I just read that response. And it’s downright frightening.

Do you realize what he’s saying here?

(T)he clause (“one baptism for the remission of sins”) may indeed mean exactly what you say it means! but rather than it being a sign of orthodoxy, it is a sign that by the year 381 the false doctrines that would eventually form the backbone of Roman Catholicism were already beginning to creep into the established church, which in turn would eventually motivate Luther to begin the reformation!

So the interpretation of this clause of the Nicene Creed as believed by Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, and (with caveats to be provided by Josh) Lutherans, is in error – in fact, the insertion of this entire clause in the Nicene Creed was in error!

I wonder what else in the Nicene Creed Mr. Abanes and those he defends would want to revise…