I hope the SBC adopts the Nicene creed; I know many solid, confessional, historically rooted Baptists and for their sake, I hope the SBC doesnt sully the Baptist label by being anti credal. Ain't my fight as a confessional Lutheran, but I still care for the sake of the broader catholic church.
@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I switched a year ago and was catechized online the two years before; attending both my Lutheran and my parents' nondenom church prior to being confirmed.
Christianity was around for several centuries before the Nicene Creed was created. During those early years, Christian communities had a wide range of beliefs and practices. Saying that anyone who doesn't follow Nicene Christianity isn't truly Christian ignores this rich history and diversity. Your tone exhibits the same spirit which caused the church to actually physically murder anyone who deviated from the creed. I have been a pastor for over 30 years, from my experience most people when trying to describe the trinity provide examples that support modalism.
@@Cato1006 the Nicene creed affirms the divinity of Christ. What is your issue with it? Heretical groups like gnostics or arians before and during the time of the Council of Nicea did not teach the truth about our Lord Jesus Christ. If you don’t either, then you are a pastor of nothing but lies.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Jesus is God's son. John 3:16 destroys the divinity idea. Jesus NEVER taught anything close to what Nicea decided. Jesus NEVER taught the trinity. If Jesus didn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity, then perhaps the way you are reading those texts that you think support the deity of Christ are incorrect. The fact that Jesus never taught the doctrine of Trinity is admitted by many Trinitarian theologians. Here are a few: It is a given or self-evidently true that the essential doctrines of Christianity should be CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY stated in Scripture, not deduced or developed from complex or convoluted theological constructs developed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th century of the Christian era. Charles Ryrie, in Basic Theology, writes: It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89). Millard Erickson, "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture,” "In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12). "The doctrine of the trinity is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20). "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. "Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109) Trinitarian G.W. Bromiley is quoted in “The Evangelical Dict. of Theology” edited by Walter Elwell, as saying: “In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine…” (p.1112) Roger Olson and Christopher Hall in their book, The Trinity write:"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? (p.1).
Many of my Baptist friends will say, No creed but Christ.” They seldom appreciate my joke that their anti-creed proclamation is actually a creed. If looks could kill...
Nazarene here. One of the things I have started doing in my church is to have the congregation read/recite the creeds together. We have been doing the Apostles' Creed and in a couple weeks we will be switching over to the Nicene Creed. I was quite pleased when one of my children asked a question about Jesus and came to the answer through reciting the Apostles' Creed with his siblings.
Brother, your church should join the SBC, we need men like you. Some Baptists don't believe in the universal church. That is a small part of Southern Baptist but there are some.
My church, a semi-independent Reformed baptistic church (i.e., Baptist is not in the name but we are credobaptist) does affirm the Nicene creed. We've started reciting (or really reading since none of us have it memorized lol) various creeds during the Sunday service, the Nicene creed included, but it does vary Sunday to Sunday. Personally, I do think it would be good for the SBC to include something like the Nicene creed in the BFM, even if they write their own. To define orthodoxy in an organization like the SBC is essential, and it's concerning that they didn't define the Trinity before.
Me: a minister with the Churches of Christ here: 1.) Your explanation of our understanding of baptism is as fairly expressed by "not one of us" as any I've heard . 2.) Ironically, we are even more "anti-creedal" than most Baptists but I have zero problem with the content of ecuminical creeds.
I appreciate your comment of having no problem with the content of the ecuminical creeds coming from a CoC. I would argue however, you are creedal the moment someone preaches or teaches the text of the Bible in their own words. To truly be anti-creedal as "no creed but Christ" would be to simply read the Bible. Once someone begins to explain the Bible they are making a statement about what they believe about the text, and therefore making a creedal statement "I believe."
. 10:55 know what's wild??? When you debated Spencer Smith, he said that he studies the Bible and isn't interested in the history or Orthodox Theology from Church History by other men. That's wild for someone to say.
Just discovered your channel & belong to a Reformed SBC church. We recite the Nicene creed the first Sunday of each month & adhere to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Good job brother!
I don’t think that Baptists can affirm the language of the Nicene Creed in terms of what it actually means (because I think it pretty clearly is talking about Baptismal regeneration; however, I am a Lutheran so I would say that). With that said, I still think they should affirm it because of what you said, this is really the historic creed of the church, and if Baptists wants to maintain any sort of Catholicity and connection to the rest of the church they should affirm it. Also it’s just true and teaches what Scripture teaches.
Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have always upheld the Nicene Creed, it’s just that the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is being overly bureaucratic and keeps kicking the can down the road for another time. They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are starting to include a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.
I feel like it's impossible to really reconcile baptist theology with church history, let alone calvinism. Now I understand redeemed zoomer's point that reformed baptists aren't reformed because their views on sacraments are just radically off
Faith alone was not good enough? You had to add your works to salvation? Way to abandon the faith you once knew. There no longer remains a sacrifice for you under works.
@@alwaysreforming872 He has not abandoned the faith, he never had one. No one who has been a real christian retreats from the faith. As the Apostle John said "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." Many years ago i was doing evangelism in the midle of a street market and a man came to me took one of my leaflet from my hand crumpled it up, threw it on the ground, and said to me while shouting: "you are a buch of liars, I used to be a christian evangelical and was baptised in the church but now I know the truth, you are all liars. that's why I left" I never told him I was an evangelical, he was refering to a pentecostal church he thought I was one of them, but I really felt sad for him and after 20 years I still think about that man. It must be terrible to end up like that.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the creed vs. confession topic is almost an exercise in semantics because the statements that are being made are essentially the same thing. As long as you agree with key Bible principles and doctrine and scripture in its proper context, then call it what you want.
Al Mohler said something similar and I think ultimately it is true. Creeds do tend to be shorter and more declarative, but they serve a similar function as you said.
Lutheran's also believe in baptism regeneration and no one can accuse lutherans of salvation by works. 😊. I don't think Mr. Foskey would ever say Lutherans believe in salvation by works.
Which makes this adoption of the Nicene creed by the SBC interesting. They believe in a baptism, but not that it saves nor that it forgives sins. So do some believe it or not?
@@fuzzyaomeba2844 honestly I don't think they could if they stick to their own tradition. If they accept what's been taught by the church from the beginning, they would be compelled to leave. There is much to be said on these matters... God Bless
Exactly, baptism is a work of The Holy Spirit. He adopts us, He buries us with Christ, He raises us to new life, He clothes us in Christ. There is nothing wrong with affirming Bible verses which is what the Nicene and Apostle’ Creed are summaries of.
@@fuzzyaomeba2844This can depend on which Lutheran Synod you might be referring to, but Lutherans believe in forgiveness of sins through baptism. They also believe that a baptized person is baptized into Jesus’ death and therefore also into his resurrection. A baptized person therefore has a hope of heaven.
Smitest thou said fly!! Hear/believe/confess/repent/baptism, then live faithfully is what you are hunting for. What I have heard - if a creed says what is in the Bible, you don't need it - if it says what isn't in the Bible, you don't want it.
It's generally held that there were about 250 Bishops present at Nicaea. It was where the Bishops of the Church (there was only one Church) gathered together to discuss Arianism.
When I heard that this came up for debate I wondered how a denomination that upholds baptism isn't necessary for salvation could adopt the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith... then I heard those in favor trying to dress up the "one baptism for the remission of sins" as baptism in a spiritual sense and not the physical act. I couldn't wait to see how those same people were going to reinterpret, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"...
Think is important to have the creed for a dividing line. Its simple if you confess and believe the Nicene Creed you are a Christian. If you don't you are outside the Christian faith.
It'll never end there. One group will inevitably say that their beliefs conform to the creed, and that they affirm it, while detractors say that their beliefs contradict the creed. Calvinists and anti-Calvinists both say they have a God centered worldview, not a man-centered worldview. They do not agree on the description of the other. Classical theists and open theists both say they affirm God's Omniscience. They disagree on the description of the other.
@@JD-xz1mx It does end there. Objectively speaking, either you affirm the basic principles of the faith or you don’t. Calvinism vs Arminianism is not a matter of who is inside or outside of the faith.
The Nicene creed represents an imperial Christian religion with ecumenical councils where the Emperor is the divine head of the church and ecumene..meaning approved of the empire.
