I don't know where Joshua got his training but I have never seen a more knowledgeable presentation than this. Not only is it good but it's done without a bias toward one side or the other. I'm so glad I found this channel. Thank you.
As a conservative Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) who attended an IFB undergraduate, I appreciate that accuracy and fair treatment found in this video. I definitely didn't expect this when I clicked on the thumbnail
What does the name "Presbyterian " mean? It comes from the Greek: "presby" which means "older". (The word "presbyopia" therefore means "old eyes," which happens as we age.) The gover- ning body in the local church is called the "Session," made up of the elders, who are considered to be wise as they have become older. The minister does not "run" the local church. The minister is techcally called the "teaching" elder and the Session is made up of the "ruling" elders, who govern the church. ( I am a "teaching elder," now 92 years old, having served actively for 62 years and still doing informal pastoring.) We are ordained for life. I am living in Windsor rehabilitation home 🏡 in Calallen, Corpus Christi, Texas. God bless all of you. 🙏🏼🛐✝️✝️🙏🏼❤
Well done. There is some really excellent church history here. There are also helpful distinctions on very tricky and contentious issues. Thank you for your hard work in sharing this video.
As an elder in an EPC church I really appreciate this young man. His presentation was purely fact based and informational. In all honesty he did not show a preference to any of the group’s presented. Quite often today when comparisons are made, they are done to point out the heresy of the “others.” Well done young man.
I was brought up in the Old Regular Baptist faith in Eastern Kentucky and those churches have a distinctive way of singing. I always wondered where it originated and was surprised to discover that it comes from Scottish Presbyterian churches. I also discovered that my ancestors converted from the Presbyterian faith to the Baptist faith but kept their distinctive way of singing.
Hey. I was raised Southern Baptist. My mamaw was Primitive Baptist (hardshell). I attend a PCUSA church & would love to find out more about this as you can communicate.
Good video. The spiritual connection between reformed Presbyterians and reformed independent baptists was modeled by John MacArthur and RC Sproul who disagreed on many issues but who also saw each other as spiritual brothers.
As both an Ordained Baptist Pastor and Chaplain, and someone who has his BA in Social Sciences for History and Political Science, this guy does a great job of the Secular and Church Histories. 😎👍✝️❤
Presbyterians aren't afraid of the fate which The Lord has in store for us. Our Preacher won't hesitate to let us know where we're headed, the reason why.
Thank you for this overview. Since both Campbell and Stone were formally Presbyterian this helps a little to understand their influences prior to starting CoC's
Is covenant baptism a better description than infant baptism for Presbyterian churches, since it includes believers baptism and the baptism of their children?
@@codyleslie478 Cuz he believes in a works-based salvation, like the majority of the Presbyterian churches teach. I still dunno why would he would go to a baby-sprinkling church though...
Thanks heaps I found this helpful, I'm a reformed believer in Christ and am so happy to know I'm Saved... After 5 weeks at a Prespetyerian Fellowship, I found the pastor to not agree with my belief there is a literal 1000 year Milleniumalso the whole sprinkling thing is not scriptural but traditional. They believed that if the baby dies without being baptized where will the baby's soul go? Best we just sprinkle them all... This is weird. Please will you give a talk on The Millenium ??? Thks !
Yes, the sprinkling of babies, so if they die babies will be saved. Ridiculous. To affirm that we humans are needed to save babies? God will take infants back to Him, and certainly does not depend on humans to "save," His infants. THIS belief boarders on stupid, and is NOT biblical.
Therefore one must to search the scripture in order to know what is biblical and not biblical. Appreciate your research.keep searching for glory of God.tnx
It’s a comfort that our various denominations love God and the salvation through Christ. May we always pray for one another whatever differences til the Lord comes.
Thanks for posting this. It seems that Reformed Presbyterian has more in common with Independent Baptist than differences. I was raised in Southern Baptist and Independent Baptist churches. My current church has been historically Southern Baptist, but seems like they are moving away from the SBC and going Independent. They haven't said it, but it looks to be heading in that direction.
Yes, the PCA, EPC, ARP, and OPC would have more in common with IFP and SBC than with the PCUSA. I think Joshua (Ready for Harvest) does a video on how the mainlines have effectively lost their theological distinctives due to broad ecumenism.
I've been a member of two IFBs. In both of them the congregation occasionally would be called upon by the pastor to agree with him on something he wanted. I was a trustee in one of those churches, same thing,all we did was rubber stamp his wishes. The pastors were basically dictators who ran the church as their personal business. I never saw a budget in either of those churches and had no idea what the pastor was paid. The pastors had credit cards against the churches account and were able to buy whatever the church could get credit for. The church where I was a trustee, the pastor announced to us, at a trustee meeting, that he had bought a new Ford Bronco; He was saving the church $100 a month in payments by financing it out over 5 instead of 3 years (LOL). At another monthly meeting he told us that he would be making a trip to a college to check it out. The next monthly he announced to us that he had hired teachers and was starting a school, and BTW we were now also the school board. He could have caused us trustees to be sued and we totally ignorant and powerless to do anything but leave. I don't think Presbyterians operate like that.
First let me commend you for your balanced and factual treatment of your video topics. Regarding bible translations, my personal observation as a PCA member is that the ESV has been almost universally adopted our clergy. But I don’t know if this is official denominational policy, and I definitely don’t get the impression that the laity are actively discouraged from using other translations.
In 1954 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America still existed. In 1958 it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America (UPCNA) (heirs of the Covenanters) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA).
Excellent comparisons. I grew up in a more liberal presbyterian church. They did teach me part of the story: Facts about God’s attributes and things he had done. I was “confirmed” at 12 , but did not know Jesus. When I was 21, several Independent Baptists witnessed to me and told me the “rest of the story”, that I could have my sins forgiven and enter into a permanent relationship with Christ. I trusted Christ then as my personal Savior, and over a year later was baptized in a local IFB church. I used to be bitter against the PC for not telling me how to be saved, but now I am grateful for them , because they laid the foundation for the IFB’s to build on. The law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ. I am still an independent Baptist, because I believe their interpretation of the Bible is the most legitimate. Not including some of the man made standards and preferences that are taught as doctrine in some of them. First and foremost, I am a Born again Christian! m
Thank you for your video. I know time is an issue, but I would have liked to hear more explanations of what many of your terms meant. What did you mean by Calvinistic? Born again theology, Charismatic doctrine. I guess I have a lot of research to do.
Calvainisim or Reformed theology holds to 5 basic principles Total depavity-man is with out Jesus totally depraved and unable to do good Unconditional election- God in his infinite grace chooses who he will save there is nothing man can do. Limited atonement- or double predestination this is the main one for Calvinist, they believe that God has not only predestined before creation who will go to heaven but who would go to hell. Preservation of the saints- once saved always saved
@@johntolly1637 _"Calvainisim or Reformed theology holds to 5 basic principles"_ The 5 points are baseline "Calvinism". Reformed Theology affirms them, but reducing Reformed Theology to just the 5 points is not right. I would say Covenant Theology is the most central understanding of Reformed Theology. I'd also caution not to go to "TULIP" as the source, as that is only meant to be a summary that points to the fuller teaching found in the Canons of Dort. A lot of people will read the two word phrases and come away with a completely incorrect understanding based solely on whatever popped into their head when they heard it. _"Total depavity-man is with out Jesus totally depraved and unable to do good"_ Not quite right. I'd say that apart from Christ, every aspect of man is depraved. It is "total" in the sense that there is nothing left uncorrupted by sin, not total in the sense that we are maximally sinful. We are unable to do good _unto salvation,_ but we can do other good. We can still cure cancer and give to charity and walk little old ladies across the street, but as sinners we willfully hate and defy God and do not want him, thus we are unable to do what is required to obtain salvation apart from being born again. _"Unconditional election- God in his infinite grace chooses who he will save there is nothing man can do."_ This seems to be overly focused on man, as if man is innocent. Man is guilty of sin and deserves God's wrath poured out on him in judgement. God is an independent being who can make his own choices not based on the preferences or advice of man, and if he decides to show mercy, he can. If he decides to leave them in justice, he can. Man doesn't get to tell God what to do. _"Limited atonement- or double predestination this is the main one for Calvinist, they believe that God has not only predestined before creation who will go to heaven but who would go to hell."_ What you describe is equal ultimacy, not double predestination. In Calvinism, God looks at all of fallen humanity, which is already condemned for their sin, and shows mercy to some by electing them to salvation and leaves the rest in their state of sin. In passing over them, he renders certain that their condemnation will stand at the final judgement. That's the key difference with single predestination which leaves open the possibility for salvation outside of this predestination before the foundation of the Earth. _"Preservation of the saints- once saved always saved"_ "Once saved always saved" is more a Baptist framing and doesn't really get at the Calvinist view, and there is many different contrary beliefs that might all be summed up in this phrase. For Calvinists, those God saves God saves to the uttermost and he doesn't change his mind. He keeps them and preserves them and perseveres them and calls them back when they wander and he sanctifies them and sends his spirit to dwell in them, etc. It's not merely the idea some have where you can just make some half-hearted profession and God is now contractually obligated to save you even if you never once even pretended to act like a Christian.
I'm a member of a different Presbyterian Church in India. It stems from Wales. It was first called Calvinistic Methodist Church then it named themselves Presbyterian. We are unique among all Presbyterians in the world. Can you kindly do one video about us.....thank you.
Yes, I find your church's history very interesting. It's one of the few churches with 'Presbyterian' in the name that really doesn't have much (if any) link to the Scottish variety I'm part of. It is, as you point out, historically Calvinistic Methodist in nature and history. There's also a very well-known BBC news presenter who's a member which is interesting. God bless!
