The fundamental gift you are called to cherish in the faithful entrusted to your pastoral care is that of divine filiation; in other words, the fact that everyone participates in Trinitarian communion. Baptism, which makes men and women 'children in the Son' and members of the Church, is the root and source of all other charismatic gifts. Through your ministry of sanctification, you educate the faithful to participate with increasing intensity in the priestly, prophetic and regal office of Christ, helping them to build the Church, actively and responsibly, according to the gifts they have received from God.(VIS September 15, 2011)
Baptism, however, is not what makes men and women "children in the Son." Instead, the Scriptures teach us that the adoption of sons comes by faith in Christ, through the new birth:
John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
Romans 8:14-17
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Galatians 4:1-7
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Rome's sacerdotalism is wrong. It is not by baptism that we are made sons. It is because we are sons that we receive baptism!
As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:
All those that are justified, God vouchsafes, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have His name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry, Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by Him as by a Father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.(WCF, Chapter XII "Adoption") - TurretinFan
59 comments:
Lutherans also believe baptism makes us sons of God, IIRC.
Rhology
where is that written that Lutherans also believe baptism makes us sons of God?
On another note, what frightens me is just how much of the Word is used? When you have the Spirit of Grace and Truth and you read that stuff you begin to see ever so clearly the "twists". I wonder how many Saints have been led astray by that fact? Thanks be to God that no one can contend with God as we learn studying the book of Job!
Job 9:1 Then Job answered and said:
Job 9:2 "Truly I know that it is so: But how can a man be in the right before God?
Job 9:3 If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times.
Job 9:4 He is wise in heart and mighty in strength --who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?--
Job 9:5 he who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger,
Job 9:6 who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;
Job 9:7 who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars;
Job 9:8 who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea;
Job 9:9 who made the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the chambers of the south;
Job 9:10 who does great things beyond searching out, and marvelous things beyond number.
Job 9:11 Behold, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him.
Job 9:12 Behold, he snatches away; who can turn him back? Who will say to him, 'What are you doing?'
I know I know that I know I was snatched away from the grip of the RCC!
Here.
Rhology,
as you know, that's a conversation between you and Brigette. I was asking you where in any Lutheran catechism or doctrine published by Luther or anyone else where baptism saves the soul.
I am not Lutheran, but more Reformational. We have, however been reading a lot of books by Lutheran scholars and have had several come and spend a great deal of time with us at my Church. We are paedo and will baptize anyone who asked to be baptized including the infant who has no will power to stop us from doing the will of their parents.
I am not convinced by that exchange Brigette represents Luther or his beliefs?
You certainly are not! :)
It's not just Brigitte. Also, Eric showed up to say basically the same thing.
My friend The Chemist has a family member who was baptised as a baby, during which he was present, and the Lutheran pastor pronounced the baby a member of the body of Christ.
I have many reasons to think this does represent Lutheran theology, and thus a large suspicion that this doctrine is an unreformed Romanist doctrine that Luther failed to examine.
Baptism, however, is not what makes men and women "children in the Son." Instead, the Scriptures teach us that the adoption of sons comes by faith in Christ, through the new birth:
And how does one experience the new birth? By calling on the NAME of the Lord in baptism.
You are separating baptism from faith. God makes us his children in baptism, it is HIS work,
not ours. John 3:5, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5
Terry,
It amazes me reading that. I guess some people are just not permitted to understand the Order. When I read those verses you cite, especially Acts 22 and ironically, Titus, who by the way was set in the Church to "set in order" the things that remain seemed to get the order right and you seemed to not get it right?
Why does one get baptized? Do they do it for an effect? What has affected them, "first", but, as Paul wrote Titus, a regeneration, a renewal by the washing water of the Word, or, regeneration by that Word that is quick and active and sharper than any two-edged sword! The Ethiopian Eunuch was reading the Scriptures from Isaiah, "first". Once Philip began to "speak" to him the interpretation, he then wanted to be baptized.
Besides, I have never seen a "dead" person get baptized before. Of course the morticians wash the lifeless human shell after it arrives to their mortuary as preparation for their burial.
