OSAS Trap

[Cathode]

But those extra Biblical sources mean nothing to me.

So you never read Criswell or Spurgeon.

 

[Cathode]

In other words baptism has nothing to do with being born again. Not that I can see.

Note how all these Fathers quote Scripture, and their interpretation of being born again is Water Baptism.

I could quote many more fathers who are referencing Scriptures saying the same thing with same interpretation.

Born again is Water Baptism.

“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” Basil, On the Spirit, 15:35 (A.D. 375).

 

[DaveXR650]

But those extra Biblical sources mean nothing to me.

And they shouldn't. John chapter 3 is the most detailed explanation of being born again. Verse 5 says water and the Spirit, and then verse 6 immediately follows up the thought with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". Water baptism as a procedure is not mentioned here at all but the groundwork is clearly laid that water is symbolic of a spiritual washing. In verses like Ezekiel 36:25-27, John 4:14, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5-6 you see this repeated. "Water" is symbolic. Titus 3:5-6 for example clearly says flat out that the washing is a washing of regeneration by God's mercy and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

That does not mean that the symbolism is not important. We don't reject baptism (we're the ones called Baptists) but we understand it properly because we double check everything by scripture, understanding that the beloved early church fathers many times had only a letter or a scrap of scripture or a poorly translated remnant and depended a lot on the visual symbols. But the Catholics make this into the literal physical sacrament being what itself actually does the thing it is supposed to symbolize. They do this a lot. Now. I try to be open minded and say that if someone goes along with this understanding the truth behind the symbols the they will be saved - because of their faith and because of God's mercy. But just like you can misunderstand OSAS to a point of danger, anyone relying upon the water of baptism as actually making them born again and not as a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit is in grave danger of being lost.

 

[Cathode]

“For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head.” John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 3:5-6 (A.D. 387).

 

[Cathode]

It’s endless honestly.

“And that the writer was speaking of baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we are born again, as Paul says himself: ‘For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.'” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 2:8 (A.D. 390).

“Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: ‘For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 4:20 (A.D. 391).

 

[DaveXR650]

The course of this thread shows why earlier I asked why they would allow someone who has stated in recent posts that he is either not a Christian or else we Baptists are not Christians. This should not be allowed. I raised the question earlier and got this:

...they invited them?

I guess Ky. Like I have said several times on this site, I believe that Roman Catholicism is within orthodox Christianity, especially for those members of it who hold the teachings loosely. But when they don't but come on here attacking normal Baptist or Protestant doctrine as being heresy I think they deserve to be called out.

 

[37818]

Note how all these Fathers quote Scripture, and their interpretation of being born again is Water Baptism.

I could quote many more fathers who are referencing Scriptures saying the same thing with same interpretation.

Born again is Water Baptism.

“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” Basil, On the Spirit, 15:35 (A.D. 375).

Doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Cathode]

And they shouldn't. John chapter 3 is the most detailed explanation of being born again. Verse 5 says water and the Spirit, and then verse 6 immediately follows up the thought with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". Water baptism as a procedure is not mentioned here at all but the groundwork is clearly laid that water is symbolic of a spiritual washing. In verses like Ezekiel 36:25-27, John 4:14, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5-6 you see this repeated. "Water" is symbolic. Titus 3:5-6 for example clearly says flat out that the washing is a washing of regeneration by God's mercy and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

That does not mean that the symbolism is not important. We don't reject baptism (we're the ones called Baptists) but we understand it properly because we double check everything by scripture, understanding that the beloved early church fathers many times had only a letter or a scrap of scripture or a poorly translated remnant and depended a lot on the visual symbols. But the Catholics make this into the literal physical sacrament being what itself actually does the thing it is supposed to symbolize. They do this a lot. Now. I try to be open minded and say that if someone goes along with this understanding the truth behind the symbols the they will be saved - because of their faith and because of God's mercy. But just like you can misunderstand OSAS to a point of danger, anyone relying upon the water of baptism as actually making them born again and not as a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit is in grave danger of being lost.

Those beloved Church Fathers were quoting scripture just fine, and they interpreted them as the Apostles meant them to be understood.

The way Catholics today understand them.

Here, have some more.

“But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.” Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412).

“No sooner do they rise from the baptismal font, and by being born again and incorporated into our Lord and Saviour.” Jerome, Against the Pelagians, III:15 (A.D. 415).