Raised SBC, spent many years as an evangelical/moderately good Calvinist, and now a confessional Lutheran: very good video. I assert that the Baptist Faith and Message is a creed. One may try to find a loophole claiming that it doesn’t say “I believe….,” but that's a weak argument; can someone be a faithful Baptist but deny any part of that statement of faith? For some fun, here’s the Lutheran view of this argument: th-cam.com/video/GPg0wBP5k6M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=x584ubA0KKKoHyHP Watch to the end.
Thank you, Keith for your faithful contribution the English speaking catholic (yeah, I said it) church. Your insights have pointed me in some excellent directions and contributed to my bookshelf as well. Thirty-one-year card carrying Baptist here. The Baptist denomination is a weird denomination because it is VERY congregational. Due to this loose affiliation, the SBC has always been slow to expel heretics, slow to adopt exhaustive theology, etcetera. This can make it difficult for a 24-year-old minister to find a church that will take him, but also frees him up from having to answer to a bishop 2 states over. Overall, I think this setup is a net positive. I have no problem with the SBC not adopting the Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian, Chalcedon creeds; the Doxology hymn; or even the entire Red Back Hymnal. It is not really for the SBC to say, but for Pastor Smith of First Baptist 3rd Street and his elder board to affirm these things or just let them lie as they are. I could definately be wrong on this as just a layman, but that's the way I see it.
I grew up North American Baptist and the creeds were in the back of our hymnal. We said them a few times a year. Recently, a Lutheran asked me how we could say the part “baptism for the remission of sins” since we didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. My mom says maybe we meant baptism by The Holy Spirit when Jesus says you were baptized with water but later will be baptized with The Holy Spirit. We also said Christian or Catholic was catholic with a footnote saying universal. I love saying the creeds. They are statements of truth they all Christians should agree on.
Acts 2:38 uses the Greek word “eis” for “for”. Some say it should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. Can man beckon God to give the Holy Spirit at man’s discretion by performing a water baptism or is the baptism symbolic of repentance and is done to show the desire of man to be clean from sin and to follow Jesus (which man needs the Holy Spirit to do)? “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.”” Mark 11:30 ESV “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21 ESV ““I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Matthew 3:11 ESV “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezekiel 36:25-26 ESV
8:44 Arius was a priest, not a bishop. 10:35 They weren’t determining what the Bible said about Jesus’ Divinity, because there was no Bible or Canon yet, and many of the books and letter in the eventual Canon had different versions. Most importantly the Gospel of John, whose opening lines had been edited or miscopied to support the position of Arius.
Answering the informal poll--we recite the Nicene or Apostles' Creed each Sunday and the Athanasian on Trinity Sundays. It would have been fun if someone had introduced a motion to include the Athanasian, then gone on to recite it in it's entirety 😅
Great explanation of the situation! When we understand the creed properly as a summary of the biblical exegesis of the universal church down through the centuries upheld by those with a unswerving commitment to the revelation in scripture of our One true God eternally existing in three distinct Persons, we can wholeheartedly affirm and appreciate it.
Raised SBC, SBC seminary MDiv, vocational service internationally and domestically with the SBC, now Continentally Reformed…but still intrigued by the annual Convention. We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday at my church. When my parents join us for worship, they won’t recite the creed because it has the word “catholic” in it. My respect to this delegate for choosing a version with “universal” instead of “catholic.” There’s always next year to change the SBC’s cornerstone document. A foundational pledge I hold dear from my childhood is the Royal Ambassadors pledge. Many SBC churches have done away with RAs and GAs for Awana. As old school SBC, the RA pledge still guides me. Maybe it could be part of the BF&M As a Royal Ambassador, I will do my best to become a well-informed, responsible follower of Christ; to have a Christlike concern for all people; to learn how to carry the message of Christ around the world; to work with others in sharing Christ; and to keep myself clean and healthy in mind and body.
As a Baptist, I believe we are baptized “for the remission of sins” in the same way John baptized people “with water for repentance.” (Matt. 3:11) The baptism did not make them repentant. They came to John already repentant.
The problem is that the early Church didn't interpret the gospel that way. You were not regenerated before baptism. You won't even find that interpretation talked about before the Baptist church comes along. Hence why it is false. The baptism of John the Baptist was merely a precursor for the true baptism being offered by Christ. Preparing the people for that which was to come. That's all.
Back when baptism was viewed as the first expression of saving faith, such as in Acts chapter 2, claiming that a person needed to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins was not an issue. It was only when people started separating baptism from faith and salvation that it became an issue. Now people often separate baptism from the rest by weeks months or even years. And many even do it before the person is saved.
The church i was raised in was a member of the SBC until 2002 or so, they left and became independent because they thought the SBC was drifting to far left. I thought they were over reacting, time to admit i was wrong.
There's a Brian Borgman sermon on Romans 1:1 where during his preaching a fly starts buzzing and he takes something and tries to whack it. The timing is really good. I shared the sermon with my dad and that was what stood out to him the most😂
Very interesting show. I’m one of your new subscribers 😁 I originally agreed with the idea of the SBC adopting the Nicene Creed. But after quite a bit of discussion with other TH-camrs, it seems very clear that the Creed is so closely associated with the RCC that it will never be adopted by the SBC. Maybe they should rewrite it in such a way that it says the same thing, but without the exact verbiage that was inherited from the RCC. In addition, the understanding of baptism for the remission of sins smacks of RCC infant baptism. I don’t make the same connection (I’ve read Acts 2:38 too lol). But too many baptists cannot read those words without visualizing infant baptism. So re-writing the creed to fit baptist dogma might be wise. But I do agree that the SBC definition of the Trinity is extremely loose. It’s no accident that most conversions to the JWs come from SBC membership rolls. Something certainly needs to be done to teach Southern Baptists about orthodox understandings of the Trinity.
If the SBC has to rewrite the creed to fit its dogma, then does it also have to rewrite Acts 2.38 to fit its dogma? And at that point, does it even care what the Bible teaches? Look at the verse in the CSB (which may not be an exclusively Baptist translation, but it does have ties to the SBC): "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Surely if it's good enough for the CSB, it's good enough for the SBC.
@@MAMorenoWell … you’re preaching to the choir. I have no problem with the verse or the creed. But Southern Baptists will never accept the creed as written. The way that the RCC uses that phrase to justify infant baptism is just a step too far for them. Just the way it is. I’m not really sure why baptism would even need to be mentioned in a creed about the Trinity anyway …
20:36 Brother, I did the same thing with the haircut a week ago. It's gotten hot up in Tennessee too. The problem I had was I had had applied the appropriate amount of product, paste, hair jelly, whatever for the length of hair I started the day with. That wasn't enough for what I came out of the barber shop with. Lacking in time, i walked into Wednesday evening service at church with what looked a little like a sail sitting on top of my head. It was like the hair on one side of my head was standing with their arms were held high in praise to the Lord while the hair on the other was sitting firmly like a backrow baptist mad about the music the new worship leader was pushing on them. To be fair, my adult son warned me, but a week's worth of ribbing about my hair was worth not walking in late.
Who do I ask about getting a box of those Calvinism hot and cold mugs? I emailed the store to see if I could get a response if they’re available I would like to purchase a box or two of the mugs !
I think most have issues with one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Some may view this a way of preventing a person baptized as an infant from getting baptized as adults
I want the SBC to adopt the Creed. But I don't want it to be an appendix or footnote in the BFM. Referring the matter to committee to determine how to best integrate it was not unfair.
How important is it that one believe the creed as intended by the council? Can one say he believes it, yet have a different interpretation or application than originally intended? Is it the wording (form) or meaning (substance) that is important?
To have a different interpretation or application than originally intended, is contrary to the purpose of a creed. You can't "accept" the creed and have a different interpretation contrary to the authors. That's just being a dishonest heretic that's trying to sneak their way into the orthodox faith
@Godfrey118 Yeah, I would agree with you Godfrey. You cannot affirm a creed and then actually not be affirming it. This is just dishonest to try and do that. These men obviously had something specific in mind when it stated things like baptism for for the forgiveness of sins
The real question which needs to be asked is how did Baptist theology get so far off the mark that affirming the Nicene Creed became a problem? The Nicene Creed is the fundamental guardrail of who is or is not a Christian, by definition. The Creed is what guided the decisions on which writings of scripture would become the canon of the bible. They are inseparable. If a church has a problem with the Creed, it isn't the Creed that went astray.