Rhology,
I spent a fair amount of time reviewing Luther's Large Catechism writing yesterday written about baptism and infant baptism. I do not see why these folks place the emphasis on baptism the way they do, in light of this point, [21] "...Thus, and much more even, you must honor Baptism and esteem it glorious on account of the Word, since He Himself has honored it both by words and deeds; moreover, confirmed it with miracles from heaven. For do you think it was a jest that, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost descended visibly, and everything was divine glory and majesty?..."
On account of the Word is how Luther frames it. From where I sit I see the order clearly and I believe Luther saw the order clearly, too? No one can "honor" Life unless they are first "made alive" as the Apostle teaches at Ephesians 2 or Colossians 2. We were "dead" in trespasses and sins and then we are made alive together with and in Him, conjoined to Christ; and then because of this "new" understanding we want to be baptized afterwards. I don't think any conscious reasoning person can have a desire to be baptized before they are made aware of the necessity for it by the Word of God.
Now as for the infant, as I have come to understand it, when an infant is being baptized their baptism is because of another's Faith, which really is the same for any reasoning child or adult hungering to be baptized; it is because of the Life Giving Faith of another that anyone of us wanted to be baptized if we were not baptized as an infant against our will. I think about the Ethiopian Eunuch first read the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirit sent Philip to make the Scriptures come alive to his soul and then he wanted to be baptized.
In any event, it is not an issue for me and I just accept that some don't see baptism the way I do just like I don't see why people believe supralapsarianism and not infra like me! grrrrrr!!!!.
And anyway, I can accept what is right in the sight of all men. Isn't that what we are exhorted to do with others who don't think like we do or accept what we accept as what is right?
Also, our redemption was prepared long before the present heavens and earth existed, however long "long" is in that part of this sentence? My Bible says Jesus is returning "soon"! Well I can tell you "soon" to me is a far cry from "soon" in God's understanding!
I believe anointed Christians are the only ones who can and will accept these verses about them self even though they might not understand them? Here are the Words of God I am referring to that are difficult to understand naturally:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
And who is going to stop God, anyway, from saving His predetermined chosen Elect? Are you? Are any of the devils, Satan too? :)
The link between the new birth and membership in the family of God is one of the resons to see regeneration (or at least an important part of regeneration) as preceeding faith.
God be with you,
Dan
I agree with what you wrote, even if it is not what you meant.
When baptism is understood as a metonym for regeneration, there is no conflict. Circumcision was similarly used in the OT (Deuteronomy 30:6), and I doubt you believe regeneration occurs upon external circumcision (Romans 4:9-13).
Rho,
I've also had some interesting experiences with Lutherans at the Wittenburg Trail website regarding their view of baptism and the sacraments. I agree with your generalization that they maintain a highly Romish flavor in practice and doctrine. If I'm not mistaken Melancthon was instrumental is systemizing many of Luther's teachings, and he took Lutheranism in a decidedly more synergistic direction that Luther held and taught during his lifetime. I'm writing this from memory, and I'm certainly open to correction if I'm misrepresenting Lutheranism and/or Melancthon.
I personally see Reformed paedobaptism and paedocommunion as being kissin' cousins with Lutheranism on this point. At best it sends a mixed message, at worst it encourages hypersacramentalism. And hypersacramentalism is especially evident in the NPP/FV influenced Presbyterian circles; which seems to be nothing less than Rome-lite sacerdotalism.
In Christ,
CD
For example, Acts 22:16 some try to gramatically connect the washing away of sin with calling on His name. Even if you successfully do that, you cannot change the order of what Paul was commanded to do. He was told to be baptized and told to call on the name of Jesus in that order. Then you end up with him being baptized prior to having his sins washed away.
Looking at the other posts, everyone always picks on Catholics for their doctrine in this matter. Why do you ignore the entire witness of the early
church? The Ethiopian, Syrian, Oriental, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox also hold
to the same view of faith in the promise God to wash away our sins in Holy Baptism.
The thing is, with Saul of Tarsus, he was "alive" with Christ already, remember? The baptism followed his "fruit of repentance, a turning around, responding obediently to Jesus' clear directions after the encounter on the road to Damascus. He was following the "Righteous" God alright, he was just following Him the wrong "way". The "life giving encounter" got him turned around so he could come under the Word of the Lord and begin to come to the obedience of the Faith.
