Baptismal Remission

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Latreia:
"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.

The title of the doctrine itself is ultimately confusing. If you preach "by faith alone," but don't really MEAN by faith alone, you're not preaching what you claim to be preaching.

And the Catholic Church is criticized for being complex.

"Oh yeah, we preach Sola Scriptura...but that doesn't REALLY mean 'Scripture alone'.

 

[jasonW*]

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

"When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

I personally think it is pretty funny that catholics try and make the case the the bread and wine is actually the body and blood of Christ (literal interpretation of scripture) and then turn around and say we are all born again in baptism (figurative interpretation of scripture). This always makes me chuckle. Just thought I would share that.

 

[Dualhunter]

It is because the gift of life is received through trust in Christ alone without works that it is by grace alone. If it were not by faith alone but by faith plus works, it would not be by grace and therefore not a gift but instead a wage. It is only by God's grace that we can be saved by faith apart from works.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Latreia,

My original question for you was, "Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?"

You responded with, "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."

Tertullian writes, "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'" (On Christian Baptism 12:1)

Fundamentally, regeneration is how we are "born again". If this is accomplished through water baptism, then we are "born again through water baptism," which is the doctrine of Tertullian, as I have shown.

My original question, "Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?" asks for a Father who does not see baptism as how a Christian is born again. You have failed to do this as Tertullian sees baptism as the way to be born again.

Tertullian equates baptism with being born again. That's a fact.

When Tertullian writes, "the delay of baptism is preferable," he gives his personal opinion that baptism should be delayed, which has nothing to do with his view of whether baptism is how one is born again. This is his opinion on when a Christian should receive this sacrament of rebirth.

Tertullian, knowing that baptism remits sin, opts to baptize the younger ones until later in life (which presupposes the practice of infant baptism in the Christian community!) because the infants, who have been baptized, will probably not understand the "weighty import of baptism"

Baptism has such weighty import as for one to even fear its reception!

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

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jason,

You asserted that to be "born again in baptism" is a "figurative interpretation of scripture". How so?

Jesus, in his discourse w/ Nicodemus, tells us, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This is a literal interpretation of Jesus' words. We are literally born of water and the Spirit. In the first chapter, the combination of water and the Spirit occur in one event: Jesus' baptism.

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "it would not be by grace and therefore not a gift but instead a wage"

Are you still advocating that Catholics believe in a system of works-righteousness (i.e. I'm good, so I go to heaven)?

You do know that we don't believe that, right?

God bless,

Carson

 

[BeeBee]

Carson,
First of all, "Thanks for your reply", secondly you believe in Bapt. regeneration, while the Churches of Christ, Disciples,etc. believe in Bapt. Remission. I have seen them defined differently in theological dictionaries.
Anyways The first verse in the discusion was Romans 6. Before I comment on this I would like to ask you a question, In Acts 2:38 do you believe this verse means "in order to obtain" the remission of sins?
Look forward to the discussion
In Christ,
Bobby C.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Jason,

You asserted that to be "born again in baptism" is a "figurative interpretation of scripture". How so?

From that link you gave us.

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

This is a figurative interpretation. You have adapted this to mean baptism instead of dying and being 'born again' literally.

 

[Ps104_33]

If one is standing before God and He asks you
"Why should I let you into my Heaven?"

Your answer better be,
"Lord, I trusted wholly in the shed blood of Your son Jesus Christ at the cross of Calvary. I know that I haven't always been an obedient child but there is power in the precious blood of Christ to cover any sin." or somethig to that effect.

If you say, "Lord, I was baptized as a child, went through holy communion, went to church when ever I could. I was cathecized and went to confession. I said the rosary 10 times a day."

Who is doing the saving here? Who is doing all the work? All these things may be good things to do, But they dont get you to heaven!

Rom.5
[9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Eph.1
[7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Eph.2
[13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col.1
[14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
[20] And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

1John.1
[7] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev.5
[9] And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev.7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

A Christian doesnt work to get saved, he works because he is saved.