Everything in the nicene creed is in scripture. Rejecting it is rejecting scripture, for one thing. For another, it was made specifically to address a heresy that claimed to be biblical (arianism). It addresses that only an interpretation of scripture that shows Jesus as God is acceptable. To take issue with that usually means that you either want to do sneaky heresy, or that you don't understand the creed
Thanks for highlighting our effort. We are grateful for the opportunity to encourage our fellow SBs to see the value in the Nicene Creed. I took the video and that sweet voice offering a “second” is my daughter, whose husband is a pastor in Henderson, NC. They are both graduates from Southeastern Seminary.
@@davidharvie6240 That’s my point, not having those hard stances on doctrine led to this. It seems that the BF&M is open to interpretation, but a creed is not. In some instances, the SBC is to autonomous.
The Nicene Creed was not rejected nor did we “leave it out”…the SBC has stupid rules about certain things that don’t allow things to simply be added or removed from the BF&M. It was referred to committee by rule. It will be brought to a vote most likely next year and then have to be voted on again the following year. [[This is borderline false witness.]]* *EDIT: I retract this!
@@RyanMcAllister1987 No worries, I didn't really explain the voting system or how it all worked (not even sure I understand). My purpose was to talk about why *some* in the SBC did not want to accept the creed. But thanks for responding, and watching! Blessings!
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist love your content, brother. Sorry I jumped hard. I’ve seen a LOT of confusion over the SBC stuff (understandably) so I just jumped too quickly. Should have rewatched lol!
Growing up in and attending SBC churches most of my life, I'm not surprised it failed at vote. While the SBC is a calico cat of churches in some ways, adopting a creed would unite the Bible only folks with the nothing Catholic folks. Even though there's a significant overlap in that Venn diagram, there's enough outside the overlap to make sure it never passes especially when you throw in the change nothing kind of people. I've never regularly attended a church that recited a creed as I've pretty much been some flavor of baptist all along, SBC, Independent, and now FWB. The last SBC where we were members did begin to recite Matthew 22:36-39 during every service. It honestly had an effect on me, and I can see the value of doing recitation because of it.
It flatly teaches Baptismal Regeneration, that is what the authors meant it to teach when they wrote it, so I would argue that none of the Reformed/Calvinists could honestly affirm it's plain meaning without adding some qualifier like "for the elect" or "spirit baptism", never mind Baptists who call Baptism an Ordinance and not a Sacrament. Baptists are honestly the most Reformed of the Reformed branch of Christianity. (Sorry Presbyterians/Dutch Reformed) Also, that particular motion was only for the messengers present to affirm the creed, there was another motion that wanted to add it to the BF&M, and another that wanted to add all three creeds to the BF&M. Both were referred to committee, and we will find out more next year.
Hi Pastor Keith! Big fan and subscriber on my personal channel so I was wondering if you were going to cover this. I actually made a video on this topic related to the BFM2000 and the Baptist Catechism if you wanted to check it out. It’s the first video I’ve made that’s not related to our church‘s Systematic Theology class. Still figuring out TH-cam haha
If you affirm the Nicene Creed, you’re affirming Eternal Generation of the Son (so Piper, Grudem, and several other very respected SB-friendly pastors are not SB-friendly anymore) and Baptismal Regeneration.
Your “fly in the ointment” there reminded me of a dumb but fun limerick my Mom, who was raised mainly in Sarasota, taught me: A flea and a fly in a flue Said “Nay, what can we do?” Said the flea,”Let us fly!” Said the fly, “Let us flea!” So they flew through a flaw in the flue. Oy. So when will we see “If denominations were represented by limericks”?
They are both councils of Nicaea. Nicaea I and Nicaea II. Yes there was a previous creed at the 2st council, as there was a previous ceed prior to Nicaea, the Apostles Creed, which is still a viable creed some churches still use. 👍🏻
@@srich7503 As long as Christians understand that these are Trinitarian Creeds, we're good. These "catholic" creeds are what makes even us Reformed Baptists, "catholic," because we are Trinitarians. In other words, the "catholicity" of these creedal statements does NOT depend on a Christian being a Papist, or Eastern Orthodox (both of which are apostate, false religions).
@@ryangallmeier6647 i dont disagree but i also dont see how it has anything to do with your OP. Also this last post fits very well with the Catholic catechism teachings.
I respect the SBC for not adopting the Nicene Creed. When you look at what everyone in church history wrote about baptism until 1500 and especially the people involved at the Council of Constantinople (where the Nicene Creed was amended and put into the form that was read at the SBC) Baptismal Regeneration is the only way to understand the final section of that creed. To say otherwise is to go against what the authors intended. Baptists reject baptismal regeneration. So I think it was a move of good integrity on their part to reject it rather than try to reshape it to fit an idea they are more comfortable with.
Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have always upheld the Nicene Creed, it’s just that the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is being overly bureaucratic and keeps kicking the can down the road for another time. They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are starting to include a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.
I've seen three ways to not interpret Acts 2:38 as baptismal regeneration actually. 1. Understand the verse as saying spirit baptism forgives sin, like Redeemed Zoomer's view (church I go to seems to take this view as well), or by metonymy 2. Understand "for" to mean "because of" 3. Parse the command to baptize as a parenthetical clause due to its lack of agreement in pronouns, so that forgiveness is tied to repentance The third interpretation would result in saying the Nicene Creed misinterprets Acts 2:38. I don't know if this is an issue within the SBC, but I know that some trail-of-blood type baptist churches may hold to the church as only a local institution, and so would have a problem about the catholic church line regardless.
@@fuzzyaomeba2844 Some people have parsed Acts 2:38 in a way that makes the command to baptize a parenthetical comment, and linked repentance to the forgiveness of sins. I merely said that these people would have a problem with the creed.
The SBC recites the 'Pledge of Allegiance' to open up the convention. Wouldn't it be far better than take a oath to a kingdom of this earth, to affirm the faith of the kingdom of heaven?
I used to be a Protestant before I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. One of the issues was over the Nicene Creed. Protestants will recite the Creed because it affirms the deity of Christ. But Protestants don't really understand the Nicene Creed the way the Cappadocian Church Fathers wrote it. When the Cappadocians wrote "I believe in one God the Father" they were referring to the Monarchy of the Father. They taught that the Father was God because He was the source and fount of the Godhead. Protestants don't teach the Monarchy of the Father. Nor do they teach the eternal generation of the Son, or the eternal procession of the Sprit from the Father. Protestants adopted the Filioque heresy from Catholicism. So, they adopted the Roman Catholic perversion of the original Creed to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Which is one of the reasons the split occurred between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Latin Church in Rome around 1054AD. Protestantism teaches a Unitarian view of the Trinity. This is why you get Unitarian Churches from the perversion of the Filioque heresy. Every Protestant should go and read the Canons of Nicea. If you do you will notice that the men who wrote the Creed didn't teach any form of Protestantism. If they were alive today, they would see Protestantism as Neo Platonic. And they would see it as a Gnostic heresy. All of the doctrines in Protestantism are conditioned by absolute divine simplicity. Which is a false and inconsistent pagan philosophy applied to the Godhead. The Cappadocians also taught the Essence/Energy in God the the necessity of a distinction between Nature and Person. Which is how you avoid Platonism. No Protestant believes in the Essence/Energy distinction in God. Nor do they teach the distinction between nature and person. Without those distinctions you will fall into Platonism by default. No Protestant understands these problems. I was a Protestant for over 50 years before these ideas hit me in the face. Once you get it, Protestantism falls away naturally. Protestantism is a demonic delusion. It is not the faith that was delivered to the Orthodox saints.
@@iggyantioch I'm not sure. I do know that the Pope in Rome added the phrase 'the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition to the origianl Creed "And the Son" was added around the 11th century. Protestants also use the Roman Catholic version of the Creed which they kept the same from the Roman Catholic Church. How this effects salvation and eclesiology is a deeper study. I'm sure if you Google this subject there is plenty of info on its history. I just know that the split between the East and West is due to this disagreement. It definitely changes ones conception of the Trinity.
Much of the weirdness and abandoning of Biblical tradition going on in the churches today is made possible by the Trinitarian Doctrine. Churches are worshipping their own personal interpretation of the Co-equal Spirit.
I consider you a brother along with many others that receive the nicene creed, but I reject it. I would say it's not an essential issue, but I understand why some think it does.