Again, not to belabor the point, just to cap off what I believe. I believe there has to be a "making" alive first. The best case for this argument is the thief on the cross.
Anyway, I respect your views and will leave it at that, unless you want to discuss something further?
Respectfully, I think you clearly have it wrong. Saul was told by Jesus to go back to Damascus and visit a man named Ananias and he would tell him all that he was assigned to do. Annanias placed his hands on him and said, recieve your sight. Then he was clearly told, arise and have your sins washed away. If he was already saved, as you seem to imply, then there would have been no need for him to have his sins remitted. He was placed into the body of Christ the same as everyone else, through baptism and calling on the name of the
Lord.
The thief on the cross was still under the old covenant. Baptism in the name of the father, son & holy spirit had
not been instituted yet.(Matt 28) Jesus had not been resurrected or glorified yet, and had not yet sent the holy spirit either. (john 7:39)
Baptism In Jesus name Is calling on the name of the Lord. The complete understanding was not being taught in that one passage. There are others collectively. Belief alone does not get you the new birth to stop at belief alone(a mental nod toward God) and deny the word of God is false doctrine. Repentance and Baptism are just as Much a part of true Belief.
Regeneration does not come through Baptism, but through the name spoken Jesus in Baptism(Our anglo name that was given for our redemption.. Almost every anglo person recognizes that name as the biblical savior.)
You must be born again of the water and of the spirit or you cannot enter the Kingdom.(John 3:5)
Jesus said whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) here Jesus is saying one man can remit another man's sin. How is that possible in the
You are then baptized into Christ and take his name and are circumcised and named(New birth Just like the male Jewish child on the eighth day after his birth but now both men and women) by the spirit. John the Baptist was.(Luke 1:59-60, Col.2:11, God himself named the child.)
Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45,19:5,22:16) Baptism in Jesus name is calling on the Lord Jesus. We do not call on anyone else as do those who use the titles F,S,HS. and call on three. We take the name of the bridegroom as our husbands wife. Christian is not that name it was given of men first at Antioch, not by God. Though we wear it proudly as a title and identifier to Our Lord.
But you are washed(Baptism in Jesus name) but you are sanctified, but you are justified,In the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.(1st.Cor.6:11) We see the false doctrine that is popularly taught, but wrong.
(1st Peter 3:21) the Like figure where unto even Baptism doth also now save us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh( not taking a bath and washing your body) But an answer of a good conscience toward God.
The biggest obstacle concerning this passage for most is the phrasing in verse 20 where:" eight souls were saved by water." Eight souls were not saved by water a very relevant protest. They were not saved by water but saved from water in the Ark that God gave by his good grace.
The Ark is the name Jesus In water Baptism.(Not Baptism) we are Baptized into Christ The person and work through faith in his name. The truth of Jesus name in water Baptism identifies the true Gospel in every aspect with Christ. We are buried(Col.2:21) We are in the Ark. through the flood(1st.Peter 3:21) We are circumcised(Col.2:12) We rise to walk In newness of Life through the spirit and the List goes on and On. This stops the mouths of the false gospel.
Terry wrote,
“The thief on the cross was still under the old covenant. Baptism in the name of the father, son & holy spirit had not been instituted yet.(Matt 28) Jesus had not been resurrected or glorified yet, and had not yet sent the holy spirit either. (john 7:39)”
Hi Terry!
Here are some other great thoughts from Saint Augustine:
“[T]here is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour’s side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief… what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? Or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 9:18). If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, ‘He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet’ (John 13:10), what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this—Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism God forbid that we should entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?” (On the Soul and its Origin, Bk. 1, Ch. 11 & Bk. 3, Ch. 12: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15081.htm & http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm )
Augustine’s inclination to believe that the man was perhaps already a baptized follower of Christ prior to his crucifixion has a lot of merit. If he didn’t already know Jesus, how would he have been convinced that Jesus “had done nothing wrong” (Luke 23:41)? And how would he know that Jesus, being crucified, would thereby enter into a kingdom (cf. Luke 23:42)? And how could he think anything but that the accusations against Him were true, that Christ had threatened to destroy the temple and was simply a blasphemer claiming to be God (cf. Matthew 26:40; John 19:7)? His death on the cross would more readily suggest to the thief that Jesus was “cursed by God” (Deuteronomy 21:23). This man knew Jesus, and great was his faith! And whether we agree that he had already been baptized, Augustine’s larger point remains insurmountable: “nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation.”