Always have good videos from this good brother for understanding one may be slight very minor not even important correction is I'm not thinking that the Independent Baptist believe that the Sabbath is abolished but fulfilled. Which is quite different, upon salvation the believer rest in Christ all works that could never save. Jesus Christ is the believers Sabbath a wonderful picture given to Israel
is there a resource that breaks down the majority of denomination's stances on things much like the end of your video? My family and I left the non-institutional church of Christ we've been in our whole lives and are looking for a progressive, common sense type church, but I don't know where to start. We've visited a few places but I'm too awkward to grill someone on all their beliefs.
Gossip from my mother’s Daughters of Knox committee meeting: Carol was thinking of becoming a baptist because their lady’s auxiliary group members make better casseroles. I’d convert for food. 🤷🏼♂️😅
@@erc9468 that's why they have so many members. They promote the mainstream liberal easy to follow liberal version of Christianity as a modified t shirt believer. Reference Matthew 7:13-14 enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
I really enjoy these videos. I am a Christian first & foremost. I have been a member of both SBC and Independent Baptist churches. The biggest difference is SBC churches contribute to the convention financially, primarily for missions. I am curious why you use Independent Baptist in your comparisons, at least in this one and the one with the UMC. While Baptist churches are autonomous, SBC is structurally closer to UMC and either of the 2 most popular Presbyterian churches. Again, great videos, just curious.
Thank you for a fair take on our differences. As a deacon in the PC USA and a woman I draw great strength from my beliefs. My Mother's family had many children. Two of my uncles were Baptist preachers. My favorite aunt was Methodist. And my Dad Presbterian. I have been told by one Baptist uncle I will go to he'll for not being properly baptisted. My other uncle merely asked if I had a personal relationship with Jesus. So there are differences among denominations, families and people. I believe that knowing the Lord, having faith, and doing His work is what is important.
I am not Presbyterian (leaning more towards Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism at the moment, but still open to remaining Protestant if I can find a Christian denomination that is more liturgical, acknowledges the Eucharist, etc.) but a friend Reformed Presbyterian and this helps me understand more of where they are coming from as well as the differences, especially in the unique comparison to the radically liberal PCA USA and the shockingly similar Independent Baptists, I was unaware that they held quite so much in common. I wish the PCA was the mainline version in all honesty....anyways, I'm not Calvinist so I suppose I would never join either version of it ultimately Also, I just happened to stumble upon your account and I have to say how pleased and grateful I am that I did - you are doing such incredible work explaining, documenting, and sharing Church history and the differences between denominations wonderfully and in a practical and straightforward manner, making it much easier to evaluate different Christian traditions, understand the reasons for certain doctrinal positions, and to help align oneself closer to the Truth from the outset instead of unwittingly joining a church that doesn't at all abide by Scripture (or in the very least, one's conclusions on what is the most authentic version based on actual Church teachings and scripture instead of modern day influences, interpretations, or biases). While I say that, I also think its very notable how professional and factual your presentations are, providing an impartial overview/summary instead of providing verdicts or commentary. It really is impressive and such a great effort, thank you very much.
I am a confessional, conservative Presbyterian (CREC) who came out of an Arminio-Dispy-Baptistic background. Obviously I would recommend conservative Presbyterianism to anyone but if you have a problem with our view of the sacraments you might fit in well with the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod). They are confessional and liturgical. We are liturgical but our liturgy tends to be a bit simpler and less high church. They do believe in baptismal regeneration where we believe in covenant baptism (very similar to old testament circumcision). Their view of the Lord's Supper is kind of in between that of Rome and we Presbyterians in that they believe in a physical presence rather than a spiritual one as we do.
We are belong to Welsh Presbyterian church,due to the first missionary came from Welsh,but the faith in Christ Jesus there is not difference,o oneGod ,one spirit,one baptism and onefaith,which is God,Father, Holy spirit.
There is a catagorical issue with making a bucket of "independent baptists." There significant portions of the IFB and independent baptists that rely almost exclusively on charismatic, experiential practice of faith... regardless of their faith statements or doctrinal positions.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the PCA are so close to being identical that clergy from one denomination can move back and forth between PCA and OPC churches without any issues.
PCA has come dangerously close to going the way of PCUSA so much so that a new denomination recently appeared at least in part as a reaction to the drift. The trajectory is somewhat uncertain at the moment.
@@mkshffr4936 As a life-long PCA'er, the "liberal drift" in the PCA is overblown. The vast majority of PCA churches are very conservative, but of course the outliers are getting all the attention.
Presbyterians hold to a threefold view of the Hebrew laws, that distinction in their WCF. There are other matters that really need to be cleared up on Presbyterianism in this presentation.
M9m was Baptist and Dad was Presbyterian so I feel that there is just about as much arguing about what the Bible teaches as between Christianity and Muslim religions.
Does Calvanism teach that they're is essentially no point in witnessing to people because regardless of what you do or say they will be saved or condemned according only to God's will?
No. We are commanded by God's Holy Word to witness throughout the world, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is known as the Great Commission.
@@uslanja I'm asking if there is any point to doing so other than that we are told to. In fairness, that is a pretty good reason to do so, but is not that whole act of witnessing made kind of pointless with a Calvinist belief?
@@macbeth8393 God has predetermined everything much like an author does when he writes a story. God has authored the story of our world in such a way as that Christians will preach the gospel to all, even though God has already predetermined every individual’s destiny. He does this, no doubt, because it is the best way of fashioning the story. The story’s purpose, the purpose of everything, is to ultimately glorify God, and it will. God will not be foiled.
@@raifbarrett6739 According to the Calvinists, God could have already decided that you are going to Hell and not only would you not know it, there would be nothing you could do to change that decision even if you were told that you are going to Hell.
Bob W the man speaking in the video is an IFB, so he compares every denomination to his denomination. Catholicism is considered the biggest group under Christendom and Southern Baptist Convention would be second.
Richmond Pennokee Your right that Catholicism is the largest group, but actually the second largest is Eastern Orthodoxy, followed by Anglicanism. Though Protestantism as a whole is larger than Eastern Orthodoxy, I don't think it is fair to treat it as a single group (this would of course include Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Baptist Christianity and a multitude of other groups). Of course, these are worldwide numbers, so if you're referring specifically to the US than you might be right, but your comment seems to suggest that Southern Baptists are the second largest worldwide (in all Christendom). The total number of Baptists is (at maximum) 105 million, and only 14.5 million of them are Southern Baptists (though that is the largest Baptist denomination). For comparison Eastern Orthodoxy has 220 million members and Anglicanism has 110 million adherents, the largest group of which is the Anglican Communion which has 85 million members (making the Anglican Communion the third largest denomination, and that's without considering other groups that consider themselves Anglican but are not official members of the Anglican Communion). Again, this is probably different when you are focusing specifically on the US, where I think you are correct that Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination, but worldwide Eastern Orthodoxy is actually much larger than the entirety of Baptist Christianity (let alone Southern Baptist Christianity).
@@mytradewind Being evangelical (I think), I have no idea what the term "evangelical" means either. It seems like if you asked 10 people what it means, you'll get 20 different answers.
In previous comments I have highly recommended professor Joshua Lindsey for his sound research on the comparative denominations of world religions. I've also applauded Joshua's strict non-disclosure of his personal religious/political beliefs and opinions. Here, I want to recommend to Joshua that he add a few more contemporary metrics when he gets to the actual 'positions' these denominations on various contemporary kerfuffle , i.e. the existence of 'transgender' individuals in relation to their denomination. Mutilation of a child's genitalia to achieve 'authentic gender identifications' etc. Joshua has already included 'same sex marriage' as on of his metrics for religious denominations but he has omitted the 'trans-biology' issue. I recommend this for the following reasons. 1. Not only public school teachers are urging pupils to attack their biology, but religious leaders have used this metric to determine 'authenticity'. 2. Compared with the 'doctrine of the Trinity' or Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, and /or Transubstantiation of Christ's body and blood, the pandemonium of gender and race are foremost in demarking one religious denomination from their competitors for butts in pews. I hope Joshua will consider adding these metrics to his work-load. Even if he does not, I full threadedly recommend subscribing to his channel. I watch several of his episodes every day. -- Professor Mark McIntire
You would be better served if you contrasted the Presbyterians to the Orthodox. There is no greater contrast between religious groups than with these two. This goes down to Canonics, the study of how the Books of the Bible were determined, resulting in the different numbers of the Books of the Bible. Many Presbyterians are pleasantly surprised (and relieved) when they encounter Orthodox and often join to escape Calvinism.
Honestly, that would be an interesting video. When I see eastern church people interact with Reformed Theology, it almost always looks like: "You believe A, whereas the truth is B"; where B is what is found in the Reformed Confessions and A is a complete strawman. I'd trust Joshua to get to the actual differences rather than just the propaganda.
As a Conservative/Confessional Presbyterian (RPCNA) it’s somewhat painful to hear that many Presbyterians are high church as it is historically a low church tradition though the statement is true. I’d also like to add that more “strict subscriptionist” Presbyterian denominations (PRC, FCC, FPCoS) and some RP congregations interpret Chapter 1 paragraph 8 of the confession on “providential preservation” of the Word as meaning that the Received Text of the church, the Greek TR and Hebrew Masoretic are preserved and thus use translations based on them namely the KJV. It’s also the translation used in our confession and catechisms. I really appreciate this video and the very good video you did on the RPCNA, this channel has been a blessing and I have learned much because of it. Maybe “original confession” Presbyterian and IFB would be an interesting comparison?
Lol...I used to be involved in this ' man made nadness' then I studied Chrustianity from its earliest beginnings suffice to say, I'm not apart of this " start ur own belief system"" crap. Me and my family who are still in Scotland realize how wrong are ancestors were
Funny, let's just compare everything to IFB as if it's the standard. I'd like to hear all the differences within the IFB churches. Not being confessional churches they can drift quite a bit.