If baptism washes away sins then yes, it's an essential issue what happens during baptism. Since the early Church taught baptismal regeneration, to say otherwise goes against what Christians have always taught on baptism.
@@dman7668 We're saved by grace through faith and not of works. Baptism with water doesn't save you. Baptism of the Spirit is what saves you when you repent and believe and are born again, which is a simultaneous occurrence that provides the believer justification through the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a work that a Christian will do because they love the Lord, but the work itself does not save.
@jamestiffany3531 The reality is that people have the internet and can easily see the Church never understood baptism the way you understand it James. We can clearly see the Church wasn't viewing baptism or interpreting the Bible that way. You can't find your interpretation of baptism pre protestant reformation. So we know your view is just an accretion and also false.
@@dman7668 The counterfeit Church will always be the mainstream. It's the one everyone flocks towards. There are many antichrist. The true church has the Word of God, which will never pass away. That is where the truth will always be. Everything I said was the truth and can be found in the Scriptures. I don't care what the traditions of men say. I only care about what God has to say.
Independent Baptist, so whatever the southern Baptist, I personally don't care. But for me, I am against all of the creeds. I'm not saying that they don't have some nice things in them. But people waste more time on creeds than reading the Bible for them selves. Read through the Bible a hundred or so times before messing with any creeds.
Keith sounding VERY Catholic in this video. Except for the baseless claims of some general corruption :) Would love to hear your detailed arguments about where and when the Catholic Church was corrupted to the point of being outside the Faith that it carried for 2000 years.
Yes I thought the same, when he talks about church history and admitting yeah this is Catholicism, then yeah when he is talking about the crazy landmark baptists that think their church goes back before rhe reformation (ppsst don't tell Spencer Smith!) And Keith seemed not to buy that idea, I was like yeah their are some real crazy ideas entertained specifically by baptisms that make them look to me as insane as Jehovahs witnesses.
Um, one thing to point out. The nicean creed was created in 325 and amended in 381. You cite that it affirms the Bible. Well, the book we know as The Bible, the canons (books) that the church fathers defined as being inspired and included were not defined until the council of Rome in 382 and finalized at the synod of hippo in 393. What some would call the "Catholic Bible" as in it includes the apocraphal books in the Canon but it was THE BIBLE for all of western Christianity for 1,200 years. So nicea pre-dates the Bible as we know it by 70ish years
SBs have gotten so soft that instead of calling people out by name: Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. The want to add the Nicene creed. Kick the heresies out end of story.
Calvinist don’t believe the nicene creed. You can try and rewrite history and read your Calvinism presups into “we believe in one baptism FOR the REMISSION of sins” but it absolutely does not work.
Yeah there is no getting around it, they might try to have revisionist history as Keith points out in the video of what the words mean "for", but the reality is the Church never actually interpreted the way the baptist Church does and one of the top protestant Scholars points this out.
@dman7668 And as many others pointed out, it was believer's baptism by pouring or immersion then. So you're denying the Creed if you want to go literalist too.
@shawngillogly6873 No, because the men who came up with the creed didn't have a problem with infant baptism. They were not Protestants in their views sadly. They were not baptists at all. Their views on baptism not washing away sins don't even appear historically to exist during this time period.
The other thing about Nicea is that in just about every crackpot theory about how the church has gone totally wrong, that's where it happened. Nicea is where, they tell us, the canon was (wrongly) decided. Nicea is where they changed to worship on Sundays. Nicea is where the church systematically excluded women from leadership. Nicea is where they made Jesus God. And there's a tiny (very tiny) bit of truth to the last one, but not much. But if something bad happened to the church, Nicea is where it (supposedly) happened.
Dont bail on SBC or others. They haven't fallen. Stay and fight for the church the way Paul encouraged. Fight for truth and unity. Instead of leaving, stand and fight. This whole concept of bailing because you disagree is not biblical.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher here.
I have the 1689 baptist confession of faith and the catechism. I just bought a wall hanger nicene creed and apostles creed for my classroom wall.
Awesome! As an SBC Member, I love that!
ah so now we see that a
" confession" that I dont believe is now the authority. As an SBCer myself, that just goes to show that none of these things make us anything more than mans opinion
@@caman171 the Bible is my authority my rock whether you agree with the contents of the 1689 is your own convictions even if they're false. The 1689 is only a tool affirming what we believe to be revealed in scripture.
The founders of the SBC were reformed. One of the greatest evangelists ever Charles Spurgeon was reformed. His reasoning
"Reformed theology is the most God glorifying doctrine."
Not to mention the greatest evangelist of all time Paul undoubtedly believed in the sovereignty of God unto salvation.
You believe this is wrong I believe this is right.
One of us is wrong or both of us is wrong but we are not both right
Let God be true and every man a liar
@@Slice_O_Bread94 You obviously need a history lesson. Being a calvinistic Baptist is NOT the same as being "reformed", ask Spurgeon. He said both Catholics and Reformed persecuted Baptists, and that we existed before them. However, the term "calvinist" only meant you affirmed some type of eternal security when the SBC was formed, hence 2 pointers, 3 pointers etc. Southern Baptists were composed mostly of Separate Baptists, who were largely NON Calvinists by todays definition. Read Jesse Mercer's memoirs, who WAS a 5 point Calvinist. He affirms what I say. the sandy Creek Association was the forerunner to most Southern Baptists, and they were not predestinarian at all. So my convictions are false huh? Reformed theology is the most God glorifying? Sop how did God get glory before yall came along? Even Calvinist scholars admit your doctrines didnt exist before Augustine see here th-cam.com/video/-UkCWKzjsVs/w-d-xo.html
@@Slice_O_Bread94 You need a history lesson. The SBC was composed largely of Separate Baptists and werent calvinist by todays definition. Jesse Mercer affirm this in his memoirs, and he was a 5 pointer. Also Spurgeon would be horrified if you called him "reformed" . There's a big difference between a calvinistic Baptist and a Reformed person. As for God being glorified by Reformed doctrine. how did He get glory before it existed? Even leading Calvinist scholars admit it didnt exist before Augustine.
My church recites either the Nicene or Apostles creed each week. I hope the SBC adopts the Nicene creed; I know many solid, confessional, historically rooted Baptists and for their sake, I hope the SBC doesnt sully the Baptist label by being anti credal. Ain't my fight as a confessional Lutheran, but I still care for the sake of the broader catholic church.
Same here.
We recite the athenasian creed. From memory!
I switched to Lutheran recently and love saying one of the creeds and The Lord’s Prayer each week.
@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I switched a year ago and was catechized online the two years before; attending both my Lutheran and my parents' nondenom church prior to being confirmed.
@@hailholyqueen That is impressive.
Those who reject Nicene Christianity reject Christianity itself
Christianity was around for several centuries before the Nicene Creed was created. During those early years, Christian communities had a wide range of beliefs and practices. Saying that anyone who doesn't follow Nicene Christianity isn't truly Christian ignores this rich history and diversity. Your tone exhibits the same spirit which caused the church to actually physically murder anyone who deviated from the creed. I have been a pastor for over 30 years, from my experience most people when trying to describe the trinity provide examples that support modalism.
@@Cato1006 the Nicene creed affirms the divinity of Christ. What is your issue with it? Heretical groups like gnostics or arians before and during the time of the Council of Nicea did not teach the truth about our Lord Jesus Christ.
If you don’t either, then you are a pastor of nothing but lies.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Jesus is God's son. John 3:16 destroys the divinity idea. Jesus NEVER taught anything close to what Nicea decided. Jesus NEVER taught the trinity. If Jesus didn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity, then perhaps the way you are reading those texts that you think support the deity of Christ are incorrect. The fact that Jesus never taught the doctrine of Trinity is admitted by many Trinitarian theologians. Here are a few:
It is a given or self-evidently true that the essential doctrines of Christianity should be CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY stated in Scripture, not deduced or developed from complex or convoluted theological constructs developed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th century of the Christian era.
Charles Ryrie, in Basic Theology, writes: It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89).
Millard Erickson, "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture,” "In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12). "The doctrine of the trinity is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20). "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. "Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109)
Trinitarian G.W. Bromiley is quoted in “The Evangelical Dict. of Theology” edited by Walter Elwell, as saying: “In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine…” (p.1112)
Roger Olson and Christopher Hall in their book, The Trinity write:"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? (p.1).