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
a) Actually, other purportedly ancient churches don't necessarily hold the same view of baptism as the Roman church does.
b) Just because those purportedly ancient churches teach something today does not mean that they have always taught it.
Ryan, agreed. I will point out, though, that a similar sacramentalism about circumcision arose from the metonymy.
"Respectfully, I think you clearly have it wrong. Saul was told by Jesus to go back to Damascus and visit a man named Ananias and he would tell him all that he was assigned to do. Annanias placed his hands on him and said, recieve your sight. Then he was clearly told, arise and have your sins washed away. If he was already saved, as you seem to imply, then there would have been no need for him to have his sins remitted. He was placed into the body of Christ the same as everyone else, through baptism and calling on the name of the Lord."
It's hard to know where to begin. Let's just take the items in order:
1) "Saved" and "Regenerated" are two different categories.
2) "Saved" and "Sins washed away" are two different categories.
3) "Sins washed away" and "sins remitted" are two different categories.
4) "Placed into the body of Christ" isn't even remotely discussed in the text.
"The thief on the cross was still under the old covenant. Baptism in the name of the father, son & holy spirit had not been instituted yet.(Matt 28) Jesus had not been resurrected or glorified yet, and had not yet sent the holy spirit either. (john 7:39)"
So what? The disciples were already baptizing, even before the crucifixion.
-TurretinFan
ALL ancient churches and ALL ancient Christians taught that water baptism was the point of entrance into the body of Christ.
They ALL taught baptism was "for the remission of sins". They ALL taught "born of water" & "washing of regeneration" were references to water baptism. Please name for me just one ancient church or one ancient Christian for that matter, who did not.
Mlculwell said:
(1st Peter 3:21) the Like figure where unto even Baptism doth also now save us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh( not taking a bath and washing your body) But an answer of a good conscience toward God.
You misinterpret the verse sir.
Peter is saying that Noahs flood is a prefigurement of baptism(it is pointing toward something in the future) just like Moses passing through the Red Sea also points toward baptism in the NT.
The whole paragraph is discussing baptism. First it says, baptism doth now save us, then it goes on to describe what baptism is not and what it is, it describes how it does not save us and then how it does save us.
When he says: "not the putting away of filth of the flesh" he is describing what baptism is not, that it is not a physical washing, (because it is a spiritual washing). Then he goes on to say what it is, it is an answer of a good conscience. In other words, you could say that baptism in the first century was equivalent to what many would describe as an altar call today. (I say that tongue in cheek, obviously altar calls are unbiblical, they were invented by man 200 years ago).
Turretin Fan said:
4) "Placed into the body of Christ" isn't even remotely discussed in the text.
If someone is baptized, calls on the name of Jesus, and has his sins washed away, isn't that being placed into the body of Christ, the Church??
Natamllc made the comment:
The best case for this argument is the thief on the cross.
I was simply making the point that what the thief did or did not do to be saved has nothing to do with me. Since the resurrection and since Penteconst, we are now under the new covenant.
The good news is the D,B & R of Jesus. We are to believe in HIS finished work on the cross and to join the body of believers.
And how is that done? We are told to have faith in the promise of God. That if we repent, are baptized in the name of HIS son for the remission of our sins, we will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. All of this is done by God's grace.
"And how does one experience the new birth? By calling on the NAME of the Lord in baptism.
You are separating baptism from faith. God makes us his children in baptism, it is HIS work,
not ours. John 3:5, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5 "
In John 3:5 the word " water " most probably refers to the Word of God. We are born of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God in bringing one to spiritual life.
In Acts 22:16 The washing away of sins refers to the removing of theirs sins by calling on the name of the Lord. The washing away of sins was done by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross who bore their sins. It is Christ death which deal with sins. In context calling on the name of the Lord procedes " arise and be baptized " . The person was regenerate and his sins washed away before his baptism.
