Did the SBC Reject the Nicene Creed?

Did the SPC really reject the Nicene Creed?

Well, no.

But we're going to talk about it anyway on this episode of Your Calvinist Podcast, which begins right now.

Sometimes

I feel it's with some

good punish,

and I hate that sounds violent, and

I feel my troubles all

better,

like

most

Calvinists

these nights.

Welcome back to Your Calvinist Podcast.

My name is Keith Foskey, and as always, I am your Calvinist.

And I want to begin by reminding you that this episode is brought to you by a tiny Bible.

Yes, we are now sponsored by tinybibles .com.

If you are looking for the smallest complete Bible on the market today that is small yet readable,

you can find it at tinybibles .com.

They have it in the King James Version, New King James Version, and coincidentally, Braille.

Not really.

That was a joke.

But you can check them out in King James and New King James and go get yourself a tiny Bible.

Also, I want to mention some conferences that are coming up.

I am going to be participating in two conferences, but before I mention those, I want to mention Christian

Responsibility in an Un -Christian World.

This conference is coming up August the 8th through the 10th, so it's right around the corner in Vail, Arizona.

It's going to have Andrew Rappaport, Aaron Brewster, Kevin Hay, some really good friends of mine, several other brothers,

including two pastors from FIRE, which is the association that our church is a part of, the Fellowship of Independent Reformed

Evangelicals.

So if you're in the Arizona area, if you're anywhere near Vail, I would encourage you to go see those brothers at the

Christian Responsibility in an Un -Christian World conference.

And as I said, I have two conferences coming up as well.

I'm going to be in Winter Haven September 6th through the 8th.

I'm going to be preaching alongside some other brothers, including Virgil Walker and many others, on the subject of the

attributes of God.

And if you're interested in that, I'll have the information in the description below.

Also, we have the War Conference coming up in February.

I know that's a long way away, it seems like, but it's not really that far.

And you can get tickets now if you're interested.

This is a conference, this is my third year being a part of this conference, and I'm looking forward to seeing the guys in Tullahoma next

year.

Also I want to ask this, I am right at 25 ,000 subscribers.

If you're watching this on YouTube, you'll notice the subscriber's right around 25 ,000, and I want to

ask, if you haven't subscribed yet, please go and subscribe to the channel.

It really helps us out, and it's an encouragement to me as I see those numbers continuing to.

Rise.

That means people are listening, people are interested, people are happy with what we're.

Doing.

And if that's you, please go and hit the subscribe button.

And again, if you like this video, hit the thumbs up button.

And if you don't like it, hit the thumbs down button twice.

All right.

Well, let's get on to the business of the day.

Last week was the Southern Baptist Convention, and I already did one video about it.

I did a video last week on the subject of the man who asked that Calvinism be removed from

all of the SBCs and its entities.

And if you didn't get to see that video, you can go back and watch that.

That was on our last week's show.

But there was also a proposal, a motion made on the floor, to add the

Nicene Creed to the Baptist faith and message.

Now, the Baptist faith and message is the document that the Southern Baptist Convention

churches affirm.

And so there are those who think it needs to have the addition of the Nicene Creed.

And I just want to let you see this video of this man right here.

Good morning, Mr. President.

My name is Andy Brown.

I'm a messenger of First Baptist Church of Starkville, Mississippi.

I move that the messengers of this annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention affirm the Nicene

Creed.

The Creed states, We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and

invisible.

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one

substance with the Father.

By him all things were made for us and for our salvation.

He descended from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was made man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered death and was buried on the third day.

He rose again in accordance with the scriptures and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom shall have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

and who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.

He spoke through the prophets and in one holy, universal and apostolic church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins and we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the

life of the world to come.

Amen.

Is there a second?

Second!

Thank you.

Please give a copy of your motion to the page.

All right.

Well, that was what happened at the SBC convention.

Someone sat up on the floor, made a motion that the Nicene Creed be included in the Baptist Faith and Message.

It was not included, ultimately, but that's kind of what we're going to talk about today.

We're going to talk about what the Nicene Creed is, why anyone would think it should be added to the Baptist Faith and

Message, why some think it should not, and then we're going to kind of round out this episode by talking about

the value of creeds and confessions.

So let's begin by asking, what is the Nicene Creed?

