Baptismal regeneration

Carson:

I will address my comments to the post as it pertains to Brian, and continuing revelation.

In Mat.12:24, the pharisees claimed Jesus cast out devils by the power of beelzebub. Is this true? Moreover, how do we know? After all, these were " religious" people asserting this as truth. Does this make their claim true?
The fact the pharisees CLAIMED A THING TO BE TRUE DID NOT MAKE IT SO BECAUSE THEY WERE RELIGIOUS. The pharisees could not PROVE their claim any more than Brain can prove his. Many times Christ corrected error. Mat. 4,15,23. He used irrefutable scripture as the basis to prove his truth. I am shocked you would argue for a magisterium this way. The Lord himself could not convert everyone to truth. John 6:63-66. What makes you think an uninspired group of men( Magisterium) could do it?
You are destroying your own false position with this reasoning.

Furthermore, in regards to contnuing revelation. The Bible teaches it has ceased. I Cor. 13:8-13. Unless you are going to assert that spiritual immaturity, false doctrine and deceit will be in heaven. SEE Eph. 4:13,14. Is this your contention? If not, what is the perfect or complete in I Cor. 13:10.

Moreover, I posted the irrefutable evidence that modern day revelation cannot be possible, as their is no CONFIRMATION OF IT!!!. SEE Mark 16:17-20, II Cor, 12;12, John 2,5,9,11;20:30:31.

You assert all things were not to be written down. PROVE IT!.

Jesus told John to write it in a book. Rev 1:11. Paul declared and wrote the whole or all the counsel of God. Acts 20:27, I Cor. 14:37, Eph. 3:1-4. are you accusing Paul of being a Lair or stupid or both? Which One? Jude claimed he WROTE for us to ernestly contend for the faith once delivered. Was he worng? Was the faith once delivered or not? Was Jude confussed? Peter claimed he wote of the TRUE grace of God wherin ye stand. If it were true then,it has not changed, unless truth is not absolute and unchanging. Are you now asserting this? I Pet. 5:12.

 

Hey Guys, I hate when I am away from the board for a few days and get so far behind on the conversation.

Carson, You were right when you said that I would say what Frank said about me. I do believe that Frank is in error and that error does not make the "truth" any less the the truth. Paul and Peter did not exactly see eye to eye on every issue but they still forwarded the gospel. Paul and Barnabas parted ways over a dispute. I know you could say that the disputes were not doctrinal but actually we are only given glimpses of the disputes and not the full story. There could have been other issues besides what is written in Acts. The point is that disagreements in the matter of the Lord are as old as people. This is clear in the NT, which I point out over and over and is clearly illustrated in the book of Revelations as John writes what assembly after assembly is doing wrong. In interpreting the Bible we may make some mistakes. We have an evil force operating against us and using lies and confusion the Devil fights his fight. The Devil has had success against Christians right from the start. Lets face it Satan succeeded with the first two people put on the earth and caused one of the first four to commit murder. God will not judge me by anything other then how I responded to Christ. The Holy Spirit drew me to Christ and I embraced Him as Savior.

Frank and Carson, You have both used scripture to make your points and one of you is wrong!!!!

I think I will post later in the "remission thread something new on Baptism. Please check it out later. Thanks.

In Christ,
Brian

[ January 21, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Carson:
I will address my comments to your contention that Acts 15 supports the magisterium. The text declares that the apostles and elders came together to discuss the matter. Moreover, those in considertion were a part of the discussion. There was no ruling on this matter by either group. The ruling came from HEAVEN through the word of God that declares circumcison is nothing. Gal. 5:3-6. If you read the rest of the New Testament, you will see elders were to shepherd the flock by example, not ruling as authority in matters of faith. I Pet. 5:1-5. Christ has all the authority in matters of faith. Mat. 28:18-20. The inspired apostles were to teach and practive by the AUTHORITY OF JESUS CHRIST, NOT THEIR OWN. Col. 3:17. The elders were to do the same. The deacon and christians are to do the same. You are making assumptions from the text without considering the remote context of the subject.