In Titus 3:5 the word " washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit refers to the spiritual change from spiritual death to spiritual life. The washing of regeneration in context refers to the act of the Holy Spirit in cleaning away our sins in our spiritual change. This is done by the Word of God as also seen in Eph. 5:26 and James 1:18. In context we have nothing of ritual baptism at all.
Water baptism is not essential or necessary in order to be regenerate, nor does it confer the grace of God through it nor is it a divine instrument whereby is used to effect regeneration. The concept of " baptismal regeneration " in all forms falls in to the same type of error as commited by those in Acts 15:1 who taught that " unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved " . Baptismal regeneration is basically the Christianized form of that heresy. It merely replaces circumcision with water baptism. That in brief is the basic error of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Luthernism , some Anglicans and Methodist.
"ALL ancient churches and ALL ancient Christians taught that water baptism was the point of entrance into the body of Christ. "
Who in the 1st Cen. taught this in the church father writings ? Who taught this in the 2nd Cen. in the writings of the church fathers ? Who taught this in the 3rd Cen. in the writings of the church fathers ? If you are honest you will see that is less than 10 during those first 3 cent. teaching baptismal regeneration. Another thing is they may not have defined " regeneration " in the same manner as that held by present day Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and others either. They must be understood in their historical context. That is most imprortant.
"They ALL taught baptism was "for the remission of sins". "
That is a very much overstated claim that can not be supported factually for the first 3 cent. of the church. You will find less than 10 church fathers for the first 3 Cen. taught baptismal regeneration or what you claim. That is hardly " all " . That simply refers to those men individually and may not reflect the entire masses of the people.
"They ALL taught "born of water" & "washing of regeneration" were references to water baptism. Please name for me just one ancient church or one ancient Christian for that matter, who did not. "
They all did not teach that. Only a limited number can be cited in the first 3 cent. on that. The most you may cite is less than 10 church fathers during the specified period of time I mentioned. Most during early church did not even deal with that specific issue. Those who commented on John 3 did claim that " water " referred to water baptism but their comments on it were not exegetically based or defended. They stated their opinions on it of which we can look back and say those men were wrong on it. The word " water " in John 3:5 refers to the Word of God rather than " water baptism " . This is exegetical issue. None of the church fathers were infallible in their teaching either. The only way your appeal can be used is if you claim infallibility in teaching of these men. Then you used a logical fallacy in your argument. You are using an argument from silence. Just because we have found no record of any contrary view during that time does not mean there were none or not. We just do not know. And we do not have all christian writings from that period of time from all churches either anyway. We only have a limited number of their writings. I also wish to point out that in other areas you will reject some of the teaching of these very same men you cite for baptismal regeneration. For example, in men such as Justin Martyr and several others held and taught Premillennialism in their writings yet you probably reject it. Thus showing the inconsistant appealing nature of selectively quoting of the church fathers when claiming to follow " apostolic tradition " . Doctrinal truth is determined by the measurement of Scripture and not on what this or that church father said or taught. Not unless you wish to claim " infalliblity " in teaching to the church fathers. The writing of Scripture is what is inspired by God and not the writings of the church fathers. Scripture is supreme over the church fathers and their writings. Scripture and the church father writings are not equal with one another. your comment here.
ChaferDDS said: In John 3:5 the word " water " most probably refers to the Word of God. We are born of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
On what basis do you come up with this interpretation?? There is no example of the Word of God being equated to water in the Bible. Born of water & washing of regeneration have always referred to Holy Baptism. Please name just one Christian who interpreted those phrases in any other way. You simply cannot.
Even John Calvin got those verses correct.
Seeing there really wasn't much of a Body of Christ to be put into at that time, no sense in God performing a change of heart ministry and cause the Roman Soldiers to get him down so he could join the Church and be baptized! :)
The Christian Church began at Pentecost. Why do people keep mentioning the thief on the cross. Jesus had not been resurrected yet, so there was nothing to baptize him into......
You are simply dismissing 1500 years of the "witness" of the Church. The Nicene Creed was completed in the year 381, and the phrase "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" was added. That phrase was believed by all Christians everywhere. This was also around the same time the Canon was being officially closed.
All the Churches got the 27 NT books correct, yet they did not understand how to interpret them as
to the meaning of baptism????