Well, to understand the Nicene Creed is to understand a little bit about church history, and I brought up a

document from a teaching that I did a few years ago where I taught through church history, looking through

creeds and confessions, and this was just the history of the Council of Nicaea.

Up until the 4th century, the Christian Church suffered persecution from Rome, but in 313, the Edict of

Milan made Christian worship legal within the Roman Empire.

This was the result of the Emperor Constantine having converted to Christianity after believing he had seen the sign of the

Cairo in the sky prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, and he believed that the sign had brought him

victory.

At this time in history, Rome was a hodgepodge of religions and beliefs,

and within Christian Christianity, there was also serious debate taking place about foundational doctrines, most specifically the

doctrine of Christology, that being the person and nature of Jesus Christ.

It was a time of serious turmoil, with graffiti on town walls, pamphlet wars, and vicious rhetoric being

spewed between debating groups.

Dr. James White has pointed out that such was the religious climate of the day that when purchasing a loaf of bread, a

person could realistically be asked if he believed the Son was begotten or unbegotten.

So Constantine invited a group of bishops—some of the numbering is a little

disagreeable, but it's around 1 ,800 bishops—came, some from the East, some from the

Western Church, and they attended the first Ecumenical Council, meaning where all the churches

gathered together to settle their theological disputes, in A .D. 325.

This was, again, there was no official count of those who actually attended, but Athanasius

counted 318 in total.

So again, about 1 ,800 were invited, about 318 actually came, and each bishop

was allowed to bring two priests and three deacons, so it's likely that there were close to 2 ,000 people

present for the council.

This was the first ecumenical, or worldwide, gathering of the Church, as I mentioned a moment ago.

And among the bishops, there was one who would take the center stage in the debate, and his name was Arius.

Arius proposed the idea that Jesus, while having a form of divinity, was not co -equal or co -eternal

with the Father.

In opposition to Arius was Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, who contended that Jesus was fully

divine, being co -equal and co -eternal with the Father.

This may seem like a simple or somewhat small debate, but it had tremendous consequences in Christian thought.

It was essentially asking the question, is Jesus created, or is he uncreated?

Is he fully God, or is he not?

And is he creator of all, or is he part of creation?

And it's important to realize that Arius was not denying that Christ was divine, or even that he was the creator of the universe, rather

he believed that Jesus created everything else, but he himself was also part of the

created order.

Arius rejected that Jesus Christ was uncreated.

In the Council, a very specific set of ideas was debated, and three possible outcomes were there.

The first was homoousius, Christ was the same substance of the Father.

The second is homoiousius, that Christ was of similar substance with the Father.

And the third was heteroousia, that meaning that Christ was of a different substance from the Father.

Ultimately, the Council came to the conclusion, based upon Scripture, that Christ was of the same substance of the

Father.

He was, in fact, homoousius, of the same substance.

Now, this is what then became the basis for what we just

heard that man read.

He read from the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed was the statement of faith based upon what was believed about Jesus Christ,

based upon the Scriptures, based upon this gathering of these bishops who came together to determine the

issue, not to make Jesus divine, but to determine what the Bible actually taught about Jesus in

regard to his divinity.

And the conclusion of the Council was that Jesus was of the same substance with the

Father, that he was begotten, but not made.

That is an important part of the Nicene Creed, and something that went on to establish Christian

orthodoxy and has remained the foundational Christology of the Christian

Church for the last 1700 years.

So the next question is, why would anyone think that this should be added to the Baptist

faith and message?

Well, some argue that the Baptist faith and message does not do enough to

clearly articulate the Trinity.

They've cited—I watched one video of a brother who mentioned that even someone like

Stephen Furtick, who is no longer part of the SBC but was at one time, was able to

affirm the Baptist faith and message, even though he seemed to be slipping into what some would call modalism.

Modalism is not Trinitarianism.

Modalism is a form of belief that is also called Sibelianism, after Sibelius, the

one who promoted it.

The idea that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons, but rather simply

three modes of being.

Three, as it were, manifestations or modes of the

Godhead.

And so the Father and the Son and the Spirit are not three distinct persons.

And Trinitarianism says that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

One essence, but three persons.

And so the argument from those who thought the Nicene Creed should be included

in the Baptist faith and message are saying, ultimately, that

the Baptist faith and message is not clear enough.

