Baptismal Remission

Hi Bobby,

I refer to this as "baptismal regeneration", and an excellent description of the doctrine can be found at:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Are_Catholics_Born_Again.asp

God bless,

Carson

 

Problem is Carson that I was baptized as a Catholic (I have a certificate at least, I have no memory of it because I was too young) and it did not change my life and I was not born again, I was not a new creature in Christ. It was once I trusted in Christ alone to save me that I was born again and that my life was fundamentally changed.

17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB

 

This is a short and simple explanation on Baptismal regeneration.

http://www.lcms.org/belief/whatabout/wa_baptism.pdf

 

Hi Dualhunter,

And Paul tells us explicitly how we get into Christ. Cf. Romans 6:3-4.

God bless,

Carson

 

Justin, who died for the Christian faith in A.D. 151, wrote, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we Christians teach and say is true ... are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father ... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61)

Dualhunter, I'll take Justin - who lived in the life of the early Church and gave his very life for the faith that he converted to from paganism - and his word over yours any day of the week.

God bless you,

Carson

 

This is a symbolic picture of a believer’s baptism. It does not say how one gets into Christ.
“For as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)
I received Christ, not through baptism, but by trusting Him as my Saviour. Baptism plays no part in this. It is simply a picture. It gets you wet. There is no grace imparted whatsoever. It is done in obedience to the command of Christ (Mat.28:19,20), and is a picture of our old life being dead, (as Christ was dead), and our rising again to a new life in Christ. That is what Romans 6:3,4 is teaching. It is a picture.
DHK

 

13 In Him, you also, after listening to (35) the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were (36) sealed in Him with (37) the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is (38) given as a pledge of (39) our inheritance, with a view to the (40) redemption of (41) God's own possession, (42) to the praise of His glory. - Ephesians 1:13-14 NASB

We are sealed in Christ by faith.

8 For (1) by grace you have been saved (2) through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (3) the gift of God;
9 (4) not as a result of works, so that (5) no one may boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, (6) created in (7) Christ Jesus for (8) good works, which God (9) prepared beforehand so that we would (10) walk in them. - Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB

We are saved by grace through faith, not by works such as baptism. We are created in Christ for good works not by good works.

 

I see that you like to pick and choose.

Justin believed that baptism was something which a person chose to do, not something which a person's parents chose for them to do.

The washing of water is symbolic of the washing of blood for it is not by water that sins are forgiven but by blood.

And according to the Law, one may [Lev 5:11f] almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and [Lev 17:11] without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. - Hebrews 9:22 NASB

7 (20) In Him we have (21) redemption (22) through His blood, the (23) forgiveness of our trespasses, according to (24) the riches of His grace - Ephesians 1:7 NASB

 

David Bernard writes:
.....The proper way to express faith in Jesus is to confess
His name. In each of the cases just cited, the candidates
expressed their faith in Jesus by being baptized in the
name of Jesus. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; 1Cor 1:13.)
2. Baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38),
or "to wash away ... sins" (Acts 22:16), and the name of
Jesus is the only name given for remission of sins.
"through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). Thus the proper
way to seek remission of sins at baptism is to invoke the
name of Jesus in faith. Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 not only
connect the remission of sins with water baptism, but
they specifically connect remission of sins with water
baptism on the name of Jesus[2].

MEE

 

The Significance of the Name of Jesus in Water Baptism
The Significance of the Name of Jesus in Water Baptism. by David K.
Bernard The Book of Acts establishes that the apostles and the ...
www.altupc.com/articles/nojsig.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

"Here is the rest of the story!"

MEE

 

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "Justin believed that baptism was something which a person chose to do, not something which a person's parents chose for them to do."

Nowhere does Justin state that infants cannot be baptized. This is an inference that you impose upon the text.

Justin does implicitly demonstrate the timeless teaching of the Church: when one is at the age of reason, one must choose baptism.