 

Brian:
You have asserted I am in error, However, the scriptural evidence PROVES you are in correct.I find it strange yo claim I do not adress arguments people make. However, I not only adress them I refute them, Therefore, yo just dismiss or ignore the argument. I have answered the only argument that you made. It was not even a sound grammatical argument. The immediate context of I Cor. 12:13 does not imply what you assert. Moreover, I proved by the totality of the harmonious evidence the interpretation to be false. If you think I am in error, then take each argument and refute it with SCRIPTURE, not your feelings, opinions or some other man's thoughts. I have done this!!! I challenge you to take the SCRIPTURES and item by item present the totality of harmonious evidence that backs up your claim! I have done it for my position.
Finally, Jesus said, HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED. Brian says, He that believeth is saved and then may be baptized. Which one shall we accept? JESUS!

 

Hi Frank, I don't have much time to respond so that is why I post the way I do. I never argue with emotion but emotional situations can be a good way to see clearly sometimes. I argue with Bible based logic. I could just list references and parts of verses like you but you don't accept my interpretation of verses anyway so why would I bother. No, that is no a cop out. The logic of Mark 16:16 is this: Picture a wedding. The bride and groom are married, they kiss, walk down the aisle, etc... Then though they go to a room and "sign" the marriage certificate. The signing goes along with the ceremony (and no I am not making your point). The signing is the "proof" to the authorities that the ceremony was real. Once the signature is down there is no going back, so-to-speak. and so it was with Baptism, once a supposed believer was Baptized the person was then Idenified with Christ, and his soul was added to those being saved. I know that was simple and I could now list several verses from Acts and the Mark 16:16 verse as proof of what I am saying but you would not accept that.

Remember Jesus said, "He that does not believe is damned". Frank says: He that believes but is not baptized is damned. Like you Frank, I pick what Jesus said.

In Christian Love,
Brian

[ January 22, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Hi Brian,

You wrote, "Remember Jesus said, "He that does not believe is damned"."

One who does not convert to Christianity through faith will not be baptized. It follows that he who does not believe will be condemned. To mention "and not baptized" would be superfluous. To assume that baptism is worth nothing more than happy symbolism because it isn't mentioned, when if it were, it would be unnecessary, is to make a poor assumption.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 22, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

HI Carson, I think you have the record for the most changes in pictures on the BB . If I was young and good looking like you I would change ny piture more often too

Anyway, You say I make a poor assumption. Now, just to stick to basics here. You know the verses that mention salvation and not baptism. The biggies like John 3:16 and Rev. 3:20 for example. Obviously there are many more which have been and are mentioned all the time. Though you say my assumption is poor, doesn't it fit with the scriptures that address salvation and not baptism, in a simplified way?? Can you see that if you step back from all the theology you have learned. I guess what I am saying is, do you see how I could reach my conclusion?, even if just on a surface level? I look forward to your reply. Thanks for your continued good attitude with me even though we disagree

To me it is a beautiful fit

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian:

I believe the whole verse. I do not exclude or change any of the words or their respective meanings. I have quoted the whole verse many times. Yes, the implication from the second clause is that one who does not believe will not be baptized and will be lost. This is the implication of the verse. You do not like the implication or rational conclusion so you change the meaning of it. I do not! You do. That was point of the last post.

Then, you make the correct implication from the evidence just as Jesus spoke Mark 16:16 and claim you believe what he said. Do you believe the entire verse as Jesus spoke it, or as I posted in the previous missive? Which One?

You remove baptism from it's copulative position with believe. Then, you expect someone to see belief, not as an action verb, but as a word of mental ascent. Believeth denotes action. In Mark 16:16 What is the action that saves, according to Jesus?

