The Sacraments - Mastering Reformed Theology Chapter 5

[david-]

As a Baptist, I find it hilarious how many times I've been picked on in your videos, and yet, I keep coming back. 😂

[JamesPreus]

Baptist: The sacraments do nothing!
Lutheran: They do everything!
Reformed: They were predestined to do something I guess

(good video, but I couldn't help it)

[daanmollema]

Love the Genevan psalm melodies in the background. I grew up Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands and these melodies have been with me my whole life. More intimately now that i am an organist.

[OrechTV]

6:44 : thank you, I was thinking about re-baptizing myself but yes, it makes sense if you are baptized by Holy spirit, then your child water baptism just gains power / meaning, not that it was wrong. It reconnects as you say "because God is outside of time" ... makes sense. Thanks :)

[GreenGoblin]

Reformed Presbyterian here 👋🏽
Thanks for all your work and dedication. These videos are awesome and I definitely look forward to them!

[auggieeasteregg]

My grandpa was a Lutheran pastor and he affirmed faith alone. All biblical Lutherans do. That's like the whole point of Lutheranism

[erikkarlson]

My biggest struggle with sacramentology is how counter-intuitive so much of the vocab is. Even as I came to hold a classically reformed view of communion I still thought I was memorialist for a long while, because I thought that it was the sign cooperating with the believers faith to confer a spiritual benefit to the believer rather than something special about the elements. The power at work was tied to the remembering (memorial) in faith, not the bread itself. Growing up at a staunchly memorialist church, everyone would have said this. We all were clarifying that we thought the elements were bread and wine when we said it was "just a symbol", we were rejecting transubstantiation. We all believed that when taken in faith it nourished us spiritually, and that when taken in an unworthy manner is could bring real harm.

This is not to say everyone there secretly espoused Calvin's view of communion, they didn't but many were incredibly close. If you asked about elements and accidents you would get symbolic language reacting against Catholic error, but if you asked them if God did something to strengthen their faith and unite them with Christ many would have sounded very reformed.

Baptism is often very similar. Almost every baptist I have ever met would agree that:
1.Water Baptism is a sign that is tied to the reality of spiritual baptism
2.Water Baptism is taught by our Lord, and should be sought immediately by any claiming to have faith in Christ
3.Refusal to be baptized is a sign of grave spiritual danger, or lack of saving faith
4.The moment of water baptism is not the moment you were saved, that is spirit baptism, but the two are obviously importantly related
5.Baptism is only effective for those with saving faith

Then the major debate with our Presby brothers cannot be any of those points. It comes down to very specific language that the laity often does not understand in either's churches (luckily we aren't saved by perfect doctrine). Further the infant baptism debate really heavily hinges not on anything in this video but on the specific way that baptism and circumcision do AND do not correspond. This is a complicated argument on Covenants, Christs efficacy as mediator, and visible versus invisble church. Again something that is not primarily about how baptism works or what it is, but about the nature of the covenant community and their children.

To give one last example: Lets take baptismal regeneration. Baptist say you are regenerated at your spiritual baptism, not your water baptism. So they usually respond that they reject baptismal regeneration. Presbyterians say that you are regenerated when you baptism becomes effectual, which is separated in time and space from your water baptism → but because of mostly different vocab (which is an important way we protect our doctrine, but can also make these conversation unnecessarily contentious and confusing) they would sometimes say they reject or affirm baptismal regeneration depending on who you ask and how.

God bless you to any one who actually read through this.

[andrewwetzel]

Posted 6 minutes ago? quick! Say something funny!

[jtvanilla]

I've been attending baptist churches for years, and there's definitely a spectrum. My current church definitely believes that you need to get baptized if you are saved, and it's not just a symbol, but also not a prerequisite to salvation. More like a postrequisite, or the fruit of salvation.

However, we believe that baptism is a personal choice as a product of salvation, that can't be made for us, and it's meaningless if not done from faith, which is why we don't baptize babies. One church I went to would do child dedication, which is more for the parents as a pledge to raise the child in faith, and that the church would participate in the child's discipleship in the hope they would one day accept Christ as their personal savior, which kinda reminds me of the concept of infant baptism.