@@gumbyshrimp2606 I responded to your comment the author of the post deleted my response.
@@Cato1006 I think youtube is just being weird some of my comments are disappearing too on other videos
Many of my Baptist friends will say, No creed but Christ.” They seldom appreciate my joke that their anti-creed proclamation is actually a creed. If looks could kill...
I’m so stupid I thought Apostles Creed fought Rocky for the heavyweight championship!!!
😅😅😅😅
No! He already had the championship, Rocky fought him! They became best friends and stayed close until he was killed by the Soviets.
As a presbyterian, I have a Calvinist joke.
Why did the Calvinist marry a girl named Grace. He found her irresistible.😂😂😂
Nazarene here.
One of the things I have started doing in my church is to have the congregation read/recite the creeds together. We have been doing the Apostles' Creed and in a couple weeks we will be switching over to the Nicene Creed. I was quite pleased when one of my children asked a question about Jesus and came to the answer through reciting the Apostles' Creed with his siblings.
Throw the athanasian creed in there too! Really good.
Nazarene ah....😒 women pastor, Arminianism, voting for your leaders....yep, I've been in that rabbit hole 🕳
Amen!
Brother, your church should join the SBC, we need men like you. Some Baptists don't believe in the universal church. That is a small part of Southern Baptist but there are some.
My church, a semi-independent Reformed baptistic church (i.e., Baptist is not in the name but we are credobaptist) does affirm the Nicene creed. We've started reciting (or really reading since none of us have it memorized lol) various creeds during the Sunday service, the Nicene creed included, but it does vary Sunday to Sunday.
Personally, I do think it would be good for the SBC to include something like the Nicene creed in the BFM, even if they write their own. To define orthodoxy in an organization like the SBC is essential, and it's concerning that they didn't define the Trinity before.
Me: a minister with the Churches of Christ here: 1.) Your explanation of our understanding of baptism is as fairly expressed by "not one of us" as any I've heard . 2.) Ironically, we are even more "anti-creedal" than most Baptists but I have zero problem with the content of ecuminical creeds.
I appreciate your comment of having no problem with the content of the ecuminical creeds coming from a CoC. I would argue however, you are creedal the moment someone preaches or teaches the text of the Bible in their own words. To truly be anti-creedal as "no creed but Christ" would be to simply read the Bible. Once someone begins to explain the Bible they are making a statement about what they believe about the text, and therefore making a creedal statement "I believe."
We would be glad to have you in the SBC brother
Yes! We need some normal Calvinists and not another crazy uncle!
Just bought the Boyce theology book you referred to. It’s well done. It would be nice if you could post a list of book recommendations somewhere.
Thanks bro, I did do a video with my five favorite books. th-cam.com/users/shortsrz9rNWduDEE?si=i1nQTlcujrJQmSLY
. 10:55 know what's wild??? When you debated Spencer Smith, he said that he studies the Bible and isn't interested in the history or Orthodox Theology from Church History by other men. That's wild for someone to say.
Just discovered your channel & belong to a Reformed SBC church. We recite the Nicene creed the first Sunday of each month & adhere to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Good job brother!
nice haircut brother 👍 a superior haircut, as a presbytarian I must say.
I attend a PCA church here in AZ. We just recited the Nicene Creed this past Lord's Day.
I don’t think that Baptists can affirm the language of the Nicene Creed in terms of what it actually means (because I think it pretty clearly is talking about Baptismal regeneration; however, I am a Lutheran so I would say that). With that said, I still think they should affirm it because of what you said, this is really the historic creed of the church, and if Baptists wants to maintain any sort of Catholicity and connection to the rest of the church they should affirm it. Also it’s just true and teaches what Scripture teaches.
Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have always upheld the Nicene Creed, it’s just that the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is being overly bureaucratic and keeps kicking the can down the road for another time.
They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are starting to include a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.
Just a reminder that the intro theme song is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.
Not a Calvinist, just a recently joined a SBC….i love that your theme song end with “he’s nice” 😂 so funny
I feel like it's impossible to really reconcile baptist theology with church history, let alone calvinism. Now I understand redeemed zoomer's point that reformed baptists aren't reformed because their views on sacraments are just radically off
On yeah absolutely, you can't unsee the mess that is the Baptist Church's stance on baptism which was unheard of before they showed up.
I wish the SBC the best. Ex Baptist New Catholic convert.
Oh I'm sorry I pray you find better theology and don't pray to dead people
Faith alone was not good enough? You had to add your works to salvation? Way to abandon the faith you once knew. There no longer remains a sacrifice for you under works.
@@alwaysreforming872 He has not abandoned the faith, he never had one. No one who has been a real christian retreats from the faith. As the Apostle John said "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
Many years ago i was doing evangelism in the midle of a street market and a man came to me took one of my leaflet from my hand crumpled it up, threw it on the ground, and said to me while shouting: "you are a buch of liars, I used to be a christian evangelical and was baptised in the church but now I know the truth, you are all liars. that's why I left" I never told him I was an evangelical, he was refering to a pentecostal church he thought I was one of them, but I really felt sad for him and after 20 years I still think about that man. It must be terrible to end up like that.
@Scribeintheink yes.
Troll
I could be wrong, but it seems like the creed vs. confession topic is almost an exercise in semantics because the statements that are being made are essentially the same thing. As long as you agree with key Bible principles and doctrine and scripture in its proper context, then call it what you want.
Al Mohler said something similar and I think ultimately it is true. Creeds do tend to be shorter and more declarative, but they serve a similar function as you said.
Lutheran's also believe in baptism regeneration and no one can accuse lutherans of salvation by works. 😊. I don't think Mr. Foskey would ever say Lutherans believe in salvation by works.
Which makes this adoption of the Nicene creed by the SBC interesting. They believe in a baptism, but not that it saves nor that it forgives sins. So do some believe it or not?
@@fuzzyaomeba2844 honestly I don't think they could if they stick to their own tradition. If they accept what's been taught by the church from the beginning, they would be compelled to leave. There is much to be said on these matters... God Bless
Exactly, baptism is a work of The Holy Spirit. He adopts us, He buries us with Christ, He raises us to new life, He clothes us in Christ. There is nothing wrong with affirming Bible verses which is what the Nicene and Apostle’ Creed are summaries of.
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 I agree, not our work, but God's for us
@@fuzzyaomeba2844This can depend on which Lutheran Synod you might be referring to, but Lutherans believe in forgiveness of sins through baptism. They also believe that a baptized person is baptized into Jesus’ death and therefore also into his resurrection. A baptized person therefore has a hope of heaven.
Smitest thou said fly!! Hear/believe/confess/repent/baptism, then live faithfully is what you are hunting for. What I have heard - if a creed says what is in the Bible, you don't need it - if it says what isn't in the Bible, you don't want it.
Only 41% of teaching pastors have a biblical worldview, 28% associate pastors, and 12% of youth pastors. They are enabling this to happen.
Repent and be Presbyterian!
😂😂😂😂
Amen!
Love ya, but no thanks.
Repent and be Lutheran!
@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny you'll get there one day, I'll pray for you friend!
It's generally held that there were about 250 Bishops present at Nicaea.
It was where the Bishops of the Church (there was only one Church) gathered together to discuss Arianism.
I didn't expect the church of Christ shoutout. I appreciate it and appreciate your content.
The Tiny Bible doesn't come in the Elect Standard Version? :)
Actually it’s the Elect Sovereign Version
I think the Tiny Bible is more of a gimmick if it's the one that I'm thinking of.
@@Mulerider4Life
Actually Keith has said, one of its purposes is to put scripture in the hands of people who are not allowed to have a Bible. 🙂
Another great video. Having grown up Lutheran, I love and miss reciting the creeds in our non-denominational church. Greet explanation!
When I heard that this came up for debate I wondered how a denomination that upholds baptism isn't necessary for salvation could adopt the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith... then I heard those in favor trying to dress up the "one baptism for the remission of sins" as baptism in a spiritual sense and not the physical act. I couldn't wait to see how those same people were going to reinterpret, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"...
You think the debate over the Nicene Creed is tough, try ordering pizza with these folks. 😂
Think is important to have the creed for a dividing line. Its simple if you confess and believe the Nicene Creed you are a Christian. If you don't you are outside the Christian faith.
It'll never end there.
