Baptismal regeneration

[OldRegular]

Then why believe anything it says? The whole book, if it can err, may all be an err. None of it is trust worthy. How do we discern what is fact and what is fiction(the err)?

You are correct! Denying the inerrancy of the Bible allows people to pick and choose what they wish and the Bible simply becomes that, a Wishbone!

***************************************************************************************************

 

[OldRegular]

Unlike the free will-sovereignty issue, I believe we agree on this one. I know in the church I grew up in the justification for sprinkling infants was not exactly regeneration, but in effect it was similar. They believed that a covenant relationship between parent and child imparted salvation until what they called being accountable. Usually around 12 or so, one would start attending what was called a communicants class. My take on that is there is no NT justification for what is being called a covenant child-parent relationship. If there was such a thing, it could not impart salvation. Only Jesus Christ and His work on the cross saves by grace through faith. There is no Biblical reason to sprinkle infants. You could take your pet cat and sprinkle it and both would know the same thing about the Gospel, nothing.

Sometimes those who use the proper mode, ie immersion, also have regenerational Baptism, the most famous denomination being the Church of Christ. In essence they have turned the Gospel into a works Gospel. So its not just the sprinkling that is in error.

The only Biblical standard is by immersion, after salvation, as a symbol of the death, burial an resurrection of Jesus Christ and your newness of life. Other denominations are all over the map, from sprinkling, to sprinkling infants, to saving power in the baptism.

I believe that the Church of Rome, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans all believe in Baptismal Regeneration. I don't believe that the Church of Christ teach Baptismal Regeneration but they believe that Baptism is essential to salvation:

5. We believe that through the atonement of Christ all men may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel; viz. : Faith in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ; Repentance and Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; Laying on of Hands for: (a) Ordination; (b) Blessing of Children; (c) Confirmation and the Gift of the Holy Ghost; (d) Healing of the Sick.
(John 3:16-17; Hel 5:69-72, 6:1-2; 2 Ne 13:12-17; Mi 8:29; (a) Acts 13:1-3; Mi 3:1-3; (b) Mark 10:13-16; 3 Ne 8:20-27; (c) Acts 8:14-17; Mi 2:1-3; (d) Mark 16:17-18; Jas 5:14-16)
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/basicBeliefs.html

But then the Church of Christ has the same heresy as the Church of Rome:

10. We believe in the principle of continuous revelation; that the canon of scripture is not full, that God inspires men in every age and among all people, and that He speaks when, where, and through whom He may choose.
(Amos 3: 7; Acts 2: 17-18; 2 Pet 1 : 21 ; 1 Ne 1:82-83)

However Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Church of Christ, {They were called Campbellites by some, especially Baptists} threw a "clod in the churn" so to speak when He wrote the following>

In July 1837 a Thomas supporter wrote Campbell a sharp note expressing surprise that he in an earlier article had written that Christians were to be found in all Protestant parties. “How does one become a Christian?” she asked. “Does the name of Christ or Christian belong to any but those who believe the gospel, repent, and are buried by baptism into the death of Christ?”

Campbell’s reply was to the point:

But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. . . . t is possible for Christians to be imperfect in some respects without an absolute forfeiture of the Christian state and character.

I cannot make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven.

There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian—though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. My right hand and my right eye are greatly essential to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my life; and as I could not be a perfect man without them, so I cannot be a perfect Christian without a right understanding and a cordial reception of immersion in its true and scriptural meaning and design. But he who thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of full and clear vision.

Campbell’s answer caused quite a stir. Some complained that he had effectively neutralized what they had been preaching on the importance of baptism for remission of sins. Campbell answered that he was certainly not speaking about those who rejected one of Christ’s ordinances or who willingly neglected to ascertain the will of the Lord. Such were not Christians. Rather, he spoke of those “who through a simple mistake, involving no perversity of mind, [have] misapprehended the outward baptism.”

Since baptism was both an inward and an outward act, it was possible for a person to be changed inwardly yet not to be scripturally baptized.
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/2000s/vol_43_no_2_contents/foster.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then you can become a "cafeteria style Christian"...:tear:

 

[OldRegular]

Then you have a serious problem. When God works even through fallible humans his work is perfect. Our imperfection does not negate His sovereignty or His power. If you believe man and his sin is more powerful than God than you have, as I said, serious issues.

See the Bible is not just a book. Those who refer to it as such have a very, very low view of His word. It is more than a book it is the very revelation of God. It is what He intends for us to know about Him. It is His expression of Himself in written form.

Those people like yourself who have little faith in His word cannot know their God as God has intended. It is just impossible. Your understanding of God will always be weak and your faith will always be a trouble for you. It is sad.

I believe God and all of His words. I believe His revelation of Himself as He has revealed it. I do not have to question any of His word because I do not question any of His word. It is all reliable and trustworthy. It is all true and there is nothing in it that is not true.

