I'm a reformed Baptist as well, but I actually agree with the presbyterians on baptismal efficacy. I simply disagree on the proper subjects of baptism. To me the book of Acts is clear, that the thing signified in baptism is truly in some mysterious sense given in baptism, not by the work itself, but by your faith receiving through the sacrament the forgiveness of sins and gift of the holy spirit. (Acts 2:38, acts 22:16, 1 peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-6) I'm curious your thoughts, it also seems historically that reformed Baptists have agreed with the reformed view of baptismal efficacy, John gill wrote, "they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement"
Hey brother. I would recommend reading “The Fulfillment of the Promises of God” by Richard Belcher. For me this book on Covenant Theology really solidified my concerns regarding Paedobaptism coming into Presbyterianism from a Baptist background. Subscribed 🤙🏾
Thank you! Agree on every description. I don't know much about anglicans, because they are not popular in my country, but from what I have heard they have became very liberal - LGBT agendas and women as pastors, which I think is also important indication that something is wrong.
Afaik, Anglicanism presents itself in a wide spectrum of theological beliefs. All from reformed Anglicanism, to “catholic” anglicanism to the very liberal type you mentioned.
Hi! I grew up as a Lutheran but converted to Catholicism when I was 20 (formally received at 21). I applaud that you look to the early Church to see the way they worshiped, but I wish that you would also look to the early Church doctrinally, as the whole idea of reform does not make sense if you don't know what you are reforming to. This is one of my major quarrels with the reformers, that they sought to reform the wrong thing: the Faith and not morals. Thus, they reformed the Faith on their own authority, which is evidenced by the clear fact how splintered Protestantism is with no really apparent means of unifying it. I argue that the early Church taught that sound doctrine was only to be found in unity with the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Catholic Church. I honestly ask you what your view on very early Church fathers is who, at least in my view, very clearly say very un-Protestant things. I would argue you either have to agree that the Apostles didn't do a very good job at teaching these men (giving credence to the Mormon claim of a 1st century apostasy, btw), or some dearly held Protestant views are just plainly wrong. Here are a few of those quotes: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again." Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, ibid. "For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop - I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature - how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses Matthew 18:19 such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resists the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God." Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians His letters are full of things like that. And so if I have to ask myself whether the Apostle John, of whom Ignatius was a disciple, really messed up his student or if Protestants, interpreting the Holy Scriptures 14 centuries removed, got it wrong, I just think the latter is significantly more likely, especially since Christ Himself promised to build His Church, so that the gates of hell might not prevail against it. "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. [...] Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority." Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book 3, Cap. 3 Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew the Apostles personally: (proceeds to list the bishops of Rome up to his present day around 180 A.D.) "In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." I want to close with one of these bishops of Rome, Clement (who is the Clement from Paul's letters) who gives written witness to the tradition of apostolic succession: "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, First Epistle
I appreciate the time and research you put into this comment. While I haven’t read a ton of the church fathers I’m currently reading on church history. I’ve got a few books I’m trying to get through at the moment and I firmly believe that the early church, with evidence from the scriptures themselves, didn’t get everything right and said things that were contradictory to themselves at many points. (And no I’m not saying scripture is fallible in mainly pointing at times wherein the scriptures that tell us the apostles failed or had to be corrected and not due to the teachings we see in scriptures themselves.) There were times where the saints and fathers would say things that support Protestant views, then other times where they would walk back and affirm Catholic dogma that is contrary to Protestant teaching( I’m only using modern terms I understand that “Protestantism” wasn’t a thing until the reformation). The apostles even had to be corrected many times. There were certainly inspired and infallible teachings, but they certainly also were flawed men who got things wrong and I don’t think that’s blasphemous to say. Only Christ is perfectly infallible through and through. Much of the epistles from the NT are apostles correcting false teachings already creeping up in the church as well. I would say that to believe there is a perfect linear line of teaching and tradition that has been preserved and passed down without error is to be in error itself.
I was there at one point too. Grew up Pentecostal and later on Jimmy White and his gang were my goats. However, I'd argue that the "reformed" baptist system fails to account for the entirety of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We *know* for a fact that the Eucharist was the central element of worship in the early, as early as the apostles themselves. We *know* this because they tell us: St. Justin Martyr For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. St. Ignatius of Antioch They [Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead. St. Irenaeus of Lyons [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. I'd encourage you to listen to Dr. Jordan Cooper who has a similar background as you. The Church of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) has a much better theological and ecclesiastical system than all other protestants.
Jordan Cooper is great! Love listening to him. I’ve read the Augsburg as well and I couldn’t become Lutheran simply because I can’t shake being 5 point Calvinist. I’d consider Anglican before Lutheran
@@inShapeJamesSherman Then, unfortunately, you depart from the articles of faith of the Early Church. TULIP or however you wanna call it is a 16th century novelty.
Glad to see a fellow reformed baptist giving the denomination a bit of love online! subbed 🙌
Much appreciated! I love giving the reformed Baptist community an voice and an online presence 🙌🏻🔥
Anglican, here: more on the Anglo-Catholic than Reformed side. Interesting video. We should do a talk some time.
Would love to do so 🤝🏻
@@inShapeJamesSherman I couldn't find your email address. Mine is on my channel.