One group will inevitably say that their beliefs conform to the creed, and that they affirm it, while detractors say that their beliefs contradict the creed.
Calvinists and anti-Calvinists both say they have a God centered worldview, not a man-centered worldview. They do not agree on the description of the other.
Classical theists and open theists both say they affirm God's Omniscience. They disagree on the description of the other.
@@JD-xz1mx It does end there. Objectively speaking, either you affirm the basic principles of the faith or you don’t. Calvinism vs Arminianism is not a matter of who is inside or outside of the faith.
The Nicene creed represents an imperial Christian religion with ecumenical councils where the Emperor is the divine head of the church and ecumene..meaning approved of the empire.
@@TheMorning_Sonwhere does it say that specifically?
@@TheMorning_SonIs that when the Sabbath was ignored and people started worshipping on the Venerable Day of the Sun?
Raised SBC, spent many years as an evangelical/moderately good Calvinist, and now a confessional Lutheran: very good video. I assert that the Baptist Faith and Message is a creed. One may try to find a loophole claiming that it doesn’t say “I believe….,” but that's a weak argument; can someone be a faithful Baptist but deny any part of that statement of faith?
For some fun, here’s the Lutheran view of this argument: th-cam.com/video/GPg0wBP5k6M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=x584ubA0KKKoHyHP
Watch to the end.
I'm in a similar situation as well.
The BFM is a statement of faith, subservient to the creeds.
Thank you, Keith for your faithful contribution the English speaking catholic (yeah, I said it) church. Your insights have pointed me in some excellent directions and contributed to my bookshelf as well.
Thirty-one-year card carrying Baptist here. The Baptist denomination is a weird denomination because it is VERY congregational. Due to this loose affiliation, the SBC has always been slow to expel heretics, slow to adopt exhaustive theology, etcetera. This can make it difficult for a 24-year-old minister to find a church that will take him, but also frees him up from having to answer to a bishop 2 states over. Overall, I think this setup is a net positive.
I have no problem with the SBC not adopting the Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian, Chalcedon creeds; the Doxology hymn; or even the entire Red Back Hymnal. It is not really for the SBC to say, but for Pastor Smith of First Baptist 3rd Street and his elder board to affirm these things or just let them lie as they are. I could definately be wrong on this as just a layman, but that's the way I see it.
4:27 MISSISSIPPI!? A MISSISSIPPIAN DID THAT!? LETS GOOOOOOOOO
I grew up North American Baptist and the creeds were in the back of our hymnal. We said them a few times a year. Recently, a Lutheran asked me how we could say the part “baptism for the remission of sins” since we didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. My mom says maybe we meant baptism by The Holy Spirit when Jesus says you were baptized with water but later will be baptized with The Holy Spirit. We also said Christian or Catholic was catholic with a footnote saying universal. I love saying the creeds. They are statements of truth they all Christians should agree on.
Acts 2:38 states that as a result of Baptism you receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. How do you understand that?
Acts 2:38 uses the Greek word “eis” for “for”. Some say it should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching.
Can man beckon God to give the Holy Spirit at man’s discretion by performing a water baptism or is the baptism symbolic of repentance and is done to show the desire of man to be clean from sin and to follow Jesus (which man needs the Holy Spirit to do)?
“Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.””
Mark 11:30 ESV
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
1 Peter 3:21 ESV
““I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
Matthew 3:11 ESV
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”
Ezekiel 36:25-26 ESV
"And I feel my troubles all melt awaaaaay"!!!!!
Nice haircut 💇♂️ I’m struggling a lot but I like your content God bless you
8:44 Arius was a priest, not a bishop.
10:35 They weren’t determining what the Bible said about Jesus’ Divinity, because there was no Bible or Canon yet, and many of the books and letter in the eventual Canon had different versions. Most importantly the Gospel of John, whose opening lines had been edited or miscopied to support the position of Arius.
Answering the informal poll--we recite the Nicene or Apostles' Creed each Sunday and the Athanasian on Trinity Sundays. It would have been fun if someone had introduced a motion to include the Athanasian, then gone on to recite it in it's entirety 😅
Great explanation of the situation! When we understand the creed properly as a summary of the biblical exegesis of the universal church down through the centuries upheld by those with a unswerving commitment to the revelation in scripture of our One true God eternally existing in three distinct Persons, we can wholeheartedly affirm and appreciate it.
Raised SBC, SBC seminary MDiv, vocational service internationally and domestically with the SBC, now Continentally Reformed…but still intrigued by the annual Convention. We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday at my church. When my parents join us for worship, they won’t recite the creed because it has the word “catholic” in it. My respect to this delegate for choosing a version with “universal” instead of “catholic.” There’s always next year to change the SBC’s cornerstone document. A foundational pledge I hold dear from my childhood is the Royal Ambassadors pledge. Many SBC churches have done away with RAs and GAs for Awana. As old school SBC, the RA pledge still guides me. Maybe it could be part of the BF&M
As a Royal Ambassador, I will do my best to become a well-informed, responsible follower of Christ; to have a Christlike concern for all people; to learn how to carry the message of Christ around the world; to work with others in sharing Christ; and to keep myself clean and healthy in mind and body.
GOD Bless brother,, Nice cut
We're part of an North American Baptist (NAB) fellowship. We're reformed; we recite the Nicene Creed every Lord's Day.
As a Baptist, I believe we are baptized “for the remission of sins” in the same way John baptized people “with water for repentance.” (Matt. 3:11) The baptism did not make them repentant. They came to John already repentant.
The problem is that the early Church didn't interpret the gospel that way. You were not regenerated before baptism. You won't even find that interpretation talked about before the Baptist church comes along. Hence why it is false. The baptism of John the Baptist was merely a precursor for the true baptism being offered by Christ. Preparing the people for that which was to come. That's all.
Back when baptism was viewed as the first expression of saving faith, such as in Acts chapter 2, claiming that a person needed to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins was not an issue. It was only when people started separating baptism from faith and salvation that it became an issue. Now people often separate baptism from the rest by weeks months or even years. And many even do it before the person is saved.
Hmm. I think they would have to find out what it says before they reject it. I spent many years in the SBC and never heard it mentioned.
The church i was raised in was a member of the SBC until 2002 or so, they left and became independent because they thought the SBC was drifting to far left. I thought they were over reacting, time to admit i was wrong.
There's a Brian Borgman sermon on Romans 1:1 where during his preaching a fly starts buzzing and he takes something and tries to whack it. The timing is really good. I shared the sermon with my dad and that was what stood out to him the most😂
In the Global Methodist church, we use the Apostles Creed and recite it every Sunday
Very interesting show. I’m one of your new subscribers 😁 I originally agreed with the idea of the SBC adopting the Nicene Creed. But after quite a bit of discussion with other TH-camrs, it seems very clear that the Creed is so closely associated with the RCC that it will never be adopted by the SBC. Maybe they should rewrite it in such a way that it says the same thing, but without the exact verbiage that was inherited from the RCC. In addition, the understanding of baptism for the remission of sins smacks of RCC infant baptism. I don’t make the same connection (I’ve read Acts 2:38 too lol). But too many baptists cannot read those words without visualizing infant baptism. So re-writing the creed to fit baptist dogma might be wise. But I do agree that the SBC definition of the Trinity is extremely loose. It’s no accident that most conversions to the JWs come from SBC membership rolls. Something certainly needs to be done to teach Southern Baptists about orthodox understandings of the Trinity.
If the SBC has to rewrite the creed to fit its dogma, then does it also have to rewrite Acts 2.38 to fit its dogma? And at that point, does it even care what the Bible teaches?
Look at the verse in the CSB (which may not be an exclusively Baptist translation, but it does have ties to the SBC): "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Surely if it's good enough for the CSB, it's good enough for the SBC.
@@MAMorenoWell … you’re preaching to the choir. I have no problem with the verse or the creed. But Southern Baptists will never accept the creed as written. The way that the RCC uses that phrase to justify infant baptism is just a step too far for them. Just the way it is. I’m not really sure why baptism would even need to be mentioned in a creed about the Trinity anyway …
As an SBC pastor, this was a tempest in a tea pot argument. It was not necessary and more distracting than helpful.