Illustrations are not evidences in and of themselves for truth, Brian, that is why they are called illustrations. The scriptures are the measure of truth. All of them. Psalms 119:160, II Tim. 3:16,17. Furthermore, an illustration must be valid to properly demonstrate the PROVEN truth. You have not provided proof of your position being true. SEE previous post. Therefore, your illustration is in valid.

Jesus said, he that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him; the words I have spoke the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:48. One either accepts Mark 16:16 as he spoke it, or he rejects it. I accept all the words and their implications for salvation.

 

Frank writes:
""I believe the whole verse.""

I believe the whole verse as well. I put it in context with the time it was said and how Baptism is used in the new testement. Many people, with many more years of Bible study then either of us have reached the same conclusion as me.

We are saved by Grace Frank. Grace which comes to us by our faith. The action of belief will follow or the conversion was not real. A plant will not stand without a root. The action of belief is giving Glory to God for we are created to do good works. I explained Mark 16:16 with an illustration, which was the way Jesus himself taught quite often.

Take care. If you get a chance read what I wrote in the "remission" thread.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy

Nice to meet you. I have always enjoyed many of your posts even on the occassions when I disagree with them. A while ago I posted something similar before but it still seems to apply.

Some have a problem because with infant baptism because the infant has not made an mental act of faith in Jesus so it doesn’t seem right that God would be so generous and give them so much grace. I think you described it as having no "root". The only act of faith they see is that of the parents and the Church presenting the infant for Baptism so they wonder why should the infant be the beneficiary of all this grace.

This belief does not seem to be consistent with Biblical examples, the acts of faith of the parents and the Church has had significant effect on infants throughout history a few examples would help.

Example 1: The “lack of faith” of Adam & Eve resulted in sin

Effect on infant: Every infant is born with the stain of original sin. A new born infant has not made a conscious decision to be unfaithful yet they are still an unclean sinner stained with original sin.

Example 2: In an act of faith the OT church and the parents presented their male children for circumcision

Effect on infant: They become part of the “chosen people", those that aren’t circumcised are “cut off from their people.”(Gen 17:14). Again the infant has not made a conscious decision to be part of the “chosen people” yet God still gives him this gift.

Example 3: In an act of faith parents sacrificed the passover lamb and ate it, etc

Effect on infant: First born sons including infants were spared God’s wrath in Egypt. Again infants who were first born son’s did not make a conscious act of faith yet they are spared God’s wrath

Baptism saves us, accordingly we are no longer carry the stain of original sin(see Example 1), we are made part of God’s people, the Kingdom of God (see Example 2), and we are spared God;s righteous wrath (see example 3)

The promise is made to us and our children .

Acts 2:38-39 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

In the NT we see adult believers have their whole households baptized just like they did for circumcision,

the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33).

"I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

Is it truly the belief of many that most first century families/households did not have young children.

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14)
.
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me. (Matthew 18:2-5)

Although we must become like children to enter the Kingdom, many seem to assert that children are not capable receiving the Kingdom because they are not of age to make an act of faith(have a "root" as you put it), very confusing.

In the end there is no biblical reason to deny the grace of baptism to our children.

God Bless

 

BAC, please notice this:

(Jer 31:31-34 NKJV) "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; {32} "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. {33} "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. {34} "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

The apostle quotes this prophecy in Hebrews 8:8-12. What is the point? Well, the New Covenant with which we deal is much different than the Old Covenant. One major difference is that only those who know the Lord are in it. No man in the covenant shall need another to tell him "know the Lord" - he knew the Lord before entering the covenant. Thus, infants are excluded from the covenant. Now, you being Catholic will want an argument from the 'fathers' -- here it is:

from Justin Martyr's First Apology, Chapter LXI - Christian Baptism

Justin maintains that we must willingly choose our re-birth through baptism and asserts that the apostles taught this. Indeed they did, for Peter says baptism is the answer of a good conscience. He also teaches the Biblical doctrine of repentance preceding baptism. (Acts 2:38)

‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

"Let them come" shows that they are to WILL to come. Jesus is speaking of children old enough to SEEK him. Tertullian thus explains it:

[ January 23, 2003, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

BAC writes: """Baptism saves us, accordingly we are no longer carry the stain of original sin(see Example 1), we are made part of God’s people, the Kingdom of God (see Example 2), and we are spared God;s righteous wrath (see example 3)

The promise is made to us and our children .