So, in all effect, you're merely supporting the Catholic position by quoting Justin in a wider context than I did.

Also, Justin clearly states that those who have been preparing for baptism "are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated," which clearly states that the act of being reborn is identical to the act of baptism. Justin even goes so far as to quote John 3:5 and says that one "may obtain in the water the remission of sins".

Nice try Dualhunter, but you will not be misrepresenting my martyred brother in Christ on this board - regardless of the tradition that you inherited from whatever sect you left the Church for.

God bless,

Carson

 

There can be no doubt that Justin was speaking of spiritual regeneration.

However there can also be no doubt as to the disengenuousness of those who say they'll take the word of a fether over the wod of a modern. For intruth they cherry pick the Fathers. Those whom they agrtee with, they quote, and those with whom they disagree, they don't.

As for Romans 6, there is likewise no question that Paul is not advocating baptismal regeneration.

 

Hi Latreia:

You described me, "For intruth they cherry pick the Fathers."

Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?

Justin wrote in 160 A.D. to the Emperor and several of his contemporaries as a convert from paganism in defense of all of Christianity. Justin explicitly affirms baptismal regeneration, which is a doctrine that is believed and professed by the Christian community. Justin died for the Faith by being thrown to the lions.

You also wrote, "As for Romans 6, there is likewise no question that Paul is not advocating baptismal regeneration.

Paul is speaking of sacramental mysticism.

God bless,

Carson

 

"You described me, "For intruth they cherry pick the Fathers.""

Not you specifically, no. I was referring to RC apologists in general.

"Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?"

Tertullian actually argued against infant baptism Carson. That is inconsistent with your position. if hebelieved baptism to be regenerative it makes no sense for him toadvocate putting it off. And he was not talking about those who happen to be adults. He says specifically that infants should be baptised as adults.

But yo miss the point. I was pointing out that it is disegenuous to say that one follows the Fathers becuase of their closenes to the time of Christ (a suggestion which carries its own questionable assumptions) when one only speaks of those Fathers whomthey agree with, and only then when they agree with them. There are many issues on which you cannot say you agree with the Fathers. So in truth you do not take their word as easily as you suggest.

"Paul is speaking of sacramental mysticism."

LOL. A term that can mean anyting and nothing. it does not refer to baptismal regeneration Carson.

 

Hi Latreia,

I asked for you to quote one Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration, and you have failed to provide me with an example.

"No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Tertullian, On Christian Baptism 12:1)

Tertullian equates baptism with being born again.

Please, allow me to ask you again, "Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?"

God bless,

Carson

 

Amen

 

Amen</font>[/QUOTE]It always urks me...

You show us "You are saved BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH."

And then you tell us "You are saved BY FAITH."

That's not what the Word says. We are saved BY GRACE. This, essentially, is why we can't agree on things.

If we're saved by grace, THROUGH FAITH, why do you consistently claim that we are saved "BY FAITH ALONE." What happened to the grace?

 

Carson, I already have provided you with the quote from Tertullian on another thread. If you can't remeber that, then that is a failing of your memorry. You only discredit yourself with litle rehtorial efforts to make it look I "failed" to do something.

See Tertullian's On Baptism chapter 18, here is an excerpt (again, please try not to forget it once more):

"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary-if (baptism itself) is not so necessary -that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins? "More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred-in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded195 by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom-until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation."

This view of Tertullian is inconsistent with the one you put forward. It is a view that is NOT inconsistent with the quote from Tertullian you provide either.
Your not going to acomplish anything attempting to use style over substance lad.

 

"If we're saved by grace, THROUGH FAITH, why do you consistently claim that we are saved "BY FAITH ALONE." What happened to the grace?"

Nothing. You need to understand the "solas" in their context.

Sola Gratia means saved by grace alone, in distinction from merit.

Sola fide means by faith alone, as opposed to by works

Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone as opposed to Scripture plus tradition as if the two were equal.