If men like Stephen Furtick, who are slipping into modalism, can affirm the Baptist faith and message, then we need to have a

clearer, more definitive, more robust

Christology in the Baptist faith and message.

And by the way, I say we, I am not a Southern Baptist.

I feel like I'm adopted into the Southern Baptist group, even though I'm not a part, because I did attend a

seminary that was a Southern Baptist seminary.

I went to Jacksonville Baptist Theological Seminary.

Many of my professors were pastors of Southern Baptist churches.

And I've always had an affinity, my heart is really connected

to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Historically, I have Voices Abstract of Systemic Theology right here, I

talked about that on the show last week.

So when I say we, if I ever say we, I understand I'm not part of the SBC, I'm a voice looking from the outside

speaking in, but at the same time, I have, I feel like, in a sense, I do have a

connection, and so that's why I sometimes use that phrase, we.

So that's the reason people think that the Nicene Creed should be added to the Baptist faith and message, is they simply

believe that the Baptist faith and message is not itself a robust

explanation, a robust enough explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yet even though the Creed is historically accurate, and is, or excuse me, is historically

supported, and is a historically supported articulation of the faith, some people believed it shouldn't be added.

I mean, obviously, because it wasn't.

So what about that?

What about those who would say it shouldn't be added?

Well, let's look at some of their arguments.

The first argument that sometimes is leveled by those who would say the Nicene Creed shouldn't be

included are those who would say, well, Baptists are opposed to creeds, Baptists are non

-credal, and that is not exactly true.

And so that's something I wanted to point out in this video.

Baptists have a history of strong confessionalism.

Even Southern Baptists have had a strong history, or a history, of strong confessionalism.

For instance, our Church holds to a Baptist confession.

Now it's not a Southern Baptist confession, it precedes the Southern Baptist Church.

It was written in 1644 and edited in 1646 as the first London Baptist confession of faith, and that's

what our Church holds to.

And then there are many other churches that hold to the 1689 confession of faith.

Some hold to the Philadelphia Confession, some hold to the New Hampshire Confession, and even the Baptist faith and message

is a statement of faith.

It's similar to a confession.

It basically functions in the same way.

It says, this is what we believe.

And that leads to a question, and I do want to address this issue.

I want to address the issue of what's the difference between a creed, a confession, and a statement of faith.

Well, honestly, they are very similar, but you could make one

distinction.

You could say that a creed is more like a pledge of allegiance.

I've heard this argument, I've seen this in some articles, I've seen some people make this point that a

creed is like a pledge of allegiance, where a confession is more of a definitional document.

So for instance, in a confession it will say, there is one God,

maker of heaven and earth,.

Right?

But in a creed it would say, I believe in God the Father Almighty.

It's like saying something.

And this is where the word creed comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe.

And interestingly enough, credo -baptism is the idea that you don't get baptized until you are able to

articulate belief.

So the idea is in there, and you understand that.

So when we talk about a creed and a confession, there can be some distinctions, and then of course a

statement of faith is like a confession, it's just maybe a little less authoritative,

because when we talk about being a confessional church, what we're saying is these things we confess,

these things we believe, these things we hold to, and this brings up the issue of

how theology actually works.

And I want to attribute a credit here to the Moody Handbook of Theology, it's a book I bought years ago, I

actually bought it from Lifeway, of all places, see how Southern Baptist I am?

I actually shopped at Lifeway.

And at the...or in the Moody Handbook of

Theology, the book is written from five different ways to do

theology, and...is it five?

Let me go through them real quick.

It is...number one is biblical theology, which is exegesis, like if we talk about the theology of

Genesis, or the theology of Paul, or, you know, if we look at the books, and what do

the books teach us about God, and that's the first step, exegesis is the first step, that's how we do

theology, it has to begin there.

But the next step would be what is known as systematic theology.

Systematic theology is when you take those things that you have learned, and you

categorize.

Them.

This is an area that I tend to focus on in my own study, even though I love biblical theology and I

think that's what I do on Sunday morning when I'm preaching verse -by -verse through the Scriptures, I'm doing biblical theology.

At the same time, I love systematizing, it's just the way my brain works,

this is why R .C. Sproul was one of my favorite teachers, he was a systematic theologian, and so I learn that

way, I like to categorize things, you know, and so systematic theology is simply putting

beliefs into categories, putting things into, where does this fall?