Carson,
please dont bother to quote the Catholic Cathecism. It is written by men and is not of God. Just use the Scripture.

[ September 19, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

[BeeBee]

Carson,

Due to my lack of time, I would like to comment on your first verse Romans 6:4-6.
Baptism is a "likeness" of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This Greek word "eis"( the same one translated 'For' in Acts 2:38)

Let me just list a verse to show this is a preposistion of REFERENCE.

Mathew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water 'unto'(eis) repentance."

Johns baptism was "with reference to repentance"
NOT: to literally get repentance.

Baptism refers to the death, burial, and ressurection of christ.
We are baptized EIS (with reference to ) his death
No one was LITERALLY buried or raised with Christ. We were REPRESENTED by Christ in His death and resurrection. Those who have believed in Christ (Rom. 10:9) are to FORMALLY identify with Christ by being baptized in the "LIKENESS" of and "IN REFERENCE TO" His death, burial, and resurrection.

Thanks again,
In Christ,
Bobby

[ September 19, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
"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.

The title of the doctrine itself is ultimately confusing. If you preach "by faith alone," but don't really MEAN by faith alone, you're not preaching what you claim to be preaching.

And the Catholic Church is criticized for being complex.

"Oh yeah, we preach Sola Scriptura...but that doesn't REALLY mean 'Scripture alone'.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, you're not the first (RC or Protestant) to notice that three things can't be together and still "alone".

What I find helps is to remember a vital distinction. In Protestant circles it is salvation by grace and justifcation by faith. Salvation and justifcation, while related, are not synonymous.

The terms are shorthand, jargon really. And like all jargon, it makes perfect sense to those in house but not to those on the outside. For that matter it isn't always obvious to those on the inside! the problem with jargon is that it is inately abstracting. It catches more in a smaller staement and so is less precise. Over time people forget that the term relates to something more complex than the term itself.

And btw, while I critcise the RCC for many things, complexity isn't one of them.

 

[Bible-belted]

Carson,

"Fundamentally, regeneration is how we are "born again". If this is accomplished through water baptism, then we are "born again through water baptism," which is the doctrine of Tertullian, as I have shown."

Then you didnt read your own quote very closely. All tertullian testifies to is the necessity of baptism. But necesssary in what sense? For regenerastion? Possiby but not necessarily, and since this quote still doesn't jive with his obvious prefernce for infants to be baptised after they attain faith. So you are attenmoting to beg the question. Not good.

But even worse for you is the fact that Tertullian says baptism is unnecesary.

"Tertullian equates baptism with being born again. That's a fact."

Again, you beg the question. Tertullian does not say that baptism saves. The NT also teaches the"necesity" of baptism, and yet it does not teach baptismal regeneration. Non sequitur dude. And again he says explicitly that baptism is unnecessary. Deal with it.

"This is his opinion on when a Christian should receive this sacrament of rebirth."

LOL. You're reaching. Why would a person withhold a salvific rite if he believed it was salvific? Answer: he doesn't think it is salvific. he says himself it is unnecessary.

"Tertullian, knowing that baptism remits sin, opts to baptize the younger ones until later in life (which presupposes the practice of infant baptism in the Christian community!) because the infants, who have been baptized, will probably not understand the "weighty import of baptism""

1) Yes, by Tertullian's time infant baptism was common. But it was no unchallenged as Tertullian himself is a witness. That in itself disporves much of what you say about infant baptism, let alone baptismal regeneration.

2) Tertullian does not say that baptism remits sins. You read that in.

3) Tertullian tells us why he doesn;t advocate it himself, and it isn't the reason you give. He doesn't want to jeopardise the sponsor.

4) tertullian says explicitly let them come after faith. That is the NT model; believer's baptism.

So the quote has easily proven whay you say it does not. You can say it all you want. It still won't be true.