You actually want me to believe that the original 12 Apostles, Paul, Timothy, and the first line of bishops and elders they put in place all taught symbolic baptism. And then from the year 100 until 1500 that teaching totally disappeared from ever single church in the known world, and not passed onto nor held onto in one single congregation that can be traced to still exist today.
What a pathetic job they did of teaching and handing down correct doctrine.
ChaferDDS said: In John 3:5 the word " water " most probably refers to the Word of God. We are born of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
"On what basis do you come up with this interpretation??"
It is an exegetically based conclusion. The image of " water " is used of 1. The Holy Spirit. 2 . Everlasting life and 3. The Word of God. Those are the way ways that the image of " water " is used in Scripture. If you like, I can show you at least 5 interpretations of John 3:5 that are held. I presented my own view as most probable.
"There is no example of the Word of God being equated to water in the Bible. Born of water & washing of regeneration have always referred to Holy Baptism. "
There is biblical evidence of the word " water " is used as a metaphor for the word of God. You see " water " is used of the word of God in Eph. 5:26 which says " that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word " . That is used in conjuction with Romans 10:17, James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23. When taking all that in to consideration is how I came to my conclusion. The exegetical basis is we see how the image of water is used in Scripture in order to aid in finding out what it means.
"Please name just one Christian who interpreted those phrases in any other way. You simply cannot."
The late Dr. Porter L. Barrington the general editor of The Christian Life Study Bible. :) I own several commentaries on the Gospel of John in which my view is presented as being possible. This is simply an exegetical issue that settles this.
"Even John Calvin got those verses correct. "
If he did, then I respectfully disagree. We are to test all things and hold fast to what is good. You see all Bishops / elders in the church are subject to the teaching of Scripture. We compare what they teach by Scripture. While I may look at what he and others have to say I must judge it by Scripture to see if it is correct or not. I do not follow any person or any church blindly. The apostles in Scripture warned us to watch for false teachers and I take that very serious. And so should you.
"The Christian Church began at Pentecost. Why do people keep mentioning the thief on the cross. Jesus had not been resurrected yet, so there was nothing to baptize him into...... "
The thing is there has always been one method of salvation in the OT and NT. Romans 4 makes that very evident and important to the arguments of the apostle Paul presented there who draws on the OT to show this very point. Do you claim that there are different ways of salvation in the OT and NT ?
Eph 5 - "the washing of water", and "by the word" are two distinctly different phrases, thus two different (although complimentary) actions
In that verse they are working together to achieve one result. The washing of water and by the word are the two actions - the sanctifiying and the cleansing are the result.
Just like in John 3:5, you have two elements(water & spirit) resulting in one result - rebirth
Same with Titus 3:5 - God by his mercy saved us (the result)
using the two actions of - washing of regeneration & renewal of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
"bodies washed with pure water" is clearly not a reference to the word of God. It is clearly a reference to water baptism. "Having our hearts sprinkled" is clearly a reference to the work of the Holy
Spirit.
Notice in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, & Heb 10:22; in each case you have water and spirit and they all result in someone being saved.
You are not using exegesis, you are using interpretation. For example James 1:18 says - He gave us birth through the word of truth. Well, are not Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3, 1 Peter 3:21 all the WORD OF TRUTH. They are, it is just that you and I are interpreting them differently.
You are using interpretations handed down from the Reformation, I am using interpretations handed down from
the witness of the Church.
Water is a metaphor for cleansing, purification, renewal, washing,
etc. most often in the Bible.
Now the phrase "living water" or "spiritual drink" I would agree
are references to the word of God. Context, context, context......................................
Terry,
"The Christian Church began at Pentecost. Why do people keep mentioning the thief on the cross. Jesus had not been resurrected yet, so there was nothing to baptize him into......".
With what ChaferDTS wrote in reply, I would ask you to explain how you can make a disconnection when we have these additional verses to apply to the seemless reality of the Gospel Truth, (known before the Law was given by Moses), that the thief's own words reveal he, too, was in possession of the gift of Faith knowing full well where the Election took place and when it was decreed. None of these were baptized into the "Name of Jesus Christ, the Father or the Holy Spirit and they are as much a part of the Church as every Elect member baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection:
Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets--
Heb 11:33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Heb 11:34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
Heb 11:35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.
