Baptismal regeneration

[Ps104_33]

As for me experiencing God's grace as a baby - I avoided accidents, my parents taught me the truth, they prayed for me, I was nurtured by loving Christians, I did not suffer from any sort of abuse... in short God protected me and brought me to Himself. I see these things as manifestations of His grace.

Are you actually saying that all these things mentioned above were the direct result of being baptised?

So far I,ve seemed to established that Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe that grace is "infused" into an individual at baptism. Am I correct? Then Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration. Thank you.

It would be logical then to assume that Lutherans also believe that there is saving efficacy in the bread and wine served at Communion. Right?

 

[Frank]

Lateria:
Acts 3:12-26 mentions repentance as essential for salvation. The rest of the conditions are implied.

Grammarians call this word usage synechdoche.

Jesus said one must confess him to be saved. Mat. 10:32. Is confession essential to salvation? If not, why not?

Jesus said belief is essential to being saved. John 8:24. Since belief only is mentioned in the passage is repentance and confession excluded? If not, why not?

Jesus said belief and baptism are essential to salvation. Mk. 16:16. Are repentance and confession excluded because they are not mentioned in the passage. If not, why not?

By the way, every conversion in the Bible found in the book of Acts includes the essential element of baptism which is for unto the remission of sins.Acts 2:38. Acts 8:12-18;8:30-40;10:47,48;16:14,15;30-33;18:8;19:1-5;22:16. In each of the nine conversions of the Bible the commandment to be baptized for the remission of sins is obeyed just as it was in Acts 2:38-41.

The totality of the harmonious evidence teaches us that baptism is essential for salvation as is faith, repentance, confession.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Latreia,

You wrote, "And Peter in 1Peter 3:21 does NOT say that baptism saves us."

Really?

Let's look at what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21.

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"

So basically, you're saying that Peter doesn't say what he says? Eise...what?

God bless you,

Carson

 

[Chemnitz]

The flood which was a means of cleansing dovetails perfectly with baptism as means of cleansing, hence baptismal regeneration.

Or are you going to try and make the case that the Flood only symbolically cleansed the earth of the unrighteous.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Let's look at what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21.

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"

So basically, you're saying that Peter doesn't say what he says? Eise...what?

I love your logic Carson. It goes something like this:

Psalm 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

"There is no God."

So, basically you are saying that David doesn't say what he says? Eise... What??
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

Are you saying that David or the fool says, "There is no God"?

Are you confusing "the fool" for King David?

I don't understand.

God bless,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

Are you saying that David or the fool says, "There is no God"?
Are you confusing "the fool" for King David?
I don't understand.

David did indeed say, "There is no God," but was that his intended meaning? Without the immediate context ("The fool hath said"), you misconstrue the words of David.

Peter did indeed say that "baptism saves," but was that his intended meaning? Without knowing the immediate context, you misconstrue the words of Peter. Peter was not teaching baptismal regeneration any more than David was teaching atheism. He did not teach that baptism saves any more than David taught that there is no God.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

David did indeed say, "There is no God," but was that his intended meaning? Without the immediate context ("The fool hath said"), you misconstrue the words of David.

So your answer is "the fool". It was "the fool" who said "There is no God", not David. Of course, David was the author of the sentence, but the fool is the speaker of the assertion that "There is no God".

Peter said "baptism ... now saves you", not "the fool". The immediate context of the sentence shows us that Peter is the author. Because Peter is an Apostle and because he is the author of "baptism ... now saves you", the saying is trustworthy. If "the fool" said "baptism ... now saves you", then you would have an argument; because Peter said it, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

God bless you,

Carson

[ January 06, 2003, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Chemnitz]

Without knowing the immediate context, you misconstrue the words of Peter. Peter was not teaching baptismal regeneration any more than David was teaching atheism. He did not teach that baptism saves any more than David taught that there is no God.

Ok, enlighten us the context. It is one thing to make the claim, entirely another to prove it. If the flood cleansed the earth from unrighteousness and baptism which corresponds to this, then cleanses us from unrighteous by joining us to the death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ through the promise of God, thus it can be said that baptism saves.