But since you are falling back (again) on silly little tactics rather than evidence I'll let you keep playing by yourself. Have fun.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Psalm,

You wrote, "A Christian doesnt work to get saved, he works because he is saved."

Amen to that.

Hi Bobby,

I would say that in Romans 6, Paul is showing how we are united with the Paschal mystery of Christ when we are baptized. This is what we call "sacramental mysticism". It's speaking of the reception of a sacrament in mystical language that describes the reality that the sacrament units the Christian with.

Hi Latreia,

You wrote, "All Tertullian testifies to is the necessity of baptism. But necesssary in what sense? For regeneration?"

Tertullian testifies to the necessity of baptism based on the premise of what our Lord said in John 3:5, which refers specifically to being born anothen (which can be translated as "from above" or as "again").

Tertullian writes, "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'" (On Christian Baptism 12:1)

You wrote, "But even worse for you is the fact that Tertullian says baptism is unnecesary."

You are incorrect. Tertullian clearly states (as I have quoted above), "No one can attain salvation without baptism".

Also, chapter 12 of Tertullian's treatise is devoted to the necessity of baptism unto salvation.

You wrote, "Tertullian does not say that baptism saves"

You are correct. Tertullian doesn't say "baptism saves". Tertullian says "No one can attain salvation without baptism".

You wrote, "And again he says explicitly that baptism is unnecessary."

And again, you are incorrect.

Tertullian writes, "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'" (On Christian Baptism 12:1)

You wrote, "Why would a person withhold a salvific rite if he believed it was salvific?"

Because as Tertullian understood it, baptism forgave all sin up until the time of baptism. So, the longer one waits for baptism, the more of baptism's value, per say. This is the reason the Emperor Constantine delayed being baptized until he was on his deathbed.

You wrote, "by Tertullian's time infant baptism was common. But it was no unchallenged as Tertullian himself is a witness."

Tertullian does not argue against the regerative effects of baptism in advancing his opinion for the delaying of baptism for infants. With regard to the previous 17 chapters of Tertullian's treatise, we already know that he firmly holds to both the necessity of baptism and the doctrine that the Christian is born again in baptism.

You wrote, "Tertullian does not say that baptism remits sins. You read that in."

In Chapter 12, Tertullian addresses the arguments of those who doubt the salvation of the apostles because the Scriptures do not speak of their baptisms, except for Paul:

"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life"), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, 'how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom--Paul excepted-we do not find baptized in the Lord?'"

Tertullian then proceeds to demonstrate that the apostles surely were baptized:

"since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals"

And after demonstrating the scrupulousness of the argument he's answering, he answers the last resort scenario: if, indeed, the apostles were never baptized:

"because on [the Apostles] the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. "Thy faith," He would say, "hath saved thee;" and, "Thy sins shall be remitted thee," on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized."

So, if the Apostles were never baptized (after Tertullian goes to a great length to demonstrate the unlikeliness of this situation), then it would be their faith that would cause Jesus to say, "Thy sins shall be remitted" because they never received "the compendious grace of baptism."

Also, in Chapter 18 (where our discussion is centered), Tertullian states one of his reasons for opting to baptize until after infancy in the form of a rhetorical question, "Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the 'remission of sins?'"

You wrote, "Tertullian tells us why he doesn't advocate it himself, and it isn't the reason you give. He doesn't want to jeopardise the sponsor."

The danger that the sponsors would be thrust in consists in this: Sponsors (which we refer to as "God parents" today) are responsible for instructing the child in the Christian faith. If the Sponsor fails to live up to his/her promise, then they will stand accountable before the Lord.

Tertullian gives more reasons:

1. The Sponsors "may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood"

The baptized infants may end up choosing a life of sin and rejecting what their Sponsor has chosen for them.

2. "Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?"

This reason necessarily assumes that baptism remits sin.

3. "More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!"

Baptism trusts divine matters to the infant.