 

[37818]

And they shouldn't. John chapter 3 is the most detailed explanation of being born again. Verse 5 says water and the Spirit, and then verse 6 immediately follows up the thought with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". Water baptism as a procedure is not mentioned here at all but the groundwork is clearly laid that water is symbolic of a spiritual washing. In verses like Ezekiel 36:25-27, John 4:14, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5-6 you see this repeated. "Water" is symbolic. Titus 3:5-6 for example clearly says flat out that the washing is a washing of regeneration by God's mercy and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

That does not mean that the symbolism is not important. We don't reject baptism (we're the ones called Baptists) but we understand it properly because we double check everything by scripture, understanding that the beloved early church fathers many times had only a letter or a scrap of scripture or a poorly translated remnant and depended a lot on the visual symbols. But the Catholics make this into the literal physical sacrament being what itself actually does the thing it is supposed to symbolize. They do this a lot. Now. I try to be open minded and say that if someone goes along with this understanding the truth behind the symbols the they will be saved - because of their faith and because of God's mercy. But just like you can misunderstand OSAS to a point of danger, anyone relying upon the water of baptism as actually making them born again and not as a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit is in grave danger of being lost.

Jesus explains two births. John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:3-8, has nothing to do with baptism.

 

[Cathode]

“Moreover, from the time when He said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ and again, ‘He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; ‘ no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ.” Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, 1:10:9 (A.D. 419).

“One generation and another generation; the generation by which we are made the faithful, and are born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever.” Augustine, Psalms,135:11 (A.D. 433).

 

[DaveXR650]

Those beloved Church Fathers were quoting scripture just fine, and they interpreted them as the Apostles meant them to be understood.

Just using a different dictionary. Or maybe you are.

“But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again.

"Sacrament" as a symbolic representation of what has actually occurred spiritually. OK. But if the sacrament is the actual regeneration you have devolved into a great heresy, probably the heart of Roman heresy. John 3:8 has absolutely no meaning if you view the act of water baptism as being the actual regeneration of a person. You guys use the same words but a different dictionary. "Sacrament" means something different to you than to a Protestant.

By the way, stop using Augustine. The Calvinists have already claimed him from you guys. And they will be on your side if you are trying to prove infant baptism. Continue the shell game since you got no where with OSAS.

 

[Cathode]

“And each one is a partaker of this spiritual origin in regeneration; and to every one when he is re-born, the water of baptism is like the Virgin’s womb; for the same Holy Spirit fills the font, Who filled the Virgin, that the sin, which that sacred conception overthrew, may be taken away by this mystical washing.” Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon 24:3 (ante A.D. 461).

“From that time when the Saviour said to us: ‘If any man is not born again from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God’, without the sacrament of baptism–apart from those who without baptism in the Catholic Church shed their blood for Christ–no one can receive the Kingdom of God or eternal life.” Fulgentius, On Faith, 3 (A.D. 524).

Born again is Water Baptism. Always has been.

 

[Cathode]

“The baptism then into Christ means that believers are baptized into Him…And He laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit, through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto the water. For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life.” John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 9 (A.D. 743).

 

[Cathode]

Just using a different dictionary. Or maybe you are.

"Sacrament" as a symbolic representation of what has actually occurred spiritually. OK. But if the sacrament is the actual regeneration you have devolved into a great heresy, probably the heart of Roman heresy. John 3:8 has absolutely no meaning if you view the act of water baptism as being the actual regeneration of a person. You guys use the same words but a different dictionary. "Sacrament" means something different to you than to a Protestant.

By the way, stop using Augustine. The Calvinists have already claimed him from you guys. And they will be on your side if you are trying to prove infant baptism. Continue the shell game since you got no where with OSAS.

You have been shown hundreds of years of consistent Scriptural interpretations of the Church Fathers and beyond, saying the same thing.

Born again is Water Baptism.

It was the universal belief of the entire Church, East and West, even Luther and the majority of Christianity today believe it.

Born again means Water Baptism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Born again is Water Baptism.

Born again means Water Baptism.

This is a direct heresy. The fact that it is on a Baptist forum is the fault of the moderators.

It was the universal belief of the entire Church, East and West, even Luther and the majority of Christianity today believe it.

This is debatable to say the least. Luther's contribution besides breaking away from Rome was of course justification by faith. He would not have agreed with this.

If anyone wonders why all the efforts at joining back together are futile just go back and read through the above posts. Any movement must always come back to Rome. The arrogance and lack of self awareness of how this looks is astounding.