And then you can talk about historical theology.

Historical theology is, okay, how have different doctrines developed over time?

So we could talk about the first three to four hundred years of the Church, when the Council of Nicaea happened, when, you know, these other councils

happened, when the creeds, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and all these different creeds, well there's really three main

ecumenical creeds, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and all three of those creeds are important, and those all

came to be around that first four to five hundred years of the Church.

So that is part of historical theology.

And then of course you go into, you know, medieval theology, Reformational theology,

you know, things that happened during the Renaissance and all that, so there's development of doctrine over time, development

of understanding of Scripture over time, and there's nothing wrong with that, that's just part of how you do theology, you look at how this

doctrine has developed.

And then there is what's known as

dogmatic theology.

This was something, again, I credit to Moody Handbook of Theology for pointing this out, I think it was very helpful.

Dogmatic theology is once a specific belief has been

determined to be true and accurate, and it has been codified in some kind of a document, such as a

creed or a confession, that becomes the dogma of that particular group.

So for instance, if we said the 1689, people who hold to the 1689

Confession, they're dogmatic, they say this is what the Bible teaches.

They're not saying that that confession is above the Scripture, but they are saying this accurately represents what the Bible teaches, therefore

this is a true thing.

And I'm going to be dogmatic, there's a fly in here and it's killing me.

As many of you know, my studio is a, or my shed is in a studio, and it is hot time in Florida right now,

and every time I open the door and go in and out, there's the possibility.

Of flies.

So if you see a fly flying around, leave a comment and say, I saw the fly, that'd be a great little game to play.

Also, I didn't mention before, I got a haircut, and part of the reason why I got the haircut is because, hey, it is super

hot in Florida right now, having a long beard and long hair just couldn't do it anymore, so had to do something.

So lost my train of thought there, sorry.

Dogmatic theology is what creeds and confessions represent.

They represent the idea that these things are dogmatically correct, these things are accurate, and this is

what we hold to.

Calvinism is a form of dogmatic theology.

It doesn't make it wrong, dogmatic is not wrong.

People think of dogmatic as being a negative thing.

It's not.

It just simply means we affirm these things to be true.

Okay, we're dogmatic about these things.

So the question of, do Baptists oppose creeds?

Not historically.

Now, there are those who do.

Like for instance, the Church of Christ has typically been a group that has opposed creeds, and they've even

used phrases like, no creed but Christ, which is itself a creed and that is somewhat

ironic, but they would say things, you know, no book but the Bible, no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.

But even they would have statements that they say, these are the things we hold to be true.

These are things, they may not be official statements, but they are statements.

I remember I grew up in a church that was connected to the old Restoration movement, and they would talk about five things that must happen to

be saved.

And if I remember correctly, it was repent, believe, be baptized, and holy

living, I think, was one, and then there was one final one that I can't quite remember right now.

But that was kind of like a mini -creed.

These are the things you have to do to be saved, right?

These are the things you have to believe.

So even people who are non -creedal tend to have to distill at some point what they believe down to some

form of foundational teaching.

So have Baptists opposed creeds?

Not all of them, and certainly the Southern Baptists have not necessarily

done so.

But the second thing, the bigger issue, is that some have

said that Baptists cannot affirm the Nicene Creed.

And this issue, this is a little more problematic, because it's one thing to say, well, we're not

creedal, so we don't want to affirm the creed.

But it's another thing to say that this creed is wrong, especially since it has stood as a standard in

Christendom for a period of 1 ,700 years.

And this is what got my attention, and I mentioned this in my previous video, I just offhandedly mentioned that David

Allen had said something about the creed, and said that basically he couldn't affirm it.

And I read an article about what he was saying, and I want to be as gracious as I can to him.

He mentioned something about, you know, he just doesn't like the ecumenical, trying to be too ecumenical.

He talked about pigs in a...he said, you have three pigs running around, and I think

he said it was like the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, and the Lutherans, and he said, and the Baptists are over here, they're the one pig that's not running around playing.

We don't want to play with everybody else.

And I think that's an interesting way of looking at it.

I'm all for joining forces for the Gospel, as long as these

groups affirm the Gospel.

