Baptismal regeneration....

[BobRyan]

Rom 10
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

"... it was at the point of their obedience that they were made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness."

GE:

It was at the point where they were made free from sin that they became the servants of righteousness, or, that their obedience began.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Emphases mine:

According to the Scriptures, I am not -- but you might be.

I get what I believe from Scripture, not history.

Evidently, according to Scripture, when the passages are interpreted in the way the New Testament-era Christians would have understood them, the church did not teach `salvation by completed baptism.' How better to get the teachings of the "earliest days" than by their documents = the New Testament? I think that is the best way.

Now, going to the Word of God, I return to a passage you have not attempted to reconcile with your view:

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).​

Passages linking baptism to salvation and Christian conversion do not conflict with this passage when understood how the New Testament-era Christians would have understood them, as I have already shown.

Is baptism subsequent to faith? Yes. Is baptism something that we DO subsequent to faith? Yes.

Again, it is very simple: if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Darron,

Past is prologue. History is vital to our understanding of the faith. If I recall correctly, it is in more than one place that Paul talks about traditions and handing the faith on to others. Might we not understand this as history?

Concerning Eph 2, of course faith is necessary. (I note also the mention of grace there.) This verse, however, does not say anything about baptism. No verese can be allow to be a favorite. We must allow the whole of Scripture to inform our belief. This verse cannot be taken to the exclusion of those that emphasize the necessity of baptism. So... if baptism is necessary, as the NT says it is, then baptism cannot be of our "own doing," or a "work."

Baptism is not necessarily subsequent to faith. Many Christian denominations baptize infants. But we probably don't want to go down this side track since the OP is about baptismal regeneration.

CA

 

[Oasis]

Darren

Oasis:

You have been going over Acts 22:16, and how KJV "calling on the name of the Lord" is the way we "wash away" our sins, against the error that "wash away thy sins" describes baptism. You have also noticed how the conjuction kai = "and" separates this from the previous command to get up and be baptized.

1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te detienes? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what to-you you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB).
3. The 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “And nowe why taryest thou? aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).

I just thought of this a few hours ago. The Greek verb tenses for "wash" and "be baptized" are the same. Therefore, "get yourself baptized" and "get yourself washed" are legitimate renderings. Now, in baptism, the person baptizing is the baptizer. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 8:26-39, and 1 Corinthians 1 all give credit to the human baptizer in water baptism. If baptism is what washes away sins, then the mortal baptizer is the one who is washing away sins -- not the Lord.

Of course, this is biblically inconceivable. The Lord takes away sins. The "“Levantandote, bautízate” (Lacueva, Nuevo Testamento Interlineal) = "Raising-you, get-you-baptized" is one command, kai = "and" is the conjunction, and "get-you-washed of your sins calling on the name of the Lord" is the second command.

They have to be two distinct things. The doers are different.

In the first commanded reception, the baptism would be administered by a mortal party, and in the second commanded reception, the washing would be administered by the Lord.

Thanks Darren. I've hard-copied this for my files. That's a pretty significant point. Excellent Scriptural insight.:thumbs:

 

[Darron Steele]

Thank you Oasis.

...Now, going to the Word of God, I return to a passage you have not attempted to reconcile with your view:

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).​

Passages linking baptism to salvation and Christian conversion do not conflict with this passage when understood how the New Testament-era Christians would have understood them, as I have already shown.

Is baptism subsequent to faith? Yes. Is baptism something that we DO subsequent to faith? Yes.

Again, it is very simple: if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Darron,

Past is prologue. History is vital to our understanding of the faith. If I recall correctly, it is in more than one place that Paul talks about traditions and handing the faith on to others. Might we not understand this as history?

Concerning Eph 2, of course faith is necessary. (I note also the mention of grace there.) This verse, however, does not say anything about baptism. No verese can be allow to be a favorite. We must allow the whole of Scripture to inform our belief. This verse cannot be taken to the exclusion of those that emphasize the necessity of baptism. So... if baptism is necessary, as the NT says it is, then baptism cannot be of our "own doing," or a "work."