 

[Cathode]

This is a direct heresy. The fact that it is on a Baptist forum is the fault of the moderators.

This is debatable to say the least. Luther's contribution besides breaking away from Rome was of course justification by faith. He would not have agreed with this.

Sorry Dave, he did.

“For consider, if there were somewhere a physician who understood the art of saving men from dying, or, even though they died, of restoring them speedily to life, so that they would thereafter live forever, how the world would pour in money like snow and rain, so that because of the throng of the rich no one could find access! But here in Baptism there is brought free to every one's door such a treasure and medicine as utterly destroys death and preserves all men alive.“ Martin Luther:

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry Dave, he did.

Yeah. I wasn't very clear there. Lutherans don't agree with the Catholic view of what Baptism does but they are definitely closer to Rome than to Baptists. I like listening to Jordan Cooper. My main interest was that he was commenting on Leighton Flowers and on Ken Wilson's book on Augustine. Here's the video if anyone is interested on baptism:

I'd have to go an reread Trent but what Cooper mentions in his video, would that include the Lutheran interpretation of baptism?

 

[Silverhair]

First off. Being Born again was always water Baptism.

Among the early Christians, many would delay Baptism to avoid seriously sinning after Baptism, because restoration by penance was public and onerous.

Many Christians lapsed under the threats of pagan Roman persecution, this would constitute mortal sin, excommunicating a person from the Church.

But we also see that these lapsed Christians were also taken back into the church and were forgiven by public confession to the bishop, and a severe penance imposed on them.

Pagan Romans were extremely inventive is devising succulent and fearful tortures for Christians, and human frailties got the better of many.
Many Christians also jumped at the chance of martyrdom, availing themselves of a God given opportunity to witness by their own blood.
Martyrdom was seen as a regenerative Baptism on its own, The Baptism of Blood.

So there was an Apostolic remedy for the lapsed to forgive mortal sin, Confession.

If you understand the early Christians on this, you understand Catholics on this.

Baptism does not save anyone. One is born again through faith not through baptism. You are baptized because you believe. Baptism is the outward expression of the inward commitment.

Just one more of the many errors of the RCC.

 

[Silverhair]

So you didn’t read the scripture I quoted.

What would make you think I did not read scripture? The fact I do not follow your errant view of scripture does not mean I do not read it.

As a catholic you can not read and be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding scripture, you have to wait for some man to tell you what it means.

As a Baptist I trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth just as the bible tells me He will.

In John 16:13 we see Christ speaking to the disciples and telling them that the Holy Spirit will come and guide them and just as He indwelt the disciples He also indwells believers.
Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Further we are told at 1Th 5:19 "Do not quench the Spirit," We are not to stifle His work in our midst, to limit and hinder Him. Sin quenches the Spirit. Traditions quench Him. Man-made rules and regulations in public worship quench Him.
Sure seems like the RCC does a lot to counter what we are told in the bible.

The more you post the more you prove why the RCC is an errant theology that has twisted and abused scripture and added man made traditions. By your own words we see that the RCC has interposed itself between man and God. Just another error of the institution.

The bible is clear that there is only one mediator and it is not the RCC it is Christ Jesus
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

[Silverhair]

And they shouldn't. John chapter 3 is the most detailed explanation of being born again. Verse 5 says water and the Spirit, and then verse 6 immediately follows up the thought with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". Water baptism as a procedure is not mentioned here at all but the groundwork is clearly laid that water is symbolic of a spiritual washing. In verses like Ezekiel 36:25-27, John 4:14, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5-6 you see this repeated. "Water" is symbolic. Titus 3:5-6 for example clearly says flat out that the washing is a washing of regeneration by God's mercy and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

That does not mean that the symbolism is not important. We don't reject baptism (we're the ones called Baptists) but we understand it properly because we double check everything by scripture, understanding that the beloved early church fathers many times had only a letter or a scrap of scripture or a poorly translated remnant and depended a lot on the visual symbols. But the Catholics make this into the literal physical sacrament being what itself actually does the thing it is supposed to symbolize. They do this a lot. Now. I try to be open minded and say that if someone goes along with this understanding the truth behind the symbols the they will be saved - because of their faith and because of God's mercy. But just like you can misunderstand OSAS to a point of danger, anyone relying upon the water of baptism as actually making them born again and not as a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit is in grave danger of being lost.

Well said.