And in fact, I have an article that's coming out, there's a

new...there's something new on the horizon, and I'm going to be contributing to it, and can't say

too much about it right now, but an article that I'm writing for this new publication

is...the title of my article is Denominations Are Great, and I think denominations are great.

I think they allow for us to be able to have a unification in

the essentials and still have division or distinction in the non -essentials, and

ultimately that we have unity without conformity.

But anyway, be looking out for that article when it posts, I'll share it, and then you can tell me if you think it's

good or bad.

But David Allen seems to be sort of anti -ecumenical, at least in his statement, not interested

in any type of ecumenicism, and that's fine, that's his opinion.

But then he said, but there's also an issue with the creed itself, and that was on the issue of the

phrase, baptism for the remission of sins.

And then I've heard others say, well, we don't like it because of the word Catholic Church.

And I noticed that in the video, and I smiled when he said it, but the man in the video made a point to not use the word Catholic,

but instead he used the word universal.

And that's good, because that's what the word means, but I

think we need to teach people that, rather than necessarily just replace the word Catholic with the word universal, we need to understand the

distinction between the little -c Catholic Church and the big -c Roman Catholic body.

And the distinction is, the little -c Catholic Church represents all

believers who are in Christ.

We are all in that universal Catholic Church.

But the Roman Catholic Church has become corrupt, and is corrupt,

and is not representative of what is the universal Church.

And so when the Nicene Creed says the

Catholic Church, it's referring to the universal body of Christ.

It's not referring to that body which is headed up in the Vatican, which is represented by

the authority of the Pope, and which has fallen into grave corruption.

That's not what it's referring to, even though Roman Catholics would argue that it is.

I would say it's not.

I would say that that particular form of Roman Catholicism has, through history and through

things that have changed down through the ages, as we mentioned, has over time become more and more and more corrupt.

Especially into the Middle Ages, and that is not what's being referenced there in the Council

of Nicaea.

So if the word Catholic bothers you, hopefully that helps in some way.

But I do want to tell a quick story.

Years ago I was substitute teaching at a seminary.

There was the professor there.

I was actually, interestingly enough, I was auditing a class.

I had already graduated, but I was auditing a class because I wanted to take a refresher on Greek, and so

the professor had an issue come up where he had to miss a couple classes, and he asked if I would, since I was

able to teach, he asked if I could teach the class for him for a few times, and I did, and I really enjoyed it.

Well, we developed a relationship, and one night after class we're talking, and he asked me if I would like to possibly teach a

class at the seminary.

And I said, possibly, you know, I'd be interested, of course.

And he said, what would you like to teach?

I said, well, if I had the choice, I would probably want to teach Church History.

And he says, well, what era, what kind of, how would you do that?

And I said, well, I like to teach Church History by looking at the creeds and confessions

down through the ages.

Like, that's how I would, like, beginning with the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the

Athanasian Creed, looking at the development of those down through the ages, and seeing how Church History,

walking through Church History in that way.

And I'll never forget, he said, oh man, those are Catholic.

And again, this was not an uneducated man, this was a teacher, and I know that he, I

know what he was saying, but it still just, it reminded me just how this

thinking runs.

Deep.

Anytime the word Catholic is used, anytime creeds and confessions are brought up, especially the early Church

Fathers and things like that, some people just automatically write that off as, oh, that's Catholic.

And that's not the way that we should think about these things, it certainly is not,

in keeping with the idea of the truth.

And I know some people believe Baptists have always been separated from the mainline Church, and Baptists have always had this sort of, you

know, there are some who have this trail of blood mentality that the Baptists have always been on the outside and there's always been this line,

but I'm not convinced of that.

I'm convinced that God has been working through the Church down through the ages, and He has allowed things

like the Reformation to happen to demonstrate the truth and uphold the truth, even within the midst of corruption,

and Baptists are the fruit of that and came out of that.

But again, that's an argument for another time.

But again, this thinking about the idea of not wanting to be part of the

Catholic Church runs very deep, and I get it.

And so for now, we'll just leave that and say, some people don't want the Nicene Creed, this fly's going to kill me.

And again, please, if this is your first time watching the video, I promise I'm not

doing this in a barn, but I am doing it in a shed.

This is what's called the Theo Shed.

This is a shed that I've converted into a studio.

So hopefully it sounds good, and if you see the fly flying around, hit the like button.

Okay.