 

[Carson Weber]

But Keith, baptism simply cannot save you. We must approach the text with this opinion that contradicts the text a priori or else we'll fall into that dangerous Incarnational theology that allows for matter to serve as the instrument for the divine. Of course, if we were to apply this anti-sacramental bias to Jesus, we would end up Docetists or Arians - but Jesus is an exception - don't you see?!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:

Ok, enlighten us the context. It is one thing to make the claim, entirely another to prove it. If the flood cleansed the earth from unrighteousness and baptism which corresponds to this, then cleanses us from unrighteous by joining us to the death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ through the promise of God, thus it can be said that baptism saves.

We are not saved by baptism. We are saved by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture makes that plain. The salvation and the baptism mentioned here refer to something different. That is why the context of Noah is given. That is why Peter specifically mentions "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord BEFORE the Flood. It is not talking about salvation. The Flood came and cleansed the world from its filth, baptized it, immersed it in water, cleansed it completely, so that Noah could start afresh with God. Baptism normally has a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and also our death to sin, and our resurrection in newness of life with Him (Romans 6:1-4). But this is not the picture of baptism here. The picture of baptism here is that the water washes away the filth of the world, the "filth of the flesh," that we may have a "good conscience toward God." In Noah's day the world was baptized with water; it was cleansed. We need to come to Christ for a daily cleansing, putting away the filth of the flesh, that we might have a good conscience toward God. Had Noah not obeyed God he would have suffered an untimely death. If we do not obey God, this is a warning that we may also suffer an untimely death. Thus we are "saved" (physically) by this "baptism" (symbolic) which Jesus Christ gives us.
DHK

 

[Chemnitz]

So you are going to say that the flood never happened? It was only a symbolic washing? Baptism can and does save because it is one of the means that is used to connect us with Christ's death and ressurection.

Please don't change the wording to fit your interpretation. Albeit it is a poor attempt, because filth of the flesh does not refer to sin rather just plain dirt. A clean conscience is a conscience free from sin. So how can we have an appeal of a clean conscience unless Baptism cleanse us of sin.

 

[CatholicConvert]

DHK --

We are not saved by baptism. We are saved by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture makes that plain.

Surely. Without Christ's Blood, baptism would be just getting wet without meaning.

Could you perhaps look at it this way. Imagine a disease -- anthrax perhaps -- which is DEVASTATING the United States. Imagine a room in which awaits the medical staff with a shot to counter that and save your life. That which will save your life is right there, but unless you put your hand to the door, open it, and walk on through, you will not be saved.

That is baptism. It is simply the door.

Look:

Ro 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Baptism is a door. Why? Because we go "into" something. In this case, what we go into is His death.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

By being buried into death with Him in His death, we share in His Blood, we are raised with Him, and we walk in newness of life.

But unless we walk through that door of baptism, we cannot obtain that.

And yes, it does take faith. It is an act of faith to choose to walk through the door. And, yes, parents carry their babies through the door with them.

Baptism just gets us into HE Who saves.

Brother Ed

 

[CatholicConvert]

Blush --

It was an epiphany for me when I realized that the ordinances of the Old Covenant worked "ex opere operato", that is, they did what they symbolized. When the flesh of the man was cut off in circumcision, then at the same time, he was also cut off from the pagan lands around him and made one of God's peculiar people. In other words, the physical and seen action of cutting did the spiritual work of separation. What was seen in the physical world actually happened in the spiritual world.

Also, every circumcision was an outward and visible testimony of the Messias who was promised to the world. It was a prophecy of a MALE, whose flesh would be CUT OFF for the sins of the world, and who would BLEED to establish the New Covenant.

In like manner, in the New Covenant, we also have Sacraments which use PHYSICAL OBJECTS to achieve spiritual results. As I posted above, when we are dipped in the deep water (yes, sir!! I am a "deep water" person!!!) we picture that which Romans 6: 3 says is really happening, i.e. we are dying and being buried with Christ and being raised to new life in Him. The physical and seen testifies to the reality of the spiritual and unseen.

And baptism also testifies to the Messiaship of Jesus the Christ, for every time we are baptized, we proclaim his death, burial, and resurrection of this Jesus as payment for the sins of the world. That is why circumcision had to be changed to baptism -- to circumcize (in a religious context as the Jews still do) is to DENY that Jesus is the Christ, God's Son and Savior of the world. There had to be a new covenantal sign/seal which operated just like the old one in both speaking of the Messias as well as working "ex opere operato".