Baptism is not necessarily subsequent to faith. Many Christian denominations baptize infants. But we probably don't want to go down this side track since the OP is about baptismal regeneration.

CA

In Scripture, which is what I stick with, the "traditions" that Paul alludes to have to do with daily Christian living.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you” (NASB).​

It does not refer to distinctly religious issues, like Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim. It refers to daily Christian living -- the things that Scripture already teaches. You would find commands to live with self-control all through Scripture.

Returning to the subject of baptism, in Scripture, the only baptisms were of converts. There is no instance of non-believers being baptized. 1 Peter 3:21 refers to Noah’s Flood and relates baptism to it as so: “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,| not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a |clear conscience” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952); the passage indicates that where there is no repentance for baptism to represent, there is no baptism. Whatever people call those ceremonies not involving a believer, those ceremonies are not baptism.

In my Bible, water baptism is solely administered by mortals. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 8:26-39, 1 Corinthians 1:14-7 and all through the New Testament, the person baptizing in water is considered the baptism. In commands to be baptized, the mortal is the one who is commanded to undergo it -- Acts 2:38, for instance, or Acts 22:16 quoted on this page. Hence, to get oneself baptized, that is something that s/he does.

Whether faith is important or not is not the issue. I know you know that. However, the passage I keep alluding must exclude baptism. An explanation of why is in the quoted material.

I am not denying the necessity of baptism. As explained in my posts on pages 5-8, baptism is intimately linked to the conversion experience. Those passages you put up early in the thread were all addressed, and it was shown how the New Testament-era Christians would have understood those passages. They have not been victims of "exclusion" as you imply -- they have been considered alongside this passage, and found totally consistent.

What I am denying is the necessity of COMPLETED baptism to be saved. The passages that link baptism to salvation and conversion show that any right faith obligates a person to submit to water baptism. I reject any notion that a Gospel believer with biblical faith is unsaved until s/he arises from the water -- I also reject any notion that a person who refuses baptism is a genuine believer.

If you would like to see that again from the Scriptures, I recommend you go back and read my posts on pages 5-8.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978968#post978968
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978958#post978958
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978952#post978952
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978936#post978936
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978924#post978924
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978919#post978919
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978912#post978912
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=978909#post978909
Acts 22:16 has also been addressed more than once, most notably here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=980955#post980955 quoted in the post immediately prior to this one.

You have shown that you have viewed that material, although you never discussed the information therein. It looks like you will continue to pretend like that material does not even exist, and go around in circles, and I am not willing to take the time for this. I have better things to do with my time than argue just to `win.'

However, I am interested in taking this a different direction. Your profile gives your church identification as Baptist, but you demonstrate more than one view on baptism uncommon for Baptists, a value of post-Scripture early church writers uncommon for Baptists, and a value on tradition uncommon for Baptists. Are you considering, or in the process of, converting to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy? If the former, there may be common ground for you and I.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... I am interested in taking this a different direction. Your profile gives your church identification as Baptist, but you demonstrate more than one view on baptism uncommon for Baptists, a value of post-Scripture early church writers uncommon for Baptists, and a value on tradition uncommon for Baptists...

I know.

CA

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" according to 1 Peter 3 that forms the saving transaction connected to baptism. That means that the Romans 10 sequence is correct - with the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess - resulting in salvation.

GE:

If saved - once for all - then only, with the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess - resulting FROM salvation

 

[Oasis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
It is the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" according to 1 Peter 3 that forms the saving transaction connected to baptism. That means that the Romans 10 sequence is correct - with the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess - resulting in salvation.



GE:

If saved - once for all - then only, with the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess - resulting FROM salvation

Gerhard,

It is not possible to be saved before you believe and confess. Read the Scripture.

"...if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."-Romans 10:8-10 NIV

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:

"I also reject any notion that a person who refuses baptism is a genuine believer."

GE:

I respect and appreciate your balanced view on (water)batism. unfortunate though is this judgment you pass on "a person who refuses baptism" - meaning water-baptism. A genuine believer may refuse water-baptism because he understands and accepts and believes to have undergone the baptism of Jesus Christ in Jesus Christ : in His death and in His resurrection. Not a genuine believer? If you say so ....