Lol I appreciate him doing these....he does compare others....I love it....compare anything and everything and very well done....btw...this is how you see that the gentleman in the video is most likely Independemt Baptist
This video was extremely helpful. I was raised Presbyterian and in the last decade or so have encountered many people and media that have stereotyped Presbyterians in a particular way that never lined up with my own experiences, so every so often I search Google or TH-cam for anything that would make the stereotypes clear and explain them to me, and though you may find a lot of “catholics be like…but protestants be like…” style videos and articles there was never anything that actually focused in on Presbyterians or much comparisons between the different protestant groups. I am fairly certain after watching this video that I would have been raised in the Presbyterian Church USA style while the stereotypes I’ve come across are more applicable to the Presbyterian Church In America and perhaps some of the others mentioned. So thanks for the video, especially for it’s clarity. I will just add that I now simply consider myself “spiritual,” or as I like to say, “I consider myself religious rōnin,” as I have found no form of organized religion whose banner I can in good conscience carry.
I can't answer for him, but I'm inclined to suggest that OPC is a much clearer example of traditional confessional Presbyterian (of the Scottish-influenced kind) with full subscription to the WCF. Whereas CPC is more Revivalist, Arminian and American-Awakening influenced. That's not a sleight on either, it's just that I can see why he might feel OPC best sums up the particular branch of Presbyterianism he chose to compare with Baptists.
independent baptist? why that and not southern baptist or baptists generally or reformed baptist who are the most similar to presbyterian (basically reformed baptist are the processed cheese slice version of reformed theology)
I'm SB. I thought it strange and funny when my pastor brought up a verse in the Bible regarding Catholics... they are the first church of Christ even if they killed him. That was God's will.
There is nothing wrong with Any SB or any church who is not catholic to bring them up. The state of the Catholic Church is extremely sad now. People should know what they are doing and not just blindly practice heresy.
They CLAIM to be the first Christian church but they aren’t. They started sometime after 300 a.d. They have some trappings of Christianity, but their doctrine is nothing like the first church. For example, they claim Peter as their first pope. Popes are not allowed to have wives. Peter had a wife. They also claim Mary never had a physical relationship with Joseph after Jesus was born. The Bible clearly speaks of Jesus’ brothers. Jesus said “ Call no man father on the earth. What do they call their priests? Father. Catholics put divinity on Mary. Mary was Godly , but not divine. There are many other inconsistencies like these.
The difference is that Independent Baptists do not believe in a works based salvation and do believe in eternal security. You do not have to repent of your sins in order to be saved and your salvation is eternally secure so you do not have to do good works in order to stay saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 states "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Grace meaning unearned merit or favor, faith meaning belief, not of yourselves which means you didn't physically do anything to get it so you cannot physically do anything to lose it, it is the gift of God and gifts are given freely, not of works means it has nothing to do with your works. Presbyterians will tell you that repenting of your sins is not works at all, but it is and even God says it is in Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." This tell us two things: 1) That repenting of sin or turning from your wicked way is works. 2) The word repent means to turn, it does not mean to turn from your sins because God repented here and he has no sin. As a matter of fact the one who repents the most throughout the entire bible is God himself. Romans 4:4-8 tells us clearly "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Clearly teaching that even if someone does absolutely zero works in their lifetime but they believe on the Lord, they are still saved and will remain saved because God "will not impute sin". Presbyterians do not believe any of this, though they would give lip service to it. They'll say that salvation is by grace through faith and even agree that it's not of works but then will turn around and tell you that you must do works in order to keep it or that if you don't do any works then you aren't truly saved... though the bible clearly shows them to be liars. There are several more differences but this is the main thing.
I’m an Independent Baptist. Have been 40 years now. First and foremost a born again Christian. I agree with you except for repentance. Jesus said “ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “Repent and Believe the Gospel “ is also in the Bible. John the baptist carried out the “ baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” , meaning that people repented of their sins and turned to Jesus for forgiveness of sins , and were Baptized. The problem with many confessing Christians is they never repented of their sins so they were never saved in the first place , and now live like the devil with no evidence that they are born again. Repentance and faith in Christ are 2 sides of the same coin. They both happen instantaneously when a person responds in faith to the Holy Spirits drawing. Changing your mind about sin in response to Christ is a good thing. It isn’t a work. It is simply responding to Christ’s call to be saved…
@@michaelbarnett2527 repent and believe, not repent of your sins and believe. If I said you were wanted for murder would you assume I wanted you to commit murder or you were wanted because you had already murdered? That "for the remission of sins" is because your sins were remitted when you believed. No water baptism was necessary. You're completely ignoring Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5. Repentance of sin is a work and salvation is not of works.
@@zacthebaptist I’m not ignoring anything. I actually quoted Jesus. Never said water saved. The blood of Jesus is all that washes your sins. Repentance for sin isn’t a work. It’s not you quitting your lifestyle of sin, then coming to Jesus. I 100% agree with the verses you quoted. When one is confronted with the fact they are a sinner( Romans 3:23), then they can decide to turn from it to Jesus. If there’s no repentance for sin, then why would you need Jesus? What else would you be repenting of but sin? It isnt a process. When you pray in faith believing, you are turning to Jesus from your sin. It all happens at the same time. It’s just semantics. We are referring to the same thing. When you ask Jesus to forgive your sins and save you from them, you are repenting of them.( If you really want forgiveness and salvation.) Acts 3:19 refers to repentance of your sin. Acts 26 :18-20 refers to repentance from your sins. Like I said , it’s 2 sides of the same coin that happens at the moment of salvation. Repenting FROM sin, and turning TO Jesus. Why are you so against that?
@@michaelbarnett2527 Jonah 3:10 definitely says that repenting of sin is a work. The reason you need Jesus is because you are stained by sin and could never enter Heaven without your sins being washed from you. You cannot wash your own sins, it was his death, burial and resurrection and your faith in Him that washes away sin. What else would you be repenting of other than sin? You repent of the things that prevent you from faith in Christ. It is a change of mind. When Paul spoke to the pagans in Acts 17 about the unknown God he told them that Christ is the unknown God and that he is the only true God and to believe on him. He said nothing about repenting of their sins. Never once said to stop being a drunkard or adulterer or anything else. He said put your faith in Christ. You recognize you're a sinner and you need a savior to save you from your sin, not for you to turn from them yourself. When you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and he saves you, sin does not automatically exit your life. You will continue to sin every single day until you are dead. If I repented of going to the grocery store and still went to the grocery store then I never actually repented of that did I? No. I'm against the heresy of saying that salvation and repentance of sin go hand in hand when they most certainly do not. We should turn from our sins daily because it's the right thing to do and God will bless us for it but it has nothing to do with salvation.
@@zacthebaptist Matthew 12:41 says that Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. What had he preached about? That God would destroy them because of their wickedness. So they repented OF THEIR SIN, and it was evident because their works changed. Their works DID NOT SAVE THEM, but their works changed because they had TURNED FROM SIN TO GOD. It’s what happens to any born again Christian that is saved. They bring forth fruit meet for repentance. I’d be the first to agree that nobody can wash their own sins. The death , burial and resurrection was sufficient , but only because of the BLOOD OF JESUS . If Jesus would have died without shedding his blood, His death would have had no saving merit. “ Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin” “ You repent of the things that keep you from faith in Christ “ Like sin? What else really keeps you from faith in Christ? Ignorance? Not knowing any better? Tell that to a policeman that is going to write you a ticket for speeding. No ! The biggest things that comes between us and faith in Christ is the sin of pride, the enjoyment of darkness rather than light, the sin of procrastination , etc. I still say , What do you repent of if not sin? I agree it’s a change of mind about sin and faith towards Christ. We teach Romans 6:23 “ The wages of sin is death…” We tell them sin is bad spiritually and physically. So in acknowledging that as you put your faith in Christ you are renouncing sin. When you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sin, you are changing your mind about sin. You didn’t change your ways yet( which WOULD be a work) , but you come to Christ as you are so He will clean you up. Acts 17 “ says nothing about repentance “ Well, paul told them their problem was the sin of idolatry. It was implied then for them to turn from that to the living God. Again, that is not a work. It is turning from sin to faith. If what you said is true , then having faith in Christ is a work too because we exercise it. We have faith. God doesn’t do it for us. But that is ridiculous. Sin does not automatically exit your life. No, and that’s why repentance is so important. Salvation is once, but we will repent many times of those sins. Not to be saved over and over, but when we walk in this world our feet will get dirty so we need Jesus to wash them again and again. Not to be saved again, but to be close to Him and restore broken fellowship. I am disappointed you think repentance of sin is heresy. Don’t you think that’s way too strong? Heresy would be saying Jesus isn’t God or that He sinned, or that there is some other way to heaven but the blood of Jesus. If you put your faith in Christ , you repented of your sins the moment you did. It isnt a work. Works come out of the heart of man. Repentance is IN YOUR HEART( the real you) . Turning in your heart( changing your mind about sin ) is not a work . How can you be forgiven for something you didn’t repent of? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying “ Im repenting, just not sure of what” Changing your mind to faith in Christ and changing your mind about sin requires the same effort. 2 sides of the same coin… And I would also say if someone never repented of their sin they are not saved. You must know what you are repenting of to repent of it… As I said before in a different way , maybe that is why there are so many false professions( you will know them by their fruits). Because they never responded to conviction and never truly repented of their sin.
I appreciate this. However, as a confessional Presbyterian, I think there’s a problematic choice of words: you describe baptism (to a confessional presby) as “means of grace” (correct) that “confers regeneration” (not correct). I know you qualified it by saying it’s not the same as baptismal regeneration, but even that description is totally foreign. A means of grace is something that points us to Christ. So baptism, along with the Supper, and the preaching primarily, is a means of grace. Baptism is also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (in the new covenant administration), and that means it identifies one with the covenant community, just as circumcision did for church in the previous dispensation. Our regeneration may be just one of the things they our baptism points to, but our baptism does in no way confer this. The spirit alone does.