20:36 Brother, I did the same thing with the haircut a week ago. It's gotten hot up in Tennessee too. The problem I had was I had had applied the appropriate amount of product, paste, hair jelly, whatever for the length of hair I started the day with. That wasn't enough for what I came out of the barber shop with. Lacking in time, i walked into Wednesday evening service at church with what looked a little like a sail sitting on top of my head. It was like the hair on one side of my head was standing with their arms were held high in praise to the Lord while the hair on the other was sitting firmly like a backrow baptist mad about the music the new worship leader was pushing on them. To be fair, my adult son warned me, but a week's worth of ribbing about my hair was worth not walking in late.
Who do I ask about getting a box of those Calvinism hot and cold mugs?
I emailed the store to see if I could get a response if they’re available I would like to purchase a box or two of the mugs !
There's a PRE- DESTINATION charge
😊
@@iggyantioch that’s fine. Add it to my account. I think it’s covered.
I think most have issues with one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Some may view this a way of preventing a person baptized as an infant from getting baptized as adults
I want the SBC to adopt the Creed. But I don't want it to be an appendix or footnote in the BFM. Referring the matter to committee to determine how to best integrate it was not unfair.
How important is it that one believe the creed as intended by the council? Can one say he believes it, yet have a different interpretation or application than originally intended? Is it the wording (form) or meaning (substance) that is important?
To have a different interpretation or application than originally intended, is contrary to the purpose of a creed. You can't "accept" the creed and have a different interpretation contrary to the authors.
That's just being a dishonest heretic that's trying to sneak their way into the orthodox faith
I would say no. You cannot affirm honestly the Nicean creed by re inventing it. Then it just becomes another sparkle ✨️ creed in all but name.
@Godfrey118 Yeah, I would agree with you Godfrey. You cannot affirm a creed and then actually not be affirming it. This is just dishonest to try and do that. These men obviously had something specific in mind when it stated things like baptism for for the forgiveness of sins
I've heard Mormons say that they could affirm the Creed if they interpret certain words in a way those at the Council clearly did not mean.
The real question which needs to be asked is how did Baptist theology get so far off the mark that affirming the Nicene Creed became a problem? The Nicene Creed is the fundamental guardrail of who is or is not a Christian, by definition. The Creed is what guided the decisions on which writings of scripture would become the canon of the bible. They are inseparable.
If a church has a problem with the Creed, it isn't the Creed that went astray.
Who cares? Did they reject scripture? No other question is is meaningful except for theological criticism.
Everything in the nicene creed is in scripture. Rejecting it is rejecting scripture, for one thing. For another, it was made specifically to address a heresy that claimed to be biblical (arianism). It addresses that only an interpretation of scripture that shows Jesus as God is acceptable. To take issue with that usually means that you either want to do sneaky heresy, or that you don't understand the creed
24:28 except we can't agree on the list of essentials
Throw in the Athanasian Creed once a year. It is a stong rebuke against Mormons and JWs.
Thanks for highlighting our effort. We are grateful for the opportunity to encourage our fellow SBs to see the value in the Nicene Creed. I took the video and that sweet voice offering a “second” is my daughter, whose husband is a pastor in Henderson, NC. They are both graduates from Southeastern Seminary.
There is no need to add to Baptist Faith & Message. If an individual church wants to recite a creed that is their choice.
Have you seen the statistics of pastors deny essential doctrines such as The Trinity? Or people who profess faith in Jesus Christ deny them?
The BF&M already has those essential doctrines. If a pastor or lay person denies them already, how does adding a creed make a difference?
@@davidharvie6240 That’s my point, not having those hard stances on doctrine led to this. It seems that the BF&M is open to interpretation, but a creed is not. In some instances, the SBC is to autonomous.
The Nicene Creed was not rejected nor did we “leave it out”…the SBC has stupid rules about certain things that don’t allow things to simply be added or removed from the BF&M. It was referred to committee by rule. It will be brought to a vote most likely next year and then have to be voted on again the following year. [[This is borderline false witness.]]*
*EDIT: I retract this!
Did you watch the video? The first 10 seconds I said the SBC didn't reject it.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist must have been muted when I opened the video. I did listen to the whole video and somehow miss that. I retract!
@@RyanMcAllister1987 No worries, I didn't really explain the voting system or how it all worked (not even sure I understand). My purpose was to talk about why *some* in the SBC did not want to accept the creed. But thanks for responding, and watching! Blessings!
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist love your content, brother. Sorry I jumped hard. I’ve seen a LOT of confusion over the SBC stuff (understandably) so I just jumped too quickly. Should have rewatched lol!
How do i get that cup?
A church member gave it to me, they had it special made. I may try to figure a way to have it recreated to sell in our shop.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Nice! thanks for the response it was a burin g question XD
Growing up in and attending SBC churches most of my life, I'm not surprised it failed at vote. While the SBC is a calico cat of churches in some ways, adopting a creed would unite the Bible only folks with the nothing Catholic folks. Even though there's a significant overlap in that Venn diagram, there's enough outside the overlap to make sure it never passes especially when you throw in the change nothing kind of people.
I've never regularly attended a church that recited a creed as I've pretty much been some flavor of baptist all along, SBC, Independent, and now FWB. The last SBC where we were members did begin to recite Matthew 22:36-39 during every service. It honestly had an effect on me, and I can see the value of doing recitation because of it.
It flatly teaches Baptismal Regeneration, that is what the authors meant it to teach when they wrote it, so I would argue that none of the Reformed/Calvinists could honestly affirm it's plain meaning without adding some qualifier like "for the elect" or "spirit baptism", never mind Baptists who call Baptism an Ordinance and not a Sacrament. Baptists are honestly the most Reformed of the Reformed branch of Christianity. (Sorry Presbyterians/Dutch Reformed)
Also, that particular motion was only for the messengers present to affirm the creed, there was another motion that wanted to add it to the BF&M, and another that wanted to add all three creeds to the BF&M. Both were referred to committee, and we will find out more next year.
Hi Pastor Keith! Big fan and subscriber on my personal channel so I was wondering if you were going to cover this. I actually made a video on this topic related to the BFM2000 and the Baptist Catechism if you wanted to check it out. It’s the first video I’ve made that’s not related to our church‘s Systematic Theology class. Still figuring out TH-cam haha
If you affirm the Nicene Creed, you’re affirming Eternal Generation of the Son (so Piper, Grudem, and several other very respected SB-friendly pastors are not SB-friendly anymore) and Baptismal Regeneration.
38:00
This reminds me of the meme that's going around: Cows kill more people than sharks.
A manly drink of Pepsi and shoe polish? That intro🤣
I think that the SBC should accept the nicean creed.....With Arms Wide Open!!
Did the Lutheran Satire guy sing the intro song ? If yes, NO WAY!
Yea its Hans Fiene
I hope that fly ain’t radioactive.
Your “fly in the ointment” there reminded me of a dumb but fun limerick my Mom, who was raised mainly in Sarasota, taught me:
A flea and a fly in a flue
Said “Nay, what can we do?”
Said the flea,”Let us fly!”
Said the fly, “Let us flea!”
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.
Oy. So when will we see “If denominations were represented by limericks”?
The brother cited the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381), not the Nicene Creed (325).
They are both councils of Nicaea. Nicaea I and Nicaea II. Yes there was a previous creed at the 2st council, as there was a previous ceed prior to Nicaea, the Apostles Creed, which is still a viable creed some churches still use. 👍🏻
@@srich7503 As long as Christians understand that these are Trinitarian Creeds, we're good.
These "catholic" creeds are what makes even us Reformed Baptists, "catholic," because we are Trinitarians.
In other words, the "catholicity" of these creedal statements does NOT depend on a Christian being a Papist, or Eastern Orthodox (both of which are apostate, false religions).
@@ryangallmeier6647 i dont disagree but i also dont see how it has anything to do with your OP. Also this last post fits very well with the Catholic catechism teachings.
I respect the SBC for not adopting the Nicene Creed. When you look at what everyone in church history wrote about baptism until 1500 and especially the people involved at the Council of Constantinople (where the Nicene Creed was amended and put into the form that was read at the SBC) Baptismal Regeneration is the only way to understand the final section of that creed. To say otherwise is to go against what the authors intended. Baptists reject baptismal regeneration. So I think it was a move of good integrity on their part to reject it rather than try to reshape it to fit an idea they are more comfortable with.
Baptists, including Southern Baptists, have always upheld the Nicene Creed, it’s just that the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is being overly bureaucratic and keeps kicking the can down the road for another time.
They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are starting to include a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.