You wrote, "Tertullian says explicitly let them come after faith. That is the NT model; believer's baptism."

Yes, he does. However, believer's baptism rejects the idea that baptism is what effects one's being "born again". Tertullian affirms this reality of baptism in On Christian Baptism, which your notion of "believer's baptism" rejects.

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

I asked this question initially in response to your assertion that "there can also be no doubt as to the disengenuousness [sic] of those who say they'll take the word of a fether over the word of a modern. For intruth they cherry pick the Fathers. Those whom they agree with, they quote, and those with whom they disagree, they don't."

If I'm cherry picking the Fathers, then please, show me a Father who denies that one is "born again" in baptism. In this way, you can show that when I say, "all of the Fathers believed you are born again in baptism," I'm cherry picking and being disingenuous.

Otherwise, it is quite evident to all as to who is being disingenuous (which means, essentially, to be "insincere")

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

[ September 19, 2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[BeeBee]

Carson,

Again thanks for your reply. I noticed it consisted of "Paschal mystery" and
"sacramental mysticism". I dont believe You stated why my interpretation was wrong either. I know your caught up in a "church history" debate, but biblically speaking I would like to continue this discussion.
What is another "proof-text" you use for your view?

In Christ,
Bobby

[ September 20, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Jason,

You asserted that to be "born again in baptism" is a "figurative interpretation of scripture". How so?

Jesus, in his discourse w/ Nicodemus, tells us, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This is a literal interpretation of Jesus' words. We are literally born of water and the Spirit. In the first chapter, the combination of water and the Spirit occur in one event: Jesus' baptism.

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "it would not be by grace and therefore not a gift but instead a wage"

Are you still advocating that Catholics believe in a system of works-righteousness (i.e. I'm good, so I go to heaven)?

You do know that we don't believe that, right?

God bless,

Carson

Baptism is a work, you can pretend it isn't all you want, it won't change the fact that it is a work.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "Baptism is a work, you can pretend it isn't all you want, it won't change the fact that it is a work."

Yes, baptism is indeed a work. It is a "work of God" unlike the ergos nomou that Pharisaic Judaism advanced and Paul combatted so often in his ministry.

Hi Bobby,

"Paschal mystery" is a term that refers to the life, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, and gets its root from the Passover of the Israelites, which Christ fulfills in his role as the Lamb of God.

We gain access to God when Christ's Paschal Mystery is applied to us individually. Without the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, we can have no salvation. So, this mystery of Jesus Christ must in some way be 'applied' to us for us to be saved.

"Sacramental mysticism" is a term that is two-fold. Sacramental describes the reality of baptism. Baptism is a sacrament, which is a sign instituted by Christ that confers the grace of which the sign signifies. Mysticism is a form of language that describes spiritual reality in vivid terms.

In Baptism, the Paschal Mystery of Christ is applied to us personally. (This is conveyed by Paul in Romans 6) After Baptism, we live out our new life in Christ, as a new creation, being formed in His image.

I do not prefer to "proof text", but you insist, I can give you 1 Peter 3:21, wherein Peter shows that the Family of Noah's salvation upon the ark through the waters of the Great Deluge is an antitype (comes from antitypos, which means "type that foreshadows and prepares for") of baptism, which "now saves you".

The Deluge as well as the Exodus through the Red Sea has been seen throughout the Christian tradition as prefigurations of the sacrament of baptism as the Lamb of the Passover has been seen as a prefigurement of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Frank]

Bee Bee:
The Bible teaches that salvation has many parts, not just one or an only thing. The grace of God is required as is faith. Eph.2:8,9. The atoning blood of Christ is also required. I Pet. 1:17,18. The gospel of Christ is the form of doctrine that saves us. Romans 1:16, Romans 6:17,18.

The question is what is the form?

Jesus said, one must believe. Jn. 8:24. One must repent Lk. 13:3,5. One must confess. Mat. 10:32. One must be washed in the blood of Christ through a death of one's self through God's operation of baptism in accordance with the word. Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16,Col. 2:12, Romans 6:3-5.