_" I know you qualified it by saying it’s not the same as baptismal regeneration, but even that description is totally foreign."_ ... _"Our regeneration may be just one of the things they our baptism points to, but our baptism does in no way confer this. The spirit alone does."_ I don't think that is quite right either. For Presbyterians, "baptism" isn't a mere water ceremony performed by man, but really the sacramental union of God's work in salvation, of which the promises are conveyed in the physical ordinance of water baptism. I personally think it is fine to call it a form of baptismal regeneration, just not in the sense that we say someone is regenerated merely for the act of getting wet, rather it is tied to God's work in time in the life of his people. The confession says that baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration and that the grace of regeneration (along with the other promises of grace) is "really exhibited and conferred" by baptism. WCF 28 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration,* of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world. 6. The efficacy of baptism is _not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;_ yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, *the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred* by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. Your statement "...but our baptism does in no way confer this" is directly contrary to the confession. If you mean the mere water ceremony does not confer this, that would be more accurate. But, "baptism" properly understood in Reformed Theology isn't a mere ordinance or ceremony or physical act done by men for men, but is the work of God. Compare section 2 with 6, where 2 describes the "outward element" (water) but 6 explicitly separates out the efficacy from the time when this outward element is applied. Section 5 also gives insight into the distinction of the sacrament of baptism and the mere ordinance. It's all rather nuanced. We aren't the church of Rome, but we also aren't Zwinglists. The Reformed view is much closer to the Lutheran view if anything, though a bit different at points.
Whoa! Presbyterians did not get the title of "Church of Scotland" 'til William of Orange, no, not that one but a descendant, as in William and Mary, stripped it from the Scottish Anglicans and awarded it to his Presbyterian allies who helped him evict King James II. The Anglicans were re-branded as the Episcopal Church of Scotland. That is why we have an Episcopal Church in the U.S. and historically not an Anglican church.
You're overanalyzing the semantics of what's been said here. He never made a claim about at what point it came to be titled 'The Church of Scotland' (which is debatable), he's only talking about the origins of the national presbyterian church in Scotland that we now understand as the CoS.
The difference it that the Independant Baptist holds to the King James bible, the inerrantcy of scripture, and the fact that every person makes his / her own choice for or against Jesus as Lord of their life.. the Presbyterian believes in the Bibles corrupted by the false doctrine of the Roman church (the vatican manuscript) and the liberalism of Alexandrian manuscripts deception... they believe man has no free will to make his own choice to salvation heaven or hell, ignoring biblical doctrine... and several other grevious error such as baptism for salvation and salvation by church membership rather than by individual choice...
Fundamental Baptist uses KJV 1611 for it consists of 66 books that accounts to Holiness, in all righteousness be it left and right for it is the book of life, it is preserved. Spiritual and Biblical foundations of Nature, MAN and the beast ∆. It is not for Abortion, eversince, it is also conservative in so many ways. It answers all of the questions that anyone asks, for it is preserved, translated from many languages and consists of both Old and New Testaments, while Presbyterians is also using KJV 1611 the Preserved version.
The Early church had no demominal banners! Christ was their LORD ( Owner Master King and high priest, besides their healer, provider and more). The First church model can be seen in Acts 2:14-42. Apostle Peter's first sermon. It lasted less than 2 minutes. It included repentance and trusting Jesus as their Lord to become one's Saviour YESHUA the Messiah. The First church model can be found in the first chapters of Acts. (Acts 1-8) One " model" today may be seen in "brethren assemblies". Others call them " brethren" - just like the early brethren were called first called" Christians" in Antioch" (Acts Ch 11 v.26). Those Early believers) were "authentic" followers of the RISEN CHRIST. When a "gentile" trusts Christ as his/her Lord the person is Justified ( saved) by grace. Also sanctified to be redeemed. It's a simple Gospel. No demominal banners. Discipleship is a process. The Disciples we called "Christians" first in Antioch. Authentic and not synthetic.
The Reformation declared Sol Scriptura , belief was only from scripture the word of God. As against the early Christian Church in which the Church determined theology along with the gospels. However , it was not for four hundred years before the 27 books of the new testament were gathered together . For the first 120 years there we only fragments of written form , so there was no sol scriptura to refer to , belief was in the oral form . Especially as few bibles existed prior to Guttenberg's printing press in 1440. And while the bible is true not every truth is written down as Saint John says i.e there is no Trinity or Incarnation etc. Sol Scriptura didn't work out very well , it only took 12 years before the first schism , Luther and Zwingli . Now there are an estimated twenty to forty thousand Protestant denominations , sixty five Presbyterians. Difference is , the original Church , since the Reformation called Catholic , existed for 1500 years without schism because it was founded by Christ himself and not man made by Calvin , Knox , Luther or Hendry 8th. Here in Scotland the huge Presbyterian Cathedral is an empty shell while John Knox's statue points over the city of Glasgow to one of the biggest houses of worship in Europe , which is Muslim. Does the Presbyterian constitution still refer to the Pope as the devil incarnate.
I’m highly skeptical of any church with a denomination label attached to it . Independent churches that embrace the Bible and the teaching of the Gospel. Neither is needed some additional written creed outside of the Bible which is completely unnecessary and often in direct conflict with God’s Holy Word.
_"I’m highly skeptical of any church with a denomination label attached to it ."_ You will not find a single one on planet earth without one, whether explicit ('Presbyterian', 'Baptist', 'Lutheran', 'Catholic') or an implicit attempt to side-step this with some general sentiment that, honestly, likewise immediately says something of their attitudes and beliefs and how they might be 'grouped' or 'categorized'. _"Independent churches that embrace the Bible and the teaching of the Gospel."_ This is a label. And it's merely defining a broad category of church that's pretending to not be a denomination or tradition like most others. _"Neither is needed some additional written creed outside of the Bible which is completely unnecessary and often in direct conflict with God’s Holy Word."_ This is literally a creedal statement you've just made here about how churches should be run. This is the literal definition and purpose of a creed (and/or confession, statement of faith, statement of belief, etc).
Your name suggests you are trolling but all right. Denom - not demon. Perhaps there’s an instance of dyslexia going on here. Nom-> name -> to identify or classify. Think of it as a labeling system. Another derived word is “nominate.” I nominate this thread for the unnecessary threads category.
I don't know where Joshua got his training but I have never seen a more knowledgeable presentation than this. Not only is it good but it's done without a bias toward one side or the other. I'm so glad I found this channel. Thank you.
Anyone know what denomination he ascribes to?
@@majafleur9646 Actually I have heard that Joshua is an ordain Baptist minister and teaches at a Baptist college or seminary, IIRC.
As a conservative Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) who attended an IFB undergraduate, I appreciate that accuracy and fair treatment found in this video. I definitely didn't expect this when I clicked on the thumbnail
God bless you, and thank you for your service! 😎👍✝️❤🇺🇸🏅🎖
Hey! Another member of the ARP!
Joshua is definitely a cut above your typical teacher.
I recall a letter from a Civil War soldier where he described a storm saying "and it twern't no Presbyterian rain either but a real Baptist downpour."
What does the name "Presbyterian " mean? It comes from the Greek: "presby" which means "older". (The word "presbyopia" therefore means
"old eyes," which happens as we age.) The gover-
ning body in the local church is called the "Session,"
made up of the elders, who are considered to be
wise as they have become older. The minister does
not "run" the local church. The minister is techcally
called the "teaching" elder and the Session is made
up of the "ruling" elders, who govern the church. ( I
am a "teaching elder," now 92 years old, having served actively for 62 years and still doing informal
pastoring.) We are ordained for life. I am living in
Windsor rehabilitation home 🏡 in Calallen, Corpus
Christi, Texas. God bless all of you. 🙏🏼🛐✝️✝️🙏🏼❤
Bless you sir for edifying us further. I’d also like to thank you for your service and obedience to our Lord . Bless you 🙏🏻☝️💜✝️
God bless you Reverend.
God bless you and your family, Sir!
I'm an Ordained Baptist Pastor and Chaplain. Thank you for sharing this! 😎👍✝️❤🇺🇸
Well done. There is some really excellent church history here. There are also helpful distinctions on very tricky and contentious issues. Thank you for your hard work in sharing this video.
As an elder in an EPC church I really appreciate this young man. His presentation was purely fact based and informational. In all honesty he did not show a preference to any of the group’s presented. Quite often today when comparisons are made, they are done to point out the heresy of the “others.” Well done young man.
I was brought up in the Old Regular Baptist faith in Eastern Kentucky and those churches have a distinctive way of singing. I always wondered where it originated and was surprised to discover that it comes from Scottish Presbyterian churches. I also discovered that my ancestors converted from the Presbyterian faith to the Baptist faith but kept their distinctive way of singing.
The free Presbyterian church of Ulster has a lot to do with southern Baptists Ian Paisley is the best Christian speaker ever
Hey. I was raised Southern Baptist. My mamaw was Primitive Baptist (hardshell). I attend a PCUSA church & would love to find out more about this as you can communicate.
Excellent presentation: irenic, clear and balanced. Thank you.
Very concise and to the point. Good job.
I can not image how you could have done this video more efficient and informative. Well done.
Thanks for all your work
You're the best! Thank you. I have learn so much with your videos
Good video. The spiritual connection between reformed Presbyterians and reformed independent baptists was modeled by John MacArthur and RC Sproul who disagreed on many issues but who also saw each other as spiritual brothers.
in my OPC congregation we frequently had visitors and preachers from Baptist churches.