So the other issue that comes up with the Nicene Creed, and this one I think is a little more difficult, is the issue

of the phrase, the baptism for the remission of sins.

And for many people, that is very problematic, especially people who are Baptists, because Baptists, even

though they believe baptism is important, it's in the name, they don't believe in

baptismal regeneration, which means they don't believe that baptism causes a

person to be born again.

Now, there are many people who do believe in baptismal regeneration.

There are entire movements who believe in baptismal regeneration.

Some don't use that phrase.

Like, for instance, the Church of Christ, they use the phrase baptismal remission, meaning that it is in the labor

of baptism where your sins are forgiven, and where your Christian life begins.

So ultimately it would be a form of baptismal regeneration, but they would word it slightly differently, and I

want to be generous to them and try to be fair.

But at the same time, Baptists typically do not believe that.

And so when they hear the phrase baptism for the remission of sins, that can be,

for some people, problematic, and they say, well, we don't, we can't affirm that.

But the first thing that has to be reminded is that's actually a biblical phrase.

Acts 2 .38, when Peter is there and he is preaching.

In fact, I'll open up my Bible very quickly and read it as it is written in the English standard

version, just to make sure I'm getting this right.

But it is, it's in Acts chapter 2 and verse 38,

and it says, excuse me here, okay.

Well, verse 37 says, now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, brothers,

what shall we do?

And Peter said to them, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ

for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I remember years ago, I had a dear friend who was part of the Restoration Movement, which is the

Church Christ and other churches that came out of that movement, which do believe that

baptism is required or necessary for a person to be forgiven of their sins, and

I remember talking about this very verse.

This very verse was the verse that many of them held to, and I had a bracelet

that said Ephesians 2 .8, for by grace you save through faith, and that not of yourself is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man

should boast.

And he said, well, I prefer Acts 2 .38, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will

receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, but again, this idea of baptism for the remission of sins, this is a big question and a big issue

that is brought up by many people.

And so, what do Baptists believe?

Well, first of all, I want to speak from a Calvinistic perspective, because Calvinism...

I'm a Calvinist, obviously, it's in the name of the show.

I'm wearing a shirt that says, You're a Calvinist.

Don't forget, also, you can buy other shirts, cool shirts, at our shirt store, and the link will be below.

So what do Calvinists believe?

Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith.

We believe that in the Ordo Salutis, the order of salvation, regeneration causes us to have the ability

to believe.

Now, not everybody believes that, but that is typically believed among Calvinists.

And so, ultimately, the question of, for a Baptist, does baptism regenerate?

No, because to desire baptism has to happen before you can be baptized as a Baptist.

So to desire baptism is an act of faith, and therefore, you've already been regenerated.

Regeneration has already happened, your heart has already been changed, that's why you desire to be baptized.

Now, that can be understood differently, such as in Presbyterian circles, where a person is baptized prior to

them coming to be regenerated, and some believe there is a tie

between baptism and regeneration, but not necessarily in time.

And so there's a lot of debate about this within Reformed or Calvinistic circles.

But ultimately, we're talking today about Baptists, and Baptists do not typically believe in

baptismal regeneration.

And so, what do Baptists believe baptism is, then?

Well, Baptists believe, typically, that baptism is a ceremony, and it is symbolic

of the act of dying with Christ and being raised to new life.

We see this explained in Romans chapter 6, when it says, "...buried with him in baptism.".

And those of you who've been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death, and so this ceremony

of being put in the water—and this is why it's very symbolic for Baptists, that they be laid in the water,

that they go under the water as simulating going down into the grave with Christ,

coming up out of the water, representing being brought to life, being

resurrected, as it were.

Even when we baptize at our church, we say, "...buried with him in baptism, raised to new life.".

And so there's a symbol and a ceremony attached to that

symbol.

But that does not mean that it's meaningless or that it is unnecessary.

And this is where people hear the word symbol, people hear the word sign, people hear the word

ceremony, and they automatically get, well, then it's meaningless.

That's not true.

And I heard a professor—actually, it was on another video—and he made a very good analogy.

He said, if you consider a wedding, a wedding is a ceremony.

Now, a wedding is a ceremony that includes vows, it includes

proclamations, it includes statements, and all of these things, but

that's not what changes the person and what brings two people together.

God is the one who brings two people together, but the ceremony is important, as the ceremony

does play a part in this action of bringing these two people together.