The sum of thy words are truth. Psalms 119:160. Paul stated in Acts 20:27," For I have not shunned to declare unto you all or the whole counsel of God." May we do the same in this matter and all others.

 

[Bible-belted]

Carson,

1) One can say that one annot be saved without baptism and still not belive in baptismal regeneration. You are assuming what you need to prove. Indeed a participationist view of baptism also leads to the very thing that tertullian says. For the early church baptism and conversion were part of one process, which goes very wel with what Tertullian says about waiting til a person believes. So you not only assume what you need t prove (and read it in to Tertullian) but you argue a nonsequitur. What Tertulliam says about the need for baptism can be bette explained with other views, such aas the one I put forward. Your refusal to deal with such things is telling.

2) You ignore the quote that Tertulian DOES say that baptism is unnecessary.

3) "Because as Tertullian understood it, baptism forgave all sin up until the time of baptism. So, the longer one waits for baptism, the more of baptism's value, per say. This is the reason the Emperor Constantine delayed being baptized until he was on his deathbed."

This is not what Tertullian himself says. Deal with what he says and gorget about what you wish he'd said. Tertullian said to wait so as not to jeopardise the sponsors.

4) "Tertullian does not argue against the regerative effects of baptism in advancing his opinion for the delaying of baptism for infants. With regard to the previous 17 chapters of Tertullian's treatise, we already know that he firmly holds to both the necessity of baptism and the doctrine that the Christian is born again in baptism."

More non sequitur and eisegetical see above. You assume whathe meant. It's that begged definition thing again, Car. youhave not learned, grasshopper...

5) It is interesting that youquote Tertullian abot remission of sin, nut neglect to point out that he says that sins are remitted even though baptism has not occurred. Let me repost what you quoted:

"because on [the Apostles] the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism , seeing they followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. "Thy faith," He would say, "hath saved thee;" and, "Thy sins shall be remitted thee," on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized."

So sins are reitted on believeing, even though not yet baptised.

No baptismal regeneration there.

6) The question about coming to the remission of sins is taken out of context. Here it is (again):

"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."

So Tertullian is clearly advocating that people come AFTER faith to be baptised. In context remission of sins is in relation to faith, not baptism.

Clearly Carson you are unwilloing to deal with the more salient points here.

Tertullian advocates that baptism follow faith, which he indicates happens when one is older. He says explicitly that baptism is unnecessary. His only comments about being born again, while possinly relating to regeneration, cannot be harmonised with his other statements when so taken.

Give it up Carson. You asked for a quote, and I gave it to you. You dispute it, via a poor understanding and non sequitur reasoning and that's fine. What you do is obviuous to those here. You're wong, and your failure to admit it is on your head, not mine. I have provided the requestyed quote, your slothfulness to acept notwithstanding.

You can carry on now as you like. But do not go on like you have not been given evidence contrary to your position.

I have noted also that you have begun to do a number of things that are really intended as ad hominems.

That being the case, I will leave you to your errors.

I recallsaying once that you would have to prove yourself better than the average apologist to be woirthy of my time. You have proven yourself worse than many. So have nice day: I won;t be responding to you any more.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Latreia,

Our dialogue began with my question, "Would you mind quoting a Father who disagrees with baptismal regeneration?"

You responded with, "Tertullian actually argued against infant baptism Carson. That is inconsistent with your position. if he believed baptism to be regenerative it makes no sense for him to advocate 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."

I proceeded to show that Tertullian equated baptism with being "born again" (which is synonymous with spiritual regeneration):

"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)

This fact alone should have ended your argumentation. Tertullian clearly equates baptism with the spiritual regeneration of being born again. But, instead, you continue with your argument anyway.

Your argument that Tertullian did not believe that baptism regenerates (even if this runs contrary to the explicit equation between baptism and being born again by Tertullian) hinges upon the fact that Tertullian advocates waiting to baptize infants.