As both an Ordained Baptist Pastor and Chaplain, and someone who has his BA in Social Sciences for History and Political Science, this guy does a great job of the Secular and Church Histories. 😎👍✝️❤
I love to know more about the history of Presbyterian from you. And once again thanks a lot
God bless you brother! What a wonderful explanation.
So usefull, concise and timely for me. Thanks so much.
THANK YOU! I HAD NO IDEA ABOUTVTHE SUBJECT AND NOW I UNDERSTAND. GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING.
you are so good at making these, brother
Was very informative, thank you for the video.
Great information. One of the most informative channels on different faiths
Thank you for your excellent presentation. I really enjoy your videos.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Thank-you for posting this :)
Excellent research. Thankyou!
Have been a Presbyterian for over 70 years, and have many Baptist friends, so found this interesting.
This was so helpful, thank you!
Glad to hear it Jonathan!
Presbyterians aren't afraid of the fate which The Lord has in store for us. Our Preacher won't hesitate to let us know where we're headed, the reason why.
What a coincidence. Im Presbyterian and this came out on my birthday
Thank you for educating me with such zeal! Bless you 🙏🏻☝️💜✝️
Thank you for this overview.
Since both Campbell and Stone were formally Presbyterian this helps a little to understand their influences prior to starting CoC's
Thank u.🙏🌎🌍🌏
They both have decent music
thank you brother.
Is covenant baptism a better description than infant baptism for Presbyterian churches, since it includes believers baptism and the baptism of their children?
As a Reformed Baptist, I'd pick a Presbyterian church over an IFB church any day!
Do you mind if I ask why? I grew up in an IFB church and I'm just curious.
@@codyleslie478 Cuz he believes in a works-based salvation, like the majority of the Presbyterian churches teach. I still dunno why would he would go to a baby-sprinkling church though...
@@roneldell5137 lol we do not believed in work-based salvation as far as Im concerned. I dont know how can you come to that conclusion...
@@roneldell5137 lol Presbyterian churches teach lordship salvation and that it literally has nothing to do with works.
@@chasejones4752 LORDSHIP SALVATION IS WORKS-BASED SALVATION
Thanks heaps I found this helpful, I'm a reformed believer in Christ and am so happy to know I'm Saved... After 5 weeks at a Prespetyerian Fellowship, I found the pastor to not agree with my belief there is a literal 1000 year Milleniumalso the whole sprinkling thing is not scriptural but traditional. They believed that if the baby dies without being baptized where will the baby's soul go? Best we just sprinkle them all... This is weird. Please will you give a talk on The Millenium ??? Thks !
Yes, the sprinkling of babies, so if they die babies will be saved. Ridiculous. To affirm that we humans are needed to save babies? God will take infants back to Him, and certainly does not depend on humans to "save," His infants.
THIS belief boarders on stupid, and is NOT biblical.
Therefore one must to search the scripture in order to know what is biblical and not biblical. Appreciate your research.keep searching for glory of God.tnx
It’s a comfort that our various denominations love God and the salvation through Christ. May we always pray for one another whatever differences til the Lord comes.
Bravo! Well done presentation! 🫵😲
I can easily see you becoming the next Earl Nightingale! 👊😉😂😎🇺🇸
Thanks for posting this. It seems that Reformed Presbyterian has more in common with Independent Baptist than differences. I was raised in Southern Baptist and Independent Baptist churches. My current church has been historically Southern Baptist, but seems like they are moving away from the SBC and going Independent. They haven't said it, but it looks to be heading in that direction.
Yes, the PCA, EPC, ARP, and OPC would have more in common with IFP and SBC than with the PCUSA. I think Joshua (Ready for Harvest) does a video on how the mainlines have effectively lost their theological distinctives due to broad ecumenism.
I've been a member of two IFBs. In both of them the congregation occasionally would be called upon by the pastor to agree with him on something he wanted. I was a trustee in one of those churches, same thing,all we did was rubber stamp his wishes. The pastors were basically dictators who ran the church as their personal business. I never saw a budget in either of those churches and had no idea what the pastor was paid. The pastors had credit cards against the churches account and were able to buy whatever the church could get credit for. The church where I was a trustee, the pastor announced to us, at a trustee meeting, that he had bought a new Ford Bronco; He was saving the church $100 a month in payments by financing it out over 5 instead of 3 years (LOL). At another monthly meeting he told us that he would be making a trip to a college to check it out. The next monthly he announced to us that he had hired teachers and was starting a school, and BTW we were now also the school board. He could have caused us trustees to be sued and we totally ignorant and powerless to do anything but leave.
I don't think Presbyterians operate like that.
First let me commend you for your balanced and factual treatment of your video topics. Regarding bible translations, my personal observation as a PCA member is that the ESV has been almost universally adopted our clergy. But I don’t know if this is official denominational policy, and I definitely don’t get the impression that the laity are actively discouraged from using other translations.
Yeah, I don't know a single PCA church that would use the NIV. They would either use ESV or maybe NASB if they are old school.
In 1954 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America still existed. In 1958 it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America (UPCNA) (heirs of the Covenanters) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA).
And the CREC is another confessional Presbyterian denomination which has similarities to OPC and the more conservative PCA churches.
Excellent comparisons. I grew up in a more liberal presbyterian church. They did teach me part of the story: Facts about God’s attributes and things he had done.
I was “confirmed” at 12 , but did not know Jesus. When I was 21, several Independent Baptists witnessed to me and told me the “rest of the story”, that I could have my sins forgiven and enter into a permanent relationship with Christ. I trusted Christ then as my personal Savior, and over a year later was baptized in a local IFB church.
I used to be bitter against the PC for not telling me how to be saved, but now I am grateful for them , because they laid the foundation for the IFB’s to build on. The law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ. I am still an independent Baptist, because I believe their interpretation of the Bible is the most legitimate. Not including some of the man made standards and preferences that are taught as doctrine in some of them. First and foremost, I am a Born again Christian!
m
Thank you for your video. I know time is an issue, but I would have liked to hear more explanations of what many of your terms meant. What did you mean by Calvinistic? Born again theology, Charismatic doctrine. I guess I have a lot of research to do.
Calvainisim or Reformed theology holds to 5 basic principles
Total depavity-man is with out Jesus totally depraved and unable to do good
Unconditional election- God in his infinite grace chooses who he will save there is nothing man can do.
Limited atonement- or double predestination this is the main one for Calvinist, they believe that God has not only predestined before creation who will go to heaven but who would go to hell.
Preservation of the saints- once saved always saved
@@johntolly1637 _"Calvainisim or Reformed theology holds to 5 basic principles"_
The 5 points are baseline "Calvinism". Reformed Theology affirms them, but reducing Reformed Theology to just the 5 points is not right. I would say Covenant Theology is the most central understanding of Reformed Theology. I'd also caution not to go to "TULIP" as the source, as that is only meant to be a summary that points to the fuller teaching found in the Canons of Dort. A lot of people will read the two word phrases and come away with a completely incorrect understanding based solely on whatever popped into their head when they heard it.
_"Total depavity-man is with out Jesus totally depraved and unable to do good"_
Not quite right. I'd say that apart from Christ, every aspect of man is depraved. It is "total" in the sense that there is nothing left uncorrupted by sin, not total in the sense that we are maximally sinful. We are unable to do good _unto salvation,_ but we can do other good. We can still cure cancer and give to charity and walk little old ladies across the street, but as sinners we willfully hate and defy God and do not want him, thus we are unable to do what is required to obtain salvation apart from being born again.
_"Unconditional election- God in his infinite grace chooses who he will save there is nothing man can do."_
This seems to be overly focused on man, as if man is innocent. Man is guilty of sin and deserves God's wrath poured out on him in judgement. God is an independent being who can make his own choices not based on the preferences or advice of man, and if he decides to show mercy, he can. If he decides to leave them in justice, he can. Man doesn't get to tell God what to do.
_"Limited atonement- or double predestination this is the main one for Calvinist, they believe that God has not only predestined before creation who will go to heaven but who would go to hell."_
What you describe is equal ultimacy, not double predestination. In Calvinism, God looks at all of fallen humanity, which is already condemned for their sin, and shows mercy to some by electing them to salvation and leaves the rest in their state of sin. In passing over them, he renders certain that their condemnation will stand at the final judgement. That's the key difference with single predestination which leaves open the possibility for salvation outside of this predestination before the foundation of the Earth.
_"Preservation of the saints- once saved always saved"_
"Once saved always saved" is more a Baptist framing and doesn't really get at the Calvinist view, and there is many different contrary beliefs that might all be summed up in this phrase.
For Calvinists, those God saves God saves to the uttermost and he doesn't change his mind. He keeps them and preserves them and perseveres them and calls them back when they wander and he sanctifies them and sends his spirit to dwell in them, etc. It's not merely the idea some have where you can just make some half-hearted profession and God is now contractually obligated to save you even if you never once even pretended to act like a Christian.
I'm a member of a different Presbyterian Church in India. It stems from Wales. It was first called Calvinistic Methodist Church then it named themselves Presbyterian. We are unique among all Presbyterians in the world. Can you kindly do one video about us.....thank you.
Yes I was going to say the Welsh tend to more likely be Methodists
Yes, I find your church's history very interesting. It's one of the few churches with 'Presbyterian' in the name that really doesn't have much (if any) link to the Scottish variety I'm part of. It is, as you point out, historically Calvinistic Methodist in nature and history. There's also a very well-known BBC news presenter who's a member which is interesting. God bless!
Always have good videos from this good brother for understanding one may be slight very minor not even important correction is I'm not thinking that the Independent Baptist believe that the Sabbath is abolished but fulfilled.
Which is quite different, upon salvation the believer rest in Christ all works that could never save.