Heb 11:36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated--
Heb 11:38 of whom the world was not worthy--wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Heb 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Heb 11:40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
You said, "The Nicene Creed is simple. I affirm what it says. It is a matter of it's proper interpretation". The word " for " used in the Creed means on account of or because of.
So tell me, who was the first Christian in history to interpret the word "for" as you just did?
My point is, all the ancient churches still exist today and they all agree on what is meant by baptism for the forgiveness of sins and they always have. That is simply the witness of the Church.
There is not the remotest hint of anyone in history at any time reading it your way for over a 1000 years.
"So tell me, who was the first Christian in history to interpret the word "for" as you just did?"
I understand the point you are trying to make, but can you even answer that question yourself?
I guess it depends on what you mean by different. For example,
Paul said, "we were baptized into His death, we were buried with Him through baptism"
Can you name somone from the OT who experienced this?
The Council of Constantinople was attented by over 150 bishops who were all from the East, (the bishop of Rome did not attend). Those bishops obviously went back to their congregations and taught what the creed meant and how to interpret it.
And since that time, all the ancient Churches have used the Creed and they all interpret it the same way. None of them ever interpreted it your
way. That is just simply an historical fact.
So are you saying that they are all wrong and that you are correct?? That seems to be an awfully presumtuous and arrogant view for someone to hold.
Just shouting "ALL" is not really the same as providing evidence.
That doesn't answer your question. You have simply assumed that the meaning you assign to the creed is the same meaning that was originally intended.
The most you may cite is less than 10 church fathers during the specified period of time I mentioned
Yes, that is true, but at least they are all from different locations and different periods of time,
whereas you cannot site anyone from any location or any period of time.
ChaferDTS said: It is the blood of Jesus which cleanses us or forgives us of our sins. You must read 1 John 1:5-10 to see it is based on the blood and merits of Jesus Christ that is how sins are forgiven. Our sins were purged by Jesus by his death that's right in Hebrews 1:3. The Nicene Creed itself teaches Jesus died for our sins and raised from the dead.
Yes, yes..... no one is denying it is Jesus who actually cleanses us. The point is that His blood needs to be applied and/or received in some way.......and the Bible clearly teaches that God chose baptism as the point of application. HE cleanses us, and HE does it through the washing of regeneration & renewal of the Holy Spirit. It is all HIS work and HIS gift and HIS grace, and it is applied in baptism. Why is that so hard to accept??
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at history. The Ethiopian, Syrian, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic, Anglican churches all have the same view.
John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God
That is precisely where baptism comes in, Jesus has to be received. And how is that done?
Praying Him into your heart? Walking down an aisle? Coming forward at an altar call?
Reciting a sinners prayer? Accetping Him as your personal saviour?........where is the verse
in the Bible that describes any of those events.
On the other hand Peter told his hearers to "repent & be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins"
Saul was told to "arise, be baptized and wash his sins away"
When Phillip told the Eunich the good news about Jesus, his response was to ask to be baptized.
When the disciples at Ephesus said they knew not of the Holy Spirit, Paul asked them "what
baptsim did you RECEIVE" (notice baptism was not something they did, it was something
done TO them. They received it.
Col 2:12 - baptism is described as a spiritual circumcision done without hands.
After having the "word of the Lord" spoken to him, the Jailers response was to be baptized
right then in the middle of the night.
1 Peter 3:21 - Baptism now saves you. It does not save you by removing dirt from your body,
but it does save you as the plegde of a good conscience.
I must believe to be saved
I must have faith to be saved
I must repent to be saved
I must accept Jesus as my Saviour to be saved
How are those not works yet baptism somehow is??
Those are all things I DO, baptism is something done TO ME, it is something I RECEIVE. Baptism is actually more passive than the other aspects of salvation.
If I can see Baptism as something God does to me, something he gives me, HE is doing all
the work, all the washing, all the removing of sin. HE is able to do this because of HIS son's
shed blood. Again, I am just passively receiving it.
Hebrews 10:22 - let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Right there is says baptism clothes you with Christ!!!
Romans 6 - we were buried with HIM through baptism into death (how can a verse be any
more clear than this one, how can you possibly misinterpret that?????????)