And so, is baptism and salvation tied together?

Yes, the Bible ties baptism and salvation together, but it's not a causal link.

And this is a thing I've argued in my debate with Redeem Zumer, is that baptism doesn't cause

salvation, but it is an expression or a ceremony of what is

happening in the life of the person.

It is happening inside the person.

What has happened to the person is now being expressed through this ceremony of baptism.

Therefore, it is just like a wedding is not meaningless or unnecessary, it is meaningful and necessary.

Baptism is meaningful and necessary, it's just not causal.

And so the issue of the question of is baptism for the remission of sins or not, the question

is language.

And one of the ways that Baptists have explained this historically is

talking about the use of the word for.

When you talk about the word for, it can have the connotation of being in order to something,

or it can have the connotation of being because of something.

And so, for instance, and some of you may have heard this analogy before, if you see a

wanted poster and the person says, Jesse James wanted for murder.

While the word for there can mean in order to commit murder, that's not what it means,

it can also mean wanted because he has committed murder, because of murder.

And so the word for having the connotation of either in order to, or the connotation of because

of, many Baptists would say, well, in Acts 2 .38, when it used this language, it simply means

because of, not in order to.

So you're not being baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, but you're being baptized because of the

forgiveness of sins.

Now, some people, that's not a satisfactory answer.

Some people think that that is not a reasonable way of understanding that passage.

However, there are many books and commentaries that have been written to show that this is actually a possible

way of reading that.

But even still, this is the point I want to make.

No matter where we land on this question, the phrase in the Nicene Creed is not unique to the

Nicene Creed.

It's simply coming out of the Bible.

And so we have to understand that most of the Nicene Creed is, in

fact, simply biblical language put together as a formula

that can be recited or confessed.

A creed.

I believe these things.

And so the phrase, baptism for the remission of sins, is simply a restatement of

what Peter says in Acts 2 .38.

So no matter where your theology lands on that, you can't say, well, the creed is necessarily wrong without saying

in some way that the Bible's wrong, unless you want to argue that the creed means something that the Bible doesn't.

And that may be what some people think.

However, as I said, I think that when we sit down and consider this issue

of whether or not Baptists should be able to affirm the creed, Christians have been able to confirm

this creed for 1 ,700 years.

Christians of all different types have been able to confirm this creed, and therefore I think we should be able to

confirm it.

We should be able to affirm it, even if we may have some differences in how we understand

something like what we just discussed.

All right, so I have a final thought that I want to throw out here, and then I'm going to draw to a close.

We believe in sola scriptura, which means the Bible alone is the sole infallible

rule for faith and practice for the believer.

So if we believe in sola scriptura, which Baptists do, does that mean that we reject creeds and

confessions?

And the answer is not at all.

Because ultimately, any creed or confession must come from the Word to have its authority.

And that is the thing about the Nicene Creed that I just said.

The Nicene Creed is basically a restatement of many phrases and thoughts that are in the.

Scripture.

The Nicene Creed is simply saying what the Scripture says about

God, and about Jesus, and about the Holy Spirit.

And ultimately, the Nicene Creed was not added to the Baptist faith and message at this convention, but

that doesn't mean that the majority of Southern Baptists don't affirm.

It.

In fact, the majority of Southern Baptists probably do affirm it, especially if they understood its history

and what it has meant in the Church.

And I would say all Christians should affirm the Nicene Creed.

It's a sound document, and along with the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed, it makes up the three ecumenical creeds of the early Church,

which we should all be able to affirm.

So my question to you is, should the SBC have adopted the Creed, or do you think they are better

for having left it out?

Is the Baptist faith and message good enough, or is it not?

And are you in a Church that affirms the Nicene Creed?

And if so, do you recite it every Sunday?

I'm real interested to hear your answers in the comments below.

So I want to thank you again for watching the show today.

Thank you again for being a part of the program.

Thank you again for supporting us.

And remember, if you want to support this show, you can go buy a tiny Bible.

That helps support the show.

Or you can actually go to buymeacoffee .com slash YourCalvinist, and you can actually make a donation.

And it is super helpful for keeping the show going.

So I want to thank you again for listening to Your Calvinist podcast.

My name is Keith Foskey, and I've been your Calvinist.

May God bless you.