Jesus Christ is the believers Sabbath a wonderful picture given to Israel
is there a resource that breaks down the majority of denomination's stances on things much like the end of your video? My family and I left the non-institutional church of Christ we've been in our whole lives and are looking for a progressive, common sense type church, but I don't know where to start. We've visited a few places but I'm too awkward to grill someone on all their beliefs.
try independant baptist; they likely will fit the bill for you
Gossip from my mother’s Daughters of Knox committee meeting: Carol was thinking of becoming a baptist because their lady’s auxiliary group members make better casseroles.
I’d convert for food. 🤷🏼♂️😅
I know people who would do that. I have a friend from an EPC church who would become a Baptist because of the food.
In the city I live in Brampton Ontario Canada we have a school named John Knox Christian school.
I from Presbyterian Church in India..
So why is PCUSA still a church again?
CINO - church in name only
Exactly
@@erc9468 that's why they have so many members. They promote the mainstream liberal easy to follow liberal version of Christianity as a modified t shirt believer.
Reference Matthew 7:13-14 enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
What is a independent baptist church please explain 🤔
I can relate
I really enjoy these videos. I am a Christian first & foremost. I have been a member of both SBC and Independent Baptist churches. The biggest difference is SBC churches contribute to the convention financially, primarily for missions. I am curious why you use Independent Baptist in your comparisons, at least in this one and the one with the UMC. While Baptist churches are autonomous, SBC is structurally closer to UMC and either of the 2 most popular Presbyterian churches. Again, great videos, just curious.
Thank you for a fair take on our differences. As a deacon in the PC USA and a woman I draw great strength from my beliefs. My Mother's family had many children. Two of my uncles were Baptist preachers. My favorite aunt was Methodist. And my Dad Presbterian. I have been told by one Baptist uncle I will go to he'll for not being properly baptisted. My other uncle merely asked if I had a personal relationship with Jesus. So there are differences among denominations, families and people. I believe that knowing the Lord, having faith, and doing His work is what is important.
@jackielam6248
Read Galatians 5: 2 (KJV), subsitute circumcision with water baptism, hope this helps.
im EPC, we believe in doing missions work around the world because jesus said the harvest is plenty but the workers are few.
I grew up southern baptist but now I’m a member of a Associate Reformed Presbyterian church. I just get more out of the ARP teachings.
Greeting from Presbyterian Church of India
I am not Presbyterian (leaning more towards Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism at the moment, but still open to remaining Protestant if I can find a Christian denomination that is more liturgical, acknowledges the Eucharist, etc.) but a friend Reformed Presbyterian and this helps me understand more of where they are coming from as well as the differences, especially in the unique comparison to the radically liberal PCA USA and the shockingly similar Independent Baptists, I was unaware that they held quite so much in common. I wish the PCA was the mainline version in all honesty....anyways, I'm not Calvinist so I suppose I would never join either version of it ultimately
Also, I just happened to stumble upon your account and I have to say how pleased and grateful I am that I did - you are doing such incredible work explaining, documenting, and sharing Church history and the differences between denominations wonderfully and in a practical and straightforward manner, making it much easier to evaluate different Christian traditions, understand the reasons for certain doctrinal positions, and to help align oneself closer to the Truth from the outset instead of unwittingly joining a church that doesn't at all abide by Scripture (or in the very least, one's conclusions on what is the most authentic version based on actual Church teachings and scripture instead of modern day influences, interpretations, or biases). While I say that, I also think its very notable how professional and factual your presentations are, providing an impartial overview/summary instead of providing verdicts or commentary. It really is impressive and such a great effort, thank you very much.
I am a confessional, conservative Presbyterian (CREC) who came out of an Arminio-Dispy-Baptistic background. Obviously I would recommend conservative Presbyterianism to anyone but if you have a problem with our view of the sacraments you might fit in well with the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod).
They are confessional and liturgical. We are liturgical but our liturgy tends to be a bit simpler and less high church. They do believe in baptismal regeneration where we believe in covenant baptism (very similar to old testament circumcision). Their view of the Lord's Supper is kind of in between that of Rome and we Presbyterians in that they believe in a physical presence rather than a spiritual one as we do.
avoid the rcc; who do you think is the great whore of babylon as mentioned in the bk of revelation?
We are belong to Welsh Presbyterian church,due to the first missionary came from Welsh,but the faith in Christ Jesus there is not difference,o oneGod ,one spirit,one baptism and onefaith,which is God,Father, Holy spirit.
There is a catagorical issue with making a bucket of "independent baptists." There significant portions of the IFB and independent baptists that rely almost exclusively on charismatic, experiential practice of faith... regardless of their faith statements or doctrinal positions.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the PCA are so close to being identical that clergy from one denomination can move back and forth between PCA and OPC churches without any issues.
...well...sort of...
i would agree with Mike Connor... sort of. some PCA churches have a liberal taste that the OPC would find bitter...
PCA has come dangerously close to going the way of PCUSA so much so that a new denomination recently appeared at least in part as a reaction to the drift. The trajectory is somewhat uncertain at the moment.
@@mkshffr4936 As a life-long PCA'er, the "liberal drift" in the PCA is overblown. The vast majority of PCA churches are very conservative, but of course the outliers are getting all the attention.
@@Silence3157 I hope so. Of course my concern is at the GA level. I pray for those fighting the good fight.
Presbyterians hold to a threefold view of the Hebrew laws, that distinction in their WCF. There are other matters that really need to be cleared up on Presbyterianism in this presentation.
from this explanation, I can't understand why the PC USA is even considered a Christian denomination. 🤔🤔
The Cumberland Presbyterian was a break away (1804) from Westminster Confession...or a rejection of Calvinism.
M9m was Baptist and Dad was Presbyterian so I feel that there is just about as much arguing about what the Bible teaches as between Christianity and Muslim religions.
I'm Baptist I'm not taught what you say we believe in baptism it's way more than just symbolic
Does Calvanism teach that they're is essentially no point in witnessing to people because regardless of what you do or say they will be saved or condemned according only to God's will?
No. We are commanded by God's Holy Word to witness throughout the world, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is known as the Great Commission.
@@uslanja I'm asking if there is any point to doing so other than that we are told to. In fairness, that is a pretty good reason to do so, but is not that whole act of witnessing made kind of pointless with a Calvinist belief?
@@macbeth8393 God has predetermined everything much like an author does when he writes a story. God has authored the story of our world in such a way as that Christians will preach the gospel to all, even though God has already predetermined every individual’s destiny. He does this, no doubt, because it is the best way of fashioning the story. The story’s purpose, the purpose of everything, is to ultimately glorify God, and it will. God will not be foiled.
@@raifbarrett6739 According to the Calvinists, God could have already decided that you are going to Hell and not only would you not know it, there would be nothing you could do to change that decision even if you were told that you are going to Hell.
@@georgepierson4920 Fortunately, God has made it possible for us to know our destiny with regard to your destination.
Why is every denom compared to ind baptists? Maybe because they are the largest protestant denom? Just curious.
Bob W the man speaking in the video is an IFB, so he compares every denomination to his denomination. Catholicism is considered the biggest group under Christendom and Southern Baptist Convention would be second.
Richmond Pennokee Your right that Catholicism is the largest group, but actually the second largest is Eastern Orthodoxy, followed by Anglicanism. Though Protestantism as a whole is larger than Eastern Orthodoxy, I don't think it is fair to treat it as a single group (this would of course include Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Baptist Christianity and a multitude of other groups). Of course, these are worldwide numbers, so if you're referring specifically to the US than you might be right, but your comment seems to suggest that Southern Baptists are the second largest worldwide (in all Christendom). The total number of Baptists is (at maximum) 105 million, and only 14.5 million of them are Southern Baptists (though that is the largest Baptist denomination). For comparison Eastern Orthodoxy has 220 million members and Anglicanism has 110 million adherents, the largest group of which is the Anglican Communion which has 85 million members (making the Anglican Communion the third largest denomination, and that's without considering other groups that consider themselves Anglican but are not official members of the Anglican Communion). Again, this is probably different when you are focusing specifically on the US, where I think you are correct that Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination, but worldwide Eastern Orthodoxy is actually much larger than the entirety of Baptist Christianity (let alone Southern Baptist Christianity).
Lol. Poor evangelicals like you resort to ad hominem attacks. Losers.
@@user-yn5nc7ob4d being catholic,I have no idea what the term “evangelical” means
@@mytradewind Being evangelical (I think), I have no idea what the term "evangelical" means either. It seems like if you asked 10 people what it means, you'll get 20 different answers.
What I find interesting is that all use the Bible to support their theology and practices.😇😎
In previous comments I have highly recommended professor Joshua Lindsey for his sound research on the comparative denominations of world religions. I've also applauded Joshua's strict non-disclosure of his personal religious/political beliefs and opinions. Here, I want to recommend to Joshua that he add a few more contemporary metrics when he gets to the actual 'positions' these denominations on various contemporary kerfuffle , i.e. the existence of 'transgender' individuals in relation to their denomination. Mutilation of a child's genitalia to achieve 'authentic gender identifications' etc. Joshua has already included 'same sex marriage' as on of his metrics for religious denominations but he has omitted the 'trans-biology' issue. I recommend this for the following reasons. 1. Not only public school teachers are urging pupils to attack their biology, but religious leaders have used this metric to determine 'authenticity'. 2. Compared with the 'doctrine of the Trinity' or Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, and /or Transubstantiation of Christ's body and blood, the pandemonium of gender and race are foremost in demarking one religious denomination from their competitors for butts in pews. I hope Joshua will consider adding these metrics to his work-load. Even if he does not, I full threadedly recommend subscribing to his channel. I watch several of his episodes every day. -- Professor Mark McIntire
Where is the new Billy Graham? Is there any other evangelist out there? Evangelism is dead in Canada. Christian numbers are shrinking rapidly
PCUSA sounds verrrrry Arminian in the Declaratory Statement.