I'm a reformed Baptist as well, but I actually agree with the presbyterians on baptismal efficacy. I simply disagree on the proper subjects of baptism. To me the book of Acts is clear, that the thing signified in baptism is truly in some mysterious sense given in baptism, not by the work itself, but by your faith receiving through the sacrament the forgiveness of sins and gift of the holy spirit. (Acts 2:38, acts 22:16, 1 peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-6) I'm curious your thoughts, it also seems historically that reformed Baptists have agreed with the reformed view of baptismal efficacy, John gill wrote,
"they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement"
I am now a Presbyterian! I will be making a video on that soon and why
@@inShapeJamesSherman have you read the 17th and 18th century Baptists?
@@inShapeJamesSherman it been 11 days
@Barely-protestant I know I know don’t remind me 🫥🤦🏻♂️
I’m working on a biblical christology next
@@inShapeJamesSherman ok
Hey brother. I would recommend reading “The Fulfillment of the Promises of God” by Richard Belcher. For me this book on Covenant Theology really solidified my concerns regarding Paedobaptism coming into Presbyterianism from a Baptist background. Subscribed 🤙🏾
Thank you for the suggestion! I will surely check that out!
Thank you! Agree on every description. I don't know much about anglicans, because they are not popular in my country, but from what I have heard they have became very liberal - LGBT agendas and women as pastors, which I think is also important indication that something is wrong.
Afaik, Anglicanism presents itself in a wide spectrum of theological beliefs. All from reformed Anglicanism, to “catholic” anglicanism to the very liberal type you mentioned.
Hi! I grew up as a Lutheran but converted to Catholicism when I was 20 (formally received at 21).
I applaud that you look to the early Church to see the way they worshiped, but I wish that you would also look to the early Church doctrinally, as the whole idea of reform does not make sense if you don't know what you are reforming to. This is one of my major quarrels with the reformers, that they sought to reform the wrong thing: the Faith and not morals. Thus, they reformed the Faith on their own authority, which is evidenced by the clear fact how splintered Protestantism is with no really apparent means of unifying it. I argue that the early Church taught that sound doctrine was only to be found in unity with the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Catholic Church.
I honestly ask you what your view on very early Church fathers is who, at least in my view, very clearly say very un-Protestant things. I would argue you either have to agree that the Apostles didn't do a very good job at teaching these men (giving credence to the Mormon claim of a 1st century apostasy, btw), or some dearly held Protestant views are just plainly wrong. Here are a few of those quotes:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again."
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, ibid.
"For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop - I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature - how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses Matthew 18:19 such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resists the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God."
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians
His letters are full of things like that. And so if I have to ask myself whether the Apostle John, of whom Ignatius was a disciple, really messed up his student or if Protestants, interpreting the Holy Scriptures 14 centuries removed, got it wrong, I just think the latter is significantly more likely, especially since Christ Himself promised to build His Church, so that the gates of hell might not prevail against it.
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. [...]
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority."
Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book 3, Cap. 3
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew the Apostles personally: (proceeds to list the bishops of Rome up to his present day around 180 A.D.) "In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true."
I want to close with one of these bishops of Rome, Clement (who is the Clement from Paul's letters) who gives written witness to the tradition of apostolic succession: "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
Clement of Rome, First Epistle
I appreciate the time and research you put into this comment. While I haven’t read a ton of the church fathers I’m currently reading on church history. I’ve got a few books I’m trying to get through at the moment and I firmly believe that the early church, with evidence from the scriptures themselves, didn’t get everything right and said things that were contradictory to themselves at many points. (And no I’m not saying scripture is fallible in mainly pointing at times wherein the scriptures that tell us the apostles failed or had to be corrected and not due to the teachings we see in scriptures themselves.) There were times where the saints and fathers would say things that support Protestant views, then other times where they would walk back and affirm Catholic dogma that is contrary to Protestant teaching( I’m only using modern terms I understand that “Protestantism” wasn’t a thing until the reformation). The apostles even had to be corrected many times. There were certainly inspired and infallible teachings, but they certainly also were flawed men who got things wrong and I don’t think that’s blasphemous to say. Only Christ is perfectly infallible through and through. Much of the epistles from the NT are apostles correcting false teachings already creeping up in the church as well. I would say that to believe there is a perfect linear line of teaching and tradition that has been preserved and passed down without error is to be in error itself.
Beautiful comment, thanks!
You should check out the documentary amazing grace
Sounds familiar. I’ll give it a shot and review it 🫡
@@inShapeJamesSherman it's pretty good it goes over church history and calvanism. Disclaimer it's 4 hours. But it's so good
@Jawond34 sounds like a solid watch!
I was there at one point too. Grew up Pentecostal and later on Jimmy White and his gang were my goats. However, I'd argue that the "reformed" baptist system fails to account for the entirety of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We *know* for a fact that the Eucharist was the central element of worship in the early, as early as the apostles themselves. We *know* this because they tell us:
St. Justin Martyr
For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
They [Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.
I'd encourage you to listen to Dr. Jordan Cooper who has a similar background as you. The Church of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) has a much better theological and ecclesiastical system than all other protestants.
Jordan Cooper is great! Love listening to him. I’ve read the Augsburg as well and I couldn’t become Lutheran simply because I can’t shake being 5 point Calvinist. I’d consider Anglican before Lutheran
@@inShapeJamesSherman Then, unfortunately, you depart from the articles of faith of the Early Church. TULIP or however you wanna call it is a 16th century novelty.
Lol