Well said and reasonably said!

***********************************************************************************************************************************

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well said and reasonably said!

***********************************************************************************************************************************

Agreed!:thumbs:

 

[Rebel]

You are correct! Denying the inerrancy of the Bible allows people to pick and choose what they wish and the Bible simply becomes that, a Wishbone!

***************************************************************************************************

Everybody "picks and chooses". That is quite evident from just reading on this forum.

 

[Robert William]

Do you understand what our Presbyterians brethren believe in regards to infant baptism? You and I are agreed that baptized infants are not part of the Church. Presbyterians do not believe in an exclusive regenerate church membership. They believe baptized infants are covenant children. They are sanctified through their believing parents and are part of the New Covenant community. They see a parallel with covenant Israel. Just because a male child was circumcised does not mean the child was a believer by faith (c.f. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, Gen. 15:6). In the Presbyterian schema the baptized infant must still come to faith in Christ. The problem, as I see it, is that Presbyterians stray into presumptive regeneration. They have a hard time distinguishing between the application of the sign and an actual profession of faith at a later date. To be sure even children raised in Baptist homes may present that problem. My daughter never made the typical profession of faith. She was raised under the teaching of the Word of God and never displayed anything but an obedient attitude. I have complete confidence in her salvation because she confesses Christ. She has told me, "Dad, I believe in Christ, I just never remember not believing." Still, she was not baptized until she was able to articulate her faith in Christ.

You are contradicting yourself, first you say baptised babies are not part of the church then afterwards you say they are part of the New covenant church. So much deception by padeo's.

Also, you know that some of those babies are goats but you baptise them all, padeobaptism is foolishness.

 

[RLBosley]

You are contradicting yourself, first you say baptised babies are not part of the church then afterwards you say they are part of the New covenant church. So much deception by padeo's.

Also, you know that some of those babies are goats but you baptise them all, padeobaptism is foolishness.

You need to reread what he said.

 

[Reformed]

You are contradicting yourself, first you say baptised babies are not part of the church then afterwards you say they are part of the New covenant church. So much deception by padeo's.

Also, you know that some of those babies are goats but you baptise them all, padeobaptism is foolishness.

Robert, R-E-A-D what I wrote.

 

[Reformed]

You need to reread what he said.

Thank you.

 

[RLBosley]

Thank you.

You're welcome. :wavey:

At first I was concerned because my name is also Robert... I thought the "R-E-A-D" was directed to me and I somehow totally misread something. lol

 

[Robert William]

You are contradicting yourself, first you say baptised babies are not part of the church then afterwards you say they are part of the New covenant church. So much deception by padeo's.

Also, you know that some of those babies are goats but you baptise them all, padeobaptism is foolishness.

deleted deleted

 

[Robert William]

Robert, R-E-A-D what I wrote.

Please stop with the deceptions.

You said the baptised babies are covenant children, what are they a covenant of??

 

[Reformed]

Please stop with the deceptions.

You said the baptised babies are covenant children, what are they a covenant of??

Did I say that, Robert, or was I referring to another group that believes that? Mmm? You have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is true. I wrestled with both of these realities several years ago when I was still a Southern Baptist and found them troubling.

IF they disagreed with the scriptures on this issue, always go with what the Apostles wrote to us, as they ALONE were inspired by God!

And paul, chief proponent of how to get saved under this new covenant, seemed to feel that faith in jesus ALONE was fully sufficient to save us!

 

[Zenas]

Jesus Himself NEVER stated that we HAD to be water baptized to get saved, but that one had to receive him by faith alone!

Don't be so sure. Check out John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.

 

[Robert William]

Did I say that, Robert, or was I referring to another group that believes that? Mmm? You have reading comprehension problems.

Does your place of fellowship baptise babies? If yes, are those babies part of your New Testament Covenant Church?

I need to probe and pry, because my experience with Padeo's is that they are very deceptive with that subject.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't be so sure. Check out John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.

NEITHER verse support sacramentalism provided by means of water baptism though, as that is something Rome read back into the texts!

 

[lakeside]

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”
John 3:5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation

 

[McCree79]

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”
John 3:5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism,

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven."


3 views on this ....

#1 Water and Spirit: are used to express the out pouring of God's spirit (Isa 32:15, 44,3; Ezek 36:25-27) used as symbol of the gift of God's Spirit in anointing of kings and priests (Joel 2:28,29) Water and Spirit is a symbolic of Spirit cleansing and renewal.
#2 Christian baptism: this wasn't even instituted yet, which would make it meaningless to Nicodemus.
#3Johns baptism: Jesus no where makes John's baptism requirement for salvation.

#1 is is the only option that makes sense.

Romans 10 " .."if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved." No mention of baptism.

Paul seems to disagree with baptism being necessary for salvation.