You would be better served if you contrasted the Presbyterians to the Orthodox. There is no greater contrast between religious groups than with these two. This goes down to Canonics, the study of how the Books of the Bible were determined, resulting in the different numbers of the Books of the Bible. Many Presbyterians are pleasantly surprised (and relieved) when they encounter Orthodox and often join to escape Calvinism.
Honestly, that would be an interesting video. When I see eastern church people interact with Reformed Theology, it almost always looks like: "You believe A, whereas the truth is B"; where B is what is found in the Reformed Confessions and A is a complete strawman. I'd trust Joshua to get to the actual differences rather than just the propaganda.
As a Conservative/Confessional Presbyterian (RPCNA) it’s somewhat painful to hear that many Presbyterians are high church as it is historically a low church tradition though the statement is true. I’d also like to add that more “strict subscriptionist” Presbyterian denominations (PRC, FCC, FPCoS) and some RP congregations interpret Chapter 1 paragraph 8 of the confession on “providential preservation” of the Word as meaning that the Received Text of the church, the Greek TR and Hebrew Masoretic are preserved and thus use translations based on them namely the KJV. It’s also the translation used in our confession and catechisms. I really appreciate this video and the very good video you did on the RPCNA, this channel has been a blessing and I have learned much because of it. Maybe “original confession” Presbyterian and IFB would be an interesting comparison?
Lol...I used to be involved in this ' man made nadness' then I studied Chrustianity from its earliest beginnings suffice to say, I'm not apart of this " start ur own belief system"" crap. Me and my family who are still in Scotland realize how wrong are ancestors were
Funny, let's just compare everything to IFB as if it's the standard. I'd like to hear all the differences within the IFB churches. Not being confessional churches they can drift quite a bit.
Lol I appreciate him doing these....he does compare others....I love it....compare anything and everything and very well done....btw...this is how you see that the gentleman in the video is most likely Independemt Baptist
This video was extremely helpful. I was raised Presbyterian and in the last decade or so have encountered many people and media that have stereotyped Presbyterians in a particular way that never lined up with my own experiences, so every so often I search Google or TH-cam for anything that would make the stereotypes clear and explain them to me, and though you may find a lot of “catholics be like…but protestants be like…” style videos and articles there was never anything that actually focused in on Presbyterians or much comparisons between the different protestant groups. I am fairly certain after watching this video that I would have been raised in the Presbyterian Church USA style while the stereotypes I’ve come across are more applicable to the Presbyterian Church In America and perhaps some of the others mentioned. So thanks for the video, especially for it’s clarity.
I will just add that I now simply consider myself “spiritual,” or as I like to say, “I consider myself religious rōnin,” as I have found no form of organized religion whose banner I can in good conscience carry.
Sounds like the independent Baptist need more faith
And less reason
Why mention OPC and Bible Presbyterians, but no mention of Cumberland Presbyterians, when Cumberland is larger than both groups?
I can't answer for him, but I'm inclined to suggest that OPC is a much clearer example of traditional confessional Presbyterian (of the Scottish-influenced kind) with full subscription to the WCF. Whereas CPC is more Revivalist, Arminian and American-Awakening influenced. That's not a sleight on either, it's just that I can see why he might feel OPC best sums up the particular branch of Presbyterianism he chose to compare with Baptists.
independent baptist? why that and not southern baptist or baptists generally or reformed baptist who are the most similar to presbyterian (basically reformed baptist are the processed cheese slice version of reformed theology)
I'm SB.
I thought it strange and funny when my pastor brought up a verse in the Bible regarding Catholics... they are the first church of Christ even if they killed him. That was God's will.
There is nothing wrong with Any SB or any church who is not catholic to bring them up. The state of the Catholic Church is extremely sad now. People should know what they are doing and not just blindly practice heresy.
@@rchungus8502 how very true. The latest inclusion of the Pachamama idols into Roman Catholicism is 'so off the wall' it is unbelievable.
They CLAIM to be the first Christian church but they aren’t. They started sometime after 300 a.d. They have some trappings of Christianity, but their doctrine is nothing like the first church. For example, they claim Peter as their first pope. Popes are not allowed to have wives. Peter had a wife. They also claim Mary never had a physical relationship with Joseph after Jesus was born. The Bible clearly speaks of Jesus’ brothers. Jesus said “ Call no man father on the earth. What do they call their priests? Father.
Catholics put divinity on Mary. Mary was Godly , but not divine. There are many other inconsistencies like these.
The difference is that Independent Baptists do not believe in a works based salvation and do believe in eternal security. You do not have to repent of your sins in order to be saved and your salvation is eternally secure so you do not have to do good works in order to stay saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 states "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast." Grace meaning unearned merit or favor, faith meaning belief, not of yourselves which means you didn't physically do anything to get it so you cannot physically do anything to lose it, it is the gift of God and gifts are given freely, not of works means it has nothing to do with your works. Presbyterians will tell you that repenting of your sins is not works at all, but it is and even God says it is in Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." This tell us two things: 1) That repenting of sin or turning from your wicked way is works. 2) The word repent means to turn, it does not mean to turn from your sins because God repented here and he has no sin. As a matter of fact the one who repents the most throughout the entire bible is God himself. Romans 4:4-8 tells us clearly "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Clearly teaching that even if someone does absolutely zero works in their lifetime but they believe on the Lord, they are still saved and will remain saved because God "will not impute sin".
Presbyterians do not believe any of this, though they would give lip service to it. They'll say that salvation is by grace through faith and even agree that it's not of works but then will turn around and tell you that you must do works in order to keep it or that if you don't do any works then you aren't truly saved... though the bible clearly shows them to be liars. There are several more differences but this is the main thing.
I’m an Independent Baptist. Have been 40 years now. First and foremost a born again Christian. I agree with you except for repentance. Jesus said “ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “Repent and Believe the Gospel “ is also in the Bible. John the baptist carried out the “ baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” , meaning that people repented of their sins and turned to Jesus for forgiveness of sins , and were Baptized. The problem with many confessing Christians is they never repented of their sins so they were never saved in the first place , and now live like the devil with no evidence that they are born again.
Repentance and faith in Christ are 2 sides of the same coin. They both happen instantaneously when a person responds in faith to the Holy Spirits drawing.
Changing your mind about sin in response to Christ is a good thing. It isn’t a work. It is simply responding to Christ’s call to be saved…
@@michaelbarnett2527 repent and believe, not repent of your sins and believe. If I said you were wanted for murder would you assume I wanted you to commit murder or you were wanted because you had already murdered? That "for the remission of sins" is because your sins were remitted when you believed. No water baptism was necessary. You're completely ignoring Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5. Repentance of sin is a work and salvation is not of works.
@@zacthebaptist I’m not ignoring anything. I actually quoted Jesus. Never said water saved. The blood of Jesus is all that washes your sins. Repentance for sin isn’t a work. It’s not you quitting your lifestyle of sin, then coming to Jesus. I 100% agree with the verses you quoted. When one is confronted with the fact they are a sinner( Romans 3:23), then they can decide to turn from it to Jesus. If there’s no repentance for sin, then why would you need Jesus? What else would you be repenting of but sin?
It isnt a process. When you pray in faith believing, you are turning to Jesus from your sin. It all happens at the same time.
It’s just semantics. We are referring to the same thing. When you ask Jesus to forgive your sins and save you from them, you are repenting of them.( If you really want forgiveness and salvation.)
Acts 3:19 refers to repentance of your sin. Acts 26 :18-20 refers to repentance from your sins. Like I said , it’s 2 sides of the same coin that happens at the moment of salvation. Repenting FROM sin, and turning TO Jesus. Why are you so against that?
@@michaelbarnett2527 Jonah 3:10 definitely says that repenting of sin is a work. The reason you need Jesus is because you are stained by sin and could never enter Heaven without your sins being washed from you. You cannot wash your own sins, it was his death, burial and resurrection and your faith in Him that washes away sin. What else would you be repenting of other than sin? You repent of the things that prevent you from faith in Christ. It is a change of mind. When Paul spoke to the pagans in Acts 17 about the unknown God he told them that Christ is the unknown God and that he is the only true God and to believe on him. He said nothing about repenting of their sins. Never once said to stop being a drunkard or adulterer or anything else. He said put your faith in Christ. You recognize you're a sinner and you need a savior to save you from your sin, not for you to turn from them yourself. When you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and he saves you, sin does not automatically exit your life. You will continue to sin every single day until you are dead. If I repented of going to the grocery store and still went to the grocery store then I never actually repented of that did I? No. I'm against the heresy of saying that salvation and repentance of sin go hand in hand when they most certainly do not. We should turn from our sins daily because it's the right thing to do and God will bless us for it but it has nothing to do with salvation.
@@zacthebaptist Matthew 12:41 says that Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. What had he preached about? That God would destroy them because of their wickedness. So they repented OF THEIR SIN, and it was evident because their works changed. Their works DID NOT SAVE THEM, but their works changed because they had TURNED FROM SIN TO GOD. It’s what happens to any born again Christian that is saved. They bring forth fruit meet for repentance.
I’d be the first to agree that nobody can wash their own sins. The death , burial and resurrection was sufficient , but only because of the BLOOD OF JESUS . If Jesus would have died without shedding his blood, His death would have had no saving merit. “ Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin”
“ You repent of the things that keep you from faith in Christ “
Like sin? What else really keeps you from faith in Christ? Ignorance? Not knowing any better? Tell that to a policeman that is going to write you a ticket for speeding.
No ! The biggest things that comes between us and faith in Christ is the sin of pride, the enjoyment of darkness rather than light, the sin of procrastination , etc.
I still say , What do you repent of if not sin?