It simply cannot be the waters of birth (as some Protestants claim) or anything else. Covenantal theology will not allow for it.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:

But unless we walk through that door of baptism, we cannot obtain that.

And yes, it does take faith. It is an act of faith to choose to walk through the door. And, yes, parents carry their babies through the door with them.

Baptism just gets us into HE Who saves.

You obviously do not know what faith is. There is a big difference between faith and obedience. And an infant cannot exercise either one. When one is baptized there is no faith involved; it is an act of obedience.

Heb.11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

In baptism, what am I hoping for that I cannot see?

I can see the person baptizing me, feel the water that gets me wet, know exactly what is happening to me. What faith is involved here? This is an act of obedience, not faith. Either way it does not apply to infants, and could in no way be supported by Scriptures as such.
DHK

 

[baptistteacher]

RE: Blush "As for me experiencing God's grace as a baby - I avoided accidents, my parents taught me the truth, they prayed for me, I was nurtured by loving Christians, I did not suffer from any sort of abuse... in short God protected me and brought me to Himself. I see these things as manifestations of His grace. "

The examples you give are of God's general grace, that which applies to all people. All people "in general" receive this kind of grace every day.
The grace which saves is particular, or saving grace. It is given to a person at the moment of Salvation (Regeneration). See Eph.2:8-10. We are saved by grace, and the grace is not of ourselves- it is the gift of God.

 

[Chemnitz]

You obviously do not know what faith is. There is a big difference between faith and obedience. And an infant cannot exercise either one. When one is baptized there is no faith involved; it is an act of obedience.

Talk about a lame argument, you have no proof to support your claim. You still haven't proved that the context of 1 pt 3, changes the meaning from what is says in plain language.

 

[BeeBee]

I have not got to read much of this post but I did see where somebody tried to use 1 Peter 3:21 to say that baptism saves. Unfortunate for you, you failed to see that this is the 'Likefigure' not the real thing. We could stay on this all day, but baptism is not only a "likefigure" (3:21) but its also a "Likeness" (Romans 6:4-5). What verses do you (anybody) use to show that baptism is literally in order to obtain salvation?
In Christ,
Bobby

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

We are not saved by baptism. We are saved by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture makes that plain. (DHK)

Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Acts 2:38 "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

DHK, you have imagined a conflict between Christ's blood and baptism, but there is none! We are to be baptized FOR the same thing that Christ's blood was shed FOR -- the remission of sins. Knowing that FACT, and then readings Romans 6, you ought to realize that we contact Christ's blood in baptism and that baptism is (therefore) the way in which Christ's blood washes away our sins, as we find in Acts 22:16 "...arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,..."

[ January 07, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

"eight souls were saved by water":

Noah and his family were safe in the Ark from the waters of the flood. They were saved b/c they were in the Ark, so the Ark was the instrument of their deliverance. The water DEMONSTRATED their safety. Noah prepared "an ark to the SAVING of his house" (Heb. 11:7). The water demonstrated their safety in the same manner that "FIRE" demonstrates man's work "of what sort it is."(1 Cor. 3:13). "If any man's works shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:" but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by (dia) fire." Saved by(dia) fire" parallels :saved by (dia) water" in meaning: both are in the DEMONSTRATIVE sense, not the PROCURATIVE sense. The fire does not save! although it says "Saved by fire. The "fire" makes "manifest" (v. 13), declares(v.13) reveals(v. 13). and "trys" mans work (vs.13)all in the DEMONSTRATIVE sense. Saved, yet so as by fire means that the saved man, though losing any work, will be revealed as a saved man. The "fire" doesn't PROCURE his salvation, but REVEALS it. So to get to the point Noahs safety in the Ark was revealed, manifested, and declared when it was "tried" by the water. Our safety is revealed, manifested, and declared in the act of "Baptism". The water did not PROCURE his safety but DECLARED it. So in conclusion Baptism does not save in the PROCURATIVE sense but in the DEMONSTRATIVE sense. A symbol or "Likefigure" is not the real thing.

My question to you is "Where does the Bible teach that Baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins?"

In Christ,
Bobby C.

[ January 07, 2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]