Acts 2:38-39 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

In the NT we see adult believers have their whole households baptized just like they did for circumcision,""""""""

Hi BAC, nice to meet you as well. Do you come to the BB on a regular basis? I think I have seen your posts before but I can't remember anything specific I have seen you write. Anyway, thanks for the nice post. It is well thought out and states your position nicely. We disagree on the first statement of yours that I re-posted, i.e. that Baptism saves us. If Baptism did save then the rest of your argument is good. If, in fact, it does not have saving power then of course your argument withers away. We probably will not get past that difference but let me respond with a couple quick things. First, we are told that grace through faith saves us. We are told in scripture that "belief" saves us. These are themes in much of the NT. Baptism saving, has very little "verse" support. For example Acts 2:38-39 that you quoted was not talking of Baptism that saves individuals. This was Peter speaking to his fellow people, the Jews. They had just crucified their Messiah and he is calling the nation of Isreal unto repentance. The Baptism (with true repentance of course) would seperate them from the murderers of Jesus and take away the earthly punishment they deserve. Once the Jews were baptized as Peter said, they then would be open or free as it were, to place their faith in Christ, which many, many did. The promise of saving faith could then be bestowed on the "children", i.e., generations to come.

BAC, your second example of "households" has 2 flaws. As Sola said the NC replaced the OC and there is no reason to try to join them together. The second is that "households" has to be consistant with the Baptism of the Eunuch who as we know from Acts 8:? (mind blank) was told that he had to "believe" before baptism. Your only argument is to say that infants can "believe", in fact, based on what you say Acts 2:37 says the infant must be able to repent as well. My interpretation of Acts 2:37-38 actually is better for your position then yours is. Anyway, please don't tell me that infants can believe because John the Baptist stirred when pregnant Mary was near. That is not a sound and rational argument.

How grace works for infants and whether they go to Heaven if they die is another thread. It is confusing and people have different opinions on it. I know for certain that God gives the "elect" as a gift to Christ (John 17), beyond that I hate to give an answer for something I do not know or see clear in God's word.

Hope you have a great day I look forward to your response.

In Christ our Lord,
Brian

[ January 23, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Brian:

Your last post is simply unsubstantiated opinion. The context is salvation. The conversions all of them connect belief and baptism as one in necessity. Again, the Bible teaches this,your opinons not withstanding. SEE Acts 2:38;8:12-14;30-40;16:12-16;30-33;18:8;19: 1-6.

Furthermore, the scholarship is against your position, even among baptist. Ray Summers, Daniel B. Wallace, J.R. Matey, Darrrell Blackburn who are Greek scholars and are heads of various baptist seminaries ( Northern, Dallas,etc.). translate the meaning for words related to baptism as essential in receiving the gift. In short, baptism is for the remission of sins. Jesus and the inspired new testament so teaches. Even A.T.Robertson, one of the most noted Baptist Greek scholars, admits such. I have posted this time and again.
Moreover, Thayer, Arndt-Gingrich, and Metger concur with this scholarship. These men are the most respected scholars in the world. Your statement is simply not supported by the evidence.
I guess these men have a different SPIRIT than you !!!

 

Hi Frank,

The "remission of sins" idea I got from a small writing by a man with the last name Ironside. I like what he has to say and am just now trying to grasp it. Thank you for pointing out those who would disagree. Do all the people you list agree with your assessment of baptism or just disagree with me on Acts: 2:37ish. It wouldn't hurt for you to look at the verses in question and the audience at hand and see if there really is a connection to what I wrote.

Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian:

The scholars I posted agree that baptism is for the remission of sins. They do so based on scholarship, not theology. Even the baptist scholars.
Metger, Arndt-Gingrich and Thayer would also say that these verses teach that baptism for the remission of sins is for everyone. This is apparent and true as that among the 17 nations were proselytes and men from EVERY nation. The text makes it clear. SEE Acts 2:5,10.
I have no doubt you can find a biased theologian who will disagree with baptism for the remission of sins. However, he could not prove his position from the inspired text if his life depended on it!
Furthermore, there is a difference between a theologian and a Greek scholar. My references are for men who are some of the most esteemed Greek Scholars in the religious world. Yes, some of them are your baptist brethren. I do not have any knowledge as to the theological persuasions of Metger, Arndt- Gingrich, or Thayer. Irregardless of their theology, their Greek scholarship is the most respected of those with credentials as scholars. Perhaps, you should get together with them on this. Some of you are CONFUSSED!

 

The Pearly Gate

A man dies and goes to heaven. Of course, St. Peter meets him at the pearly gates.
St. Peter says, "Here's how it works. You need 100 points to make it into heaven. You tell me all the good things you've done, and I give you a certain number of points for each item, depending on how good it was. When you reach 100 points, you get in."

"Okay," the man says, "I was married to the same woman for 50 years and never cheated on her, even in my heart."

"That's wonderful," says St. Peter, "that's worth three points!"

"Three points?" he says. "Well, I attended church all my life and supported its ministry with my tithe and service."

"Terrific!" says St. Peter, "that's certainly worth a point."

"One point? Golly. How about this; I started a soup kitchen in my city and worked in a shelter for homeless veterans."

"Fantastic, that's good for two more points, " he says.

"TWO POINTS!!" the man cries, "At this rate the only way I'll get into heaven is by the grace of God!"

"Come on in!"

DHK

 

DHK:
Yes, it is by grace through faith. What kind of faith? Dead, Imperfect, No, or Obedient Faith. Which One?
Your illustration reveals a flaw in understanding grace and faith. It appears you believe any type of effort of man is an attempt to MERIT salvation. This is simply not true.
Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Hebrews 5:8,9. Jesus requires obedience to be saved. John 3:36. The fact is belief itself is the work of God we must do. John 6:28,29.
You can holler believe, believe, believe all you want and I will holler and baptism, and baptism, and baptism to get it all in just as it is in the scriptures. Mark 16:16, Acts 18:8; 8:12-14; 16:30-33.

 

You would have it right Frank, if you would stop right there and not add anything else. It seems you have flawed understanding of grace. Grace is God's FREE unmerited favor bestowed upon man. It is free. We can't work for it. It is unmerited. We don't deserve it, but he gives it to us anyway. It is from God, given to men out of love. We simply accept it by faith. If we accept it by faith we cannot accept it by baptism, for that would be accepting it by works. Baptism is a work. As long as you include baptism in your equation salvation is not by grace.
DHK

[ January 28, 2003, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Hi DHK,

If we follow your logic, preaching the Gospel is a "work" just as much as having faith is a "work". So, to view baptism as a "work" and these other things not as a "works" is to be inconsistent.

Yes, God's gift of grace is free. It is unmerited. This means that we don't have to "earn" grace.. not that we "don't have to do anything" to receive it. Apparently, in your paradigm, one has to have faith to receive it. Well, if one must have faith, then it isn't free, is it? Then, it's a reward for having faith. Do you see the lack of logic in your argument?

Of course, when Paul says that we're saved by faith and not by works, Paul isn't being anti-ritual. Baptism is implicit in "faith". Those who will have faith will be baptized. Paul is speaking against those Old Testament ceremonies, which prefigure the Saving Lord and his sacraments, which have the power to save the one who has faith unlike the Jewish rituals, like circumcision.

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 28, 2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Great point on faith Carson.

It seems to me when reading Romans most seem ignore that Paul begins and ends that book discussing obediance to faith.