I agree it’s a change of mind about sin and faith towards Christ. We teach Romans 6:23 “ The wages of sin is death…” We tell them sin is bad spiritually and physically. So in acknowledging that as you put your faith in Christ you are renouncing sin. When you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sin, you are changing your mind about sin. You didn’t change your ways yet( which WOULD be a work) , but you come to Christ as you are so He will clean you up.
Acts 17 “ says nothing about repentance “ Well, paul told them their problem was the sin of idolatry. It was implied then for them to turn from that to the living God. Again, that is not a work. It is turning from sin to faith. If what you said is true , then having faith in Christ is a work too because we exercise it. We have faith. God doesn’t do it for us. But that is ridiculous.
Sin does not automatically exit your life. No, and that’s why repentance is so important. Salvation is once, but we will repent many times of those sins. Not to be saved over and over, but when we walk in this world our feet will get dirty so we need Jesus to wash them again and again. Not to be saved again, but to be close to Him and restore broken fellowship.
I am disappointed you think repentance of sin is heresy. Don’t you think that’s way too strong? Heresy would be saying Jesus isn’t God or that He sinned, or that there is some other way to heaven but the blood of Jesus. If you put your faith in Christ , you repented of your sins the moment you did.
It isnt a work. Works come out of the heart of man. Repentance is IN YOUR HEART( the real you) . Turning in your heart( changing your mind about sin ) is not a work . How can you be forgiven for something you didn’t repent of? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying “ Im repenting, just not sure of what” Changing your mind to faith in Christ and changing your mind about sin requires the same effort. 2 sides of the same coin… And I would also say if someone never repented of their sin they are not saved. You must know what you are repenting of to repent of it… As I said before in a different way , maybe that is why there are so many false professions( you will know them by their fruits). Because they never responded to conviction and never truly repented of their sin.
I appreciate this. However, as a confessional Presbyterian, I think there’s a problematic choice of words: you describe baptism (to a confessional presby) as “means of grace” (correct) that “confers regeneration” (not correct). I know you qualified it by saying it’s not the same as baptismal regeneration, but even that description is totally foreign. A means of grace is something that points us to Christ. So baptism, along with the Supper, and the preaching primarily, is a means of grace. Baptism is also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (in the new covenant administration), and that means it identifies one with the covenant community, just as circumcision did for church in the previous dispensation. Our regeneration may be just one of the things they our baptism points to, but our baptism does in no way confer this. The spirit alone does.
_" I know you qualified it by saying it’s not the same as baptismal regeneration, but even that description is totally foreign."_ ... _"Our regeneration may be just one of the things they our baptism points to, but our baptism does in no way confer this. The spirit alone does."_
I don't think that is quite right either. For Presbyterians, "baptism" isn't a mere water ceremony performed by man, but really the sacramental union of God's work in salvation, of which the promises are conveyed in the physical ordinance of water baptism. I personally think it is fine to call it a form of baptismal regeneration, just not in the sense that we say someone is regenerated merely for the act of getting wet, rather it is tied to God's work in time in the life of his people. The confession says that baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration and that the grace of regeneration (along with the other promises of grace) is "really exhibited and conferred" by baptism.
WCF 28
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration,* of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world.
6. The efficacy of baptism is _not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;_ yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, *the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred* by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.
Your statement "...but our baptism does in no way confer this" is directly contrary to the confession. If you mean the mere water ceremony does not confer this, that would be more accurate. But, "baptism" properly understood in Reformed Theology isn't a mere ordinance or ceremony or physical act done by men for men, but is the work of God.
Compare section 2 with 6, where 2 describes the "outward element" (water) but 6 explicitly separates out the efficacy from the time when this outward element is applied. Section 5 also gives insight into the distinction of the sacrament of baptism and the mere ordinance.
It's all rather nuanced. We aren't the church of Rome, but we also aren't Zwinglists. The Reformed view is much closer to the Lutheran view if anything, though a bit different at points.
The true church is the Ancient Antiochene Church where they were first called "Christian".
Are you saying that, by deduction, no modern church can be the true church 😳?
The Ancient church still exists and it's called the Orthodox Catholic Church , which one of it's bishoprics is The Patriarchate of Antioch.
Whoa! Presbyterians did not get the title of "Church of Scotland" 'til William of Orange, no, not that one but a descendant, as in William and Mary, stripped it from the Scottish Anglicans and awarded it to his Presbyterian allies who helped him evict King James II. The Anglicans were re-branded as the Episcopal Church of Scotland. That is why we have an Episcopal Church in the U.S. and historically not an Anglican church.
You're overanalyzing the semantics of what's been said here. He never made a claim about at what point it came to be titled 'The Church of Scotland' (which is debatable), he's only talking about the origins of the national presbyterian church in Scotland that we now understand as the CoS.
The difference it that the Independant Baptist holds to the King James bible, the inerrantcy of scripture, and the fact that every person makes his / her own choice for or against Jesus as Lord of their life..
the Presbyterian believes in the Bibles corrupted by the false doctrine of the Roman church (the vatican manuscript) and the liberalism of Alexandrian manuscripts deception... they believe man has no free will to make his own choice to salvation heaven or hell, ignoring biblical doctrine...
and several other grevious error such as baptism for salvation and salvation by church membership rather than by individual choice...
Both groups are also man made.
4 out of 9? That's a weird survey figure.
Fundamental Baptist uses KJV 1611 for it consists of 66 books that accounts to Holiness, in all righteousness be it left and right for it is the book of life, it is preserved. Spiritual and Biblical foundations of Nature, MAN and the beast ∆. It is not for Abortion, eversince, it is also conservative in so many ways. It answers all of the questions that anyone asks, for it is preserved, translated from many languages and consists of both Old and New Testaments, while Presbyterians is also using KJV 1611 the Preserved version.
And then there is Cumberland Presbyterian Church, which is Arminian and has been ordaining women since before the American Civil War.
Yes, they are quite interesting, aren't they? I have a video on them here: th-cam.com/video/9TxVfFPAAH0/w-d-xo.html
The Early church had no demominal banners! Christ was their LORD ( Owner Master King and high priest, besides their healer, provider and more). The First church model can be seen in Acts 2:14-42. Apostle Peter's first sermon. It lasted less than 2 minutes. It included repentance and trusting Jesus as their Lord to become one's Saviour YESHUA the Messiah.
The First church model can be found in the first chapters of Acts. (Acts 1-8)
One " model" today may be seen in
"brethren assemblies". Others call them " brethren" - just like the early brethren were called first called" Christians" in Antioch" (Acts Ch 11 v.26). Those Early believers) were "authentic" followers of the RISEN CHRIST.
When a "gentile" trusts Christ as his/her Lord the person is Justified ( saved) by grace. Also sanctified to be redeemed. It's a simple Gospel. No demominal banners. Discipleship is a process. The Disciples we called "Christians" first in Antioch. Authentic and not synthetic.
The Reformation declared Sol Scriptura , belief was only from scripture the word of God. As against the early Christian Church in which the Church determined theology along with the gospels. However , it was not for four hundred years before the 27 books of the new testament were gathered together . For the first 120 years there we only fragments of written form , so there was no sol scriptura to refer to , belief was in the oral form . Especially as few bibles existed prior to Guttenberg's printing press in 1440. And while the bible is true not every truth is written down as Saint John says i.e there is no Trinity or Incarnation etc. Sol Scriptura didn't work out very well , it only took 12 years before the first schism , Luther and Zwingli . Now there are an estimated twenty to forty thousand Protestant denominations , sixty five Presbyterians. Difference is , the original Church , since the Reformation called Catholic , existed for 1500 years without schism because it was founded by Christ himself and not man made by Calvin , Knox , Luther or Hendry 8th.
Here in Scotland the huge Presbyterian Cathedral is an empty shell while John Knox's statue points over the city of Glasgow to one of the biggest houses of worship in Europe , which is Muslim.
Does the Presbyterian constitution still refer to the Pope as the devil incarnate.
What. A ridiculous mix up
It sounds like a difference of ideological opinions more than a church. Just my opinion.
I’m highly skeptical of any church with a denomination label attached to it .
Independent churches that embrace the Bible and the teaching of the Gospel. Neither is needed some additional written creed outside of the Bible which is completely unnecessary and often in direct conflict with God’s Holy Word.
_"I’m highly skeptical of any church with a denomination label attached to it ."_
You will not find a single one on planet earth without one, whether explicit ('Presbyterian', 'Baptist', 'Lutheran', 'Catholic') or an implicit attempt to side-step this with some general sentiment that, honestly, likewise immediately says something of their attitudes and beliefs and how they might be 'grouped' or 'categorized'.
_"Independent churches that embrace the Bible and the teaching of the Gospel."_
This is a label. And it's merely defining a broad category of church that's pretending to not be a denomination or tradition like most others.
_"Neither is needed some additional written creed outside of the Bible which is completely unnecessary and often in direct conflict with God’s Holy Word."_
This is literally a creedal statement you've just made here about how churches should be run. This is the literal definition and purpose of a creed (and/or confession, statement of faith, statement of belief, etc).
Baptist all the way
Why is the root word of denomination can be unscrambled to DEMON? and when you try to define a root word for DENOM , you find nothing?????
The root word is from Latin denominatio(n- ), from the verb denominare, meaning To name, nominate or dub.
@@ReadyToHarvest wrong the root word is denom
@@ashzole u aight bro?
Your name suggests you are trolling but all right. Denom - not demon. Perhaps there’s an instance of dyslexia going on here. Nom-> name -> to identify or classify. Think of it as a labeling system. Another derived word is “nominate.” I nominate this thread for the unnecessary threads category.
Your money has denominations too. Perhaps if you owe me a fiver you will stay true to your nondenominational principles and give me a c-note instead.