1 Peter 3:21 "... baptism ... now saves you..."
Is the Baptist Faith and Message infallible?
It is a good haircut and beard trim.
Deep South humidity is a killer, I knew immediately why you got all your hairs cut.
AMEN!!!
I've seen three ways to not interpret Acts 2:38 as baptismal regeneration actually.
1. Understand the verse as saying spirit baptism forgives sin, like Redeemed Zoomer's view (church I go to seems to take this view as well), or by metonymy
2. Understand "for" to mean "because of"
3. Parse the command to baptize as a parenthetical clause due to its lack of agreement in pronouns, so that forgiveness is tied to repentance
The third interpretation would result in saying the Nicene Creed misinterprets Acts 2:38.
I don't know if this is an issue within the SBC, but I know that some trail-of-blood type baptist churches may hold to the church as only a local institution, and so would have a problem about the catholic church line regardless.
I'm not sure how the Nicene Creed misinterprets Act 2:38?
@@fuzzyaomeba2844 Some people have parsed Acts 2:38 in a way that makes the command to baptize a parenthetical comment, and linked repentance to the forgiveness of sins. I merely said that these people would have a problem with the creed.
@@maxxiong ok, thank you for explaining what you meant
The SBC recites the 'Pledge of Allegiance' to open up the convention. Wouldn't it be far better than take a oath to a kingdom of this earth, to affirm the faith of the kingdom of heaven?
Why in the world do they do THAT?
where did you get the cup?
Church member had it made for me, it was a gift :)
I used to be a Protestant before I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. One of the issues was over the Nicene Creed. Protestants will recite the Creed because it affirms the deity of Christ. But Protestants don't really understand the Nicene Creed the way the Cappadocian Church Fathers wrote it. When the Cappadocians wrote "I believe in one God the Father" they were referring to the Monarchy of the Father. They taught that the Father was God because He was the source and fount of the Godhead. Protestants don't teach the Monarchy of the Father. Nor do they teach the eternal generation of the Son, or the eternal procession of the Sprit from the Father. Protestants adopted the Filioque heresy from Catholicism. So, they adopted the Roman Catholic perversion of the original Creed to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Which is one of the reasons the split occurred between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Latin Church in Rome around 1054AD.
Protestantism teaches a Unitarian view of the Trinity. This is why you get Unitarian Churches from the perversion of the Filioque heresy. Every Protestant should go and read the Canons of Nicea. If you do you will notice that the men who wrote the Creed didn't teach any form of Protestantism. If they were alive today, they would see Protestantism as Neo Platonic. And they would see it as a Gnostic heresy. All of the doctrines in Protestantism are conditioned by absolute divine simplicity. Which is a false and inconsistent pagan philosophy applied to the Godhead. The Cappadocians also taught the Essence/Energy in God the the necessity of a distinction between Nature and Person. Which is how you avoid Platonism. No Protestant believes in the Essence/Energy distinction in God. Nor do they teach the distinction between nature and person. Without those distinctions you will fall into Platonism by default. No Protestant understands these problems. I was a Protestant for over 50 years before these ideas hit me in the face. Once you get it, Protestantism falls away naturally. Protestantism is a demonic delusion. It is not the faith that was delivered to the Orthodox saints.
Why did the Catholic Church add the filioque?
@@iggyantioch I'm not sure. I do know that the Pope in Rome added the phrase 'the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition to the origianl Creed "And the Son" was added around the 11th century. Protestants also use the Roman Catholic version of the Creed which they kept the same from the Roman Catholic Church. How this effects salvation and eclesiology is a deeper study. I'm sure if you Google this subject there is plenty of info on its history. I just know that the split between the East and West is due to this disagreement. It definitely changes ones conception of the Trinity.
Too much in the Nicene Creed that is vague and open to misunderstanding or twisting. It would be unwise to add it to the BF&M.
Much of the weirdness and abandoning of Biblical tradition going on in the churches today is made possible by the Trinitarian Doctrine. Churches are worshipping their own personal interpretation of the Co-equal Spirit.
You are Southern Baptist bro knock it off!😊
I consider you a brother along with many others that receive the nicene creed, but I reject it.
I would say it's not an essential issue, but I understand why some think it does.
If baptism washes away sins then yes, it's an essential issue what happens during baptism. Since the early Church taught baptismal regeneration, to say otherwise goes against what Christians have always taught on baptism.
@@dman7668 We're saved by grace through faith and not of works.
Baptism with water doesn't save you.
Baptism of the Spirit is what saves you when you repent and believe and are born again, which is a simultaneous occurrence that provides the believer justification through the shed of blood of Jesus Christ.
Baptism is a work that a Christian will do because they love the Lord, but the work itself does not save.
@jamestiffany3531 The reality is that people have the internet and can easily see the Church never understood baptism the way you understand it James. We can clearly see the Church wasn't viewing baptism or interpreting the Bible that way. You can't find your interpretation of baptism pre protestant reformation. So we know your view is just an accretion and also false.
@@dman7668 The counterfeit Church will always be the mainstream.
It's the one everyone flocks towards.
There are many antichrist.
The true church has the Word of God, which will never pass away.
That is where the truth will always be.
Everything I said was the truth and can be found in the Scriptures.
I don't care what the traditions of men say.
I only care about what God has to say.
The SBC should go back to the 1689. That will prevent future Furticks from hanging around.
Independent Baptist, so whatever the southern Baptist, I personally don't care. But for me, I am against all of the creeds. I'm not saying that they don't have some nice things in them. But people waste more time on creeds than reading the Bible for them selves. Read through the Bible a hundred or so times before messing with any creeds.
Everyone reading the bible for themselves is exactly why we need creeds. 😊
Keith sounding VERY Catholic in this video. Except for the baseless claims of some general corruption :)
Would love to hear your detailed arguments about where and when the Catholic Church was corrupted to the point of being outside the Faith that it carried for 2000 years.
Yes I thought the same, when he talks about church history and admitting yeah this is Catholicism, then yeah when he is talking about the crazy landmark baptists that think their church goes back before rhe reformation (ppsst don't tell Spencer Smith!) And Keith seemed not to buy that idea, I was like yeah their are some real crazy ideas entertained specifically by baptisms that make them look to me as insane as Jehovahs witnesses.
Um, one thing to point out. The nicean creed was created in 325 and amended in 381. You cite that it affirms the Bible. Well, the book we know as The Bible, the canons (books) that the church fathers defined as being inspired and included were not defined until the council of Rome in 382 and finalized at the synod of hippo in 393. What some would call the "Catholic Bible" as in it includes the apocraphal books in the Canon but it was THE BIBLE for all of western Christianity for 1,200 years. So nicea pre-dates the Bible as we know it by 70ish years
SBs have gotten so soft that instead of calling people out by name: Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. The want to add the Nicene creed. Kick the heresies out end of story.
Calvinist don’t believe the nicene creed. You can try and rewrite history and read your Calvinism presups into “we believe in one baptism FOR the REMISSION of sins” but it absolutely does not work.
I don't see how the sbc could adopt it. The creed affirms baptismal regeneration.
Yeah there is no getting around it, they might try to have revisionist history as Keith points out in the video of what the words mean "for", but the reality is the Church never actually interpreted the way the baptist Church does and one of the top protestant Scholars points this out.
@dman7668 And as many others pointed out, it was believer's baptism by pouring or immersion then. So you're denying the Creed if you want to go literalist too.
@shawngillogly6873 No, because the men who came up with the creed didn't have a problem with infant baptism. They were not Protestants in their views sadly. They were not baptists at all. Their views on baptism not washing away sins don't even appear historically to exist during this time period.
The other thing about Nicea is that in just about every crackpot theory about how the church has gone totally wrong, that's where it happened. Nicea is where, they tell us, the canon was (wrongly) decided. Nicea is where they changed to worship on Sundays. Nicea is where the church systematically excluded women from leadership. Nicea is where they made Jesus God. And there's a tiny (very tiny) bit of truth to the last one, but not much. But if something bad happened to the church, Nicea is where it (supposedly) happened.
There is no doubt the Nicene Creed described our Christian God and faith in a nutshell.
Dont bail on SBC or others. They haven't fallen. Stay and fight for the church the way Paul encouraged. Fight for truth and unity. Instead of leaving, stand and fight. This whole concept of bailing because you disagree is not biblical.
Haircut looks sharp