There clearly are no verses that describe baptism as a symbol, or a step of obedience, or an outward sign of regeneration, or a seal, or a public profession of faith.
"there really wasn't much of a Body of Christ to be put into at that time"
It's interesting to observe Roman confusion about the sacraments. The way we participate in the Body of Christ is by communion, and that quite definitely had already been instituted.
TF, excellent point! The Evangelist Luke captures this as much and more so, seeing he is the only one who included this "cup" of fellowhship on that great and enduring night of food and drink:
Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
God desires "fellowship". We have great "Bible stories" that establish this. Satan, his angels and all those whose name is not recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life seem to shun Godly fellowship, with God and with one another.
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
...
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
2Jn 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
being put into the body of Christ
I think you are confusing being placed into the Church initially with participating with others in the Church,
I believe that is what that quote is referring to..............
back to a previous post, I wish TurretinFan could name one Pre-Schism christian who ever interpreted the Nicene Creed the way he does.
Why would I bother naming such a person? You haven't named a person who interprets it as you do.
The problem is that the objection that the thief predates trinitarian baptism proves too much, since clearly there was participation in the body of Christ prior to thief's conversion on the cross.
The church of Christ did not exist until after His resurrection. The body of Christ(His Church) did not really exist until Pentecost, right??
Or are we just talking past each other??
Ok, so here is one Christian who interpreted it my way -
Ambrose of Milan
"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).
"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).
"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).
a) Those passages from Ambrose don't even mention the Creed of the Council of Constantinople, much less interpret it.
b) The church began at Eden.
In a previous post Francis Turretin said: "Actually, other purportedly ancient churches don't necessarily hold the same view of baptism as the Roman church does".
Well, just shouting that they don't hold the same view as the Roman church is not the same as providing evidence. Can you provide any evidence??
ChaferDTS: You incorrectly assume the church gave us the bible which is really irrelevent to our discussion anyway.
All I said was is they got the 27 books right, in other words they recognized the ones which were inspired & the ones which were not.
Actually, you are still incorrect on who gave us the Bible. God actually "wrote" the 10 commandments and then literally gave them to Moses. God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the authors of the NT to write down the words. He did not actually write them, human beings wrote them down. The original letters they wrote are all lost to time. But, t human beings, Christians, the Church if you will, literally made copies of those originals and copies of those copies and preserved and handed down those copies.
So from that aspect, the Church gave us the Bible. The Church recognized which copies were inspired, preserved them, interpreted them, put them in the order we have them today, and handed them down, generation after generation. This was all done within the LIFE OF THE CHURCH. The living, breathing, functioning, visible, Church of Christ which existed before the NT was written.
Everything Abrose wrote was very recently after t he phrase "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" was just added to the creed. They obviously both agree withe each other.
The church of Chirst began at Eden??????????????????
Yes.
Why exactly should I provide evidence on that point? It's not particularly germane to this post, and it's only addressing a topic that someone else brought up and didn't bother to provide evidence for in the first place. LOL
Surely you must be kidding. Go to any ancient church website, or even wikipedia for that matter. It goes on & on about what their core beliefs are and that they have held them for 2000 years. The burden of proof is on you. All ancient churches have basically the same beliefs on baptism. There is not one who holds to believers baptism or ever did, it is just a historical fact. I suppose I could show the evidence for each and every one, but that would take many pages of blogging and posting............
No. I'm not kidding. Let me give you an example. Today, most Eastern Orthodox churches say that they do not believe in original sin. So, unlike Roman Catholics, they do not think that infant baptism removes original sin. That's just one example, of course.
That is an extremely poor example. EO & RC both believe in infant baptism and they both deny believers baptism.
Yes, the EO deny original sin because of Augustines poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12. But, they both practice baptism as the entrance into the Body of Christ, entrance into the Church, entrance into the Covenant.
Just like they both believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The EO define it as a mystery, the RC go on in more detail thru transubstantiaton.
But in both Baptism & the Euch, they are channels or instruments of grace, not just symbols.
Notice I did not say they have IDENTICAL beliefs, just BASICALLY the same beliefs, but all of these simular beliefs are totally opposite to reformed theology, which again is totally unhistorical prior to the reformation.......
Post a Comment