All that said, maybe the over-individualism of the Baptist traditions is why so many young people feel less connected to the church. Maybe if they believe they were dedicated through baptism to be in the church from birth, they'd be more likely to continue on the faith.

[vincenzorutigliano]

3:30 In Catholic Theology (Aquinas) something different happens when someone in a state of mortal sin or doesn't have faith in the Eucharist receives communion they do receive the body of Christ sacramentaly, but instead of recieving it spiritually they recieve judgement (like 1 Corinthians says)

This is why in Catholic Theology there is a distinction between spiritual communion (can be received together with the sacrament or through prayer by a faithful desire of the sacrament) and sacramental communion (where the faithful substantially receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly present in the form of both species, the Bread and the Wine)

[Dsingis]

As a german lutheran, I'd like to point out, that our understanding of baptism is closer to what you described as the reformed view. We don't believe that "baptism saves" in the way, that if you get baptized as a baby with water you're automatically saved. There may be some that do think that, namely what we call "paper christians" (only christians on paper, as in registered in a church register) but we generally think, that baptism is one way of creating faith (not we create it, but god) because the bible says, that faith comes from hearing (or reading, you know what I mean) the word of god. And since baptism is water combined with gods word, it has the potential to create faith. Just as if an adult is listening to a christian cermon, or apologetics video. That's how we think about the baptism. It's the faith that saves you, or as you described it, the baptizing with the spirit. Just think of all these people who were baptized as a child, grew up in the church, have always been christians and don't have one of those points in time they can point to as the moment they were born again. Those have always had faith, we think they received it at baptism. But without faith, your baptism is worthless.

I'd like to quote Martin Luther from his own Big Katechism's section about baptism. (I'm german so I'll translate it from my german booklet here myself.)

"The faith alone saves, but it needs an outwardly sign it can hold onto, like baptism" (Just like you explained the reformed view in this video. So we can "see" our salvation.)
"Now some of our smartipants claim, that faith alone saves and works and outwardly things contribute nothing. To that we respond: Of course this is only a work of the faith, as we will hear later as well. But what those blind-leaders don't want to see, is that the faith needs something to have faith in. That means, something it stands on, something to hang onto. So the faith hangs onto the water und believes, that the baptism is something in which life and saving is; not for the water's sake, as has been said often enough by now, but because it is mixed with god's word and command and because his name is glued to it. If I now believe thusly, what other thing do I believe in as in god? Because he is who gave his word into it and planted it, and gave us this outwardly thing in which we can grasp this treasure?" end quote.

In a later section he says:
"[...] 'who believes and gets baptized is saved', that means faith alone makes a person worthy to recieve the redeeming, divine water in a useful way. Because what is thaught and promised with the words about the water can not be received in any other way than if we believe it from the bottom of our hearts. Without faith this water is useless, even if it is a divine, overflowing treasure. [...] Because it is unshakable: Who has no faith contributes nothing and receives nothing" end quote. (the last sentence is about salvation)

[jonathannerz]

“I say that is means is, as long as the definition of is is not is.”
-John Calvin, probably

[DruckerYTA]

My brain is physically growing by watching these!

[joshthxtheContitutionalConserv]

I'm very thankful to God that I listened to this today. I was just talking with my wife about having our 4 yr old baptized and this has greatly cleared things up for me. Thank you.

[That_many_watts]

grateful for you channel, been deep diving on my faith and navigating being protestant and thinking about orthodoxy

[wham]

This explains so much!!! As a Non-Denom trying to understand Reformed Theology, I thank you for laying this out clearly

[grammaurai]

Point of clarification, that's not the "Baptist" view of the sacrament of the Table, but the evangelical/non-confessional view. The 1689 takes a very strong position against transubstantiation, but also against the view of the supper as merely eating bread and drinking wine.

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

I'm once again begging Presbyterians to stop using "Baptist" as a synonym for "non-confessional" 🥲

And yes, if you're born in a country you're a citizen of that country - which is why being born of the Spirit makes you a citizen of the Kingdom of God ❤

[kylasmith]

my goodness i was just searching to see if you done a video on the sacraments thank you for your service

[yezki]

And this is why we need theology teached to our youth. Thank you again for your service m8, God bless you

[robertortiz-wilson]

Your words and the visuals help explain everything very well!