For your argument to stand, Tertullian would have to (1) show that being "born again" is not accomplished in baptism and (2) demonstrate a theological premise that denies baptismal regeneration in advocating baptizing infants later in life.

Your argument fails for the following reasons:

(1) Tertullian explicitly states that baptism is how one is born again by quoting our Lord in John 3:5.

(2) Tertullian does not make a theological argument, but, rather, a pastoral argument to support his opinion to delay baptism.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, the Seventh Particular Council of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, and numerous more Fathers are unanimous in interpreting John 3:5 as speaking of Trinitarian Water Baptism.

I agree with them. You do not. I stand in the Christian Tradition. You do not. I hold fast to the faith of the Apostles. You do not.

May God bless you.

your brother in Christ,

Carson

 

[BeeBee]

Carson,
Again thanks for your time to reply. You raised two points in your post.
One was that you used Exodus through the Red Sea as an example. Let me list a couple of things that might or might not apply to what your trying to say:

1. The Israelites were Gods people prior to ever even seeing the Red Sea. “my people” is what they are called when Moses was called to be their deliverer from Egyptian bondage (Ex 3:7). When he told Moses what to say to say to Pharaoh,

“Ye shall say unto him, ‘The Lord God of the Hebrews’ hath met with us; and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to ‘the Lord our God’.”(Ex.3:18)

2. And also if your trying to say that “water was in between Isreal and deliverance, in that Baptism is in between us and salvation” I have been shown that this is not the case. He rolled the Red Sea back and Isreal went through the dry land. The only ones who touched the water were the Egyptians, and it did them no better than it does people today to believe there baptism literally saves them.

Another point I saw you bring up was 1 Peter 3:21

3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (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:

1. The first point I want to make is that this uses the term “like figure”. Here are some likenesses:
A. The people were inside the ark before the waters came, with water beneath and above. We “believers” are “in Christ” before water baptism.
B. The ones inside the ark were immersed in the waters with water beneath and above. Those in Christ go down into and are immersed in water.
C. Those in the ark had a resurrection out of the waters; like the baptized believer is resurrected out of the water.
D. Those in the ark left behind the old world to live in the new: like we rise from the waters of baptism and now go forth to walk in a newness of life!

Anyways let me give you another example if you’d like to look into this look at 1 Cor. 3:13. “Saved by (dia) fire” parallels “saved by (dia) water” in meaning:
Both are in the DEMONSTRATIVE sense, not the PROCURATIVE sense. The “fire” doesn NOT procure anything, but reveals it.
So baptism “saves” in the same sense the fire “saves”. A symbol is not the real thing. One is in Christ before baptism demonstrates this symbol. If possible I’d like to discuss what other texts you use for your doctrine, God bless you!

So I say that “righteousness” comes at the point of faith to the believer as it always has, even Abraham. (Romans 4:3-5)
Thanks for your time,
In Christ,
Bobby

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Bobby,

The Israelites were Gods people prior to ever even seeing the Red Sea.

Yes, they were. They were also in political bondage. Passing through the Red Sea brought about their exodus from slavery and the destruction of those who held them in bondage. This is analogous to our being freed from the bondage of the guilt of sin in baptism.

The only ones who touched the water were the Egyptians

All analogies fall short at some point.

like figure

The Greek is antitypos. anti = to go before & typos = figure/prototype/symbol/pattern

"eight souls were saved by water", which is a foretype of "baptism, which now saves you".

A symbol is not the real thing.

Unless if it's a sacrament, which effects what it signifies. Then, the word and deed both signify and bring about what is signified. In this case, the cleansing from sin.

In the Deluge, the waters brought about two realities: (1) the death of the sin in the world and (2) the salvation of Noah and his 7 familial companions.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church ... As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins ... we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit ... the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism ... our heart was the abode of demons ... but baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

God bless,

Carson