Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[DHK]

And yet, Luther 'preached faith alone' but he also preached that the sacrament of baptism was also necessary for salvation as was receiving holy communion.

Luther also said:
I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That
the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted.

St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs,
have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world;
so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor.

Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state,
it is no ground for separating from the Church.
On the contrary, the worse things are going,
the more should we hold close to her,
or it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil,
nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still
abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly.

There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to
dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body.
For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

No doubt some time after he wrote that, he ceased being a "reformer" and became a "protestant," Prostesting against the evils and false doctrines of the RCC.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No doubt some time after he wrote that, he ceased being a "reformer" and became a "protestant," Prostesting against the evils and false doctrines of the RCC.

Oh yea Big time.....but you knew that.:thumbsup:

 

[JarJo]

This is the reason I quoted Trent. Many Catholics I know, including most of my family, either try to downplay their own stated doctrine or are ignorant of their own doctrine. Trent as very clear, they clearly reject Justification by grace through faith alone. I do not see how people try to ignore this in the discussions.

Using primary sources is the best way to show Catholics what they teach and why we are different.

Hi Ruiz,
I'm going to read about ersmus and luther so that I can better understand why this issue isn't as simple as it looks to me. Thanks for the pointer of what to read.
I was never taught anything about trent, I just looked it up online and got the impression that it only condemned the most absolute type of faith alone. But I will have to study more apparently.
Neil

 

[steaver]

Hi Ruiz,
I'm going to read about ersmus and luther so that I can better understand why this issue isn't as simple as it looks to me. Thanks for the pointer of what to read.
I was never taught anything about trent, I just looked it up online and got the impression that it only condemned the most absolute type of faith alone. But I will have to study more apparently.
Neil

I for one, respect you for doing research to try your beliefs :thumbsup: Pray to God and let the truth be your resting place! For we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. How we lead others concerning doctrine will be part of that judgment, imho.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sanctification:

We believe in Sanctification; however, we make a stronger distinction between sanctification and justification as you. Let me compare two historic documents. The Council of Trent says: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. - This Canon is rather clear, salvation is by more than faith alone and the teaching of the Protestant Church is an anathema. Sanctification is a part of what justifies us according to Trent.

It is clear hear that the Catholic Church wanted to get away from a Zwiglian perspective where all faith is; is an intellectual assent rather than a life changing event where works naturally follow faith. Therefore You can't have your cake and not eat it as well. Works must naturally flow from faith or you haven't faith. But you wouldn't get that from the canon alone which is why the chapters of the Council must be viewed for context. We can see in this passage that works are the consummation of the faith.

Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with christ, that he may be also glorified with him.[66]

For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle says, whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation.[67]

and becomes more clear in this quote from Trent

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Protestants have traditionally stated the oppposite as shown in this quote from the London Baptist Confession 1689:

I think you can see the clear distinction between the two doctrines. Catholics call our doctrine an "anathema", and I would say that Baptists would call the Catholic doctrine an anathema.

I am familiar with the confession. However, Not as clear as you might suppose because even in the baptist confession we have this comment to assure works of righteousness

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love

I think it becomes at this point a matter of emphasis. Catholics want to assure that with Justification comes sanctification. Protestants want to assure the free-ness of the gift. But both agree Faith is not intellectual assent alone (which seems to be the argument of many protestants) but with the follow up of sanctification or righteous living. as we can see the closeness of words from Trent and the 1689 confession where Trent says

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]
For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity

What is the role of sanctification? Sanctification by no means saves or contributes to any merit as noted in the above quote.

Sanctification is part of Salvation. If we are not sanctified there was no point in saving us. Its like a boat on a lake with a drowning person if that person is picked up (saved) and dried off and is rowed to shore (also salvation) so that they can live their life as they should be it is good (also salvation) it wouldn't matter to rescue the person if they decided to jump back in the water because it felt good. Sanctification is what makes us Christ like and the people God wants us to be. Back to our original state before sin. However, it seems more often than not that the protestant argument is that sanctification can be taken on or not at the descretion of the person because salvation is assured. This is where the disagreement actually lies.

And the other source of contention is infused vs. imputed. The catholic believes in an actual transformation into the New Man thus infusion. However, Protestants do not by their argument hold to actual transformation until after death because they hold to Imputed grace. In otherwords Christ covers the man but his nature is still the same. Snow covering manuer. Catholics believe we indeed are grafted heirs or true adopted brothers and sisters of Christ. Not just covered but changed by grace.

 

[Moriah]

Eventually while studying the history of Christianity I started to realize how much wisdom so many catholic saints had in interpreting the bible. It started to make sense. The catechism seemed to tie it all together in a way that made sense. Later I developed a strong appreciation for the link throughout history that the catholic church provides. It's quite something to have a history that spans the entire story of Christianity from day one to today. A history full of Christian heroes but also scandalous moments that we can learn from as well.

You say the Catholic Church provided a link throughout history to the first Christians. The Catholic Church is a link to the first Christians, as one coming to teach falseness. Peter warns us---

2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

I decided that all of the objections to Catholicism based on the bible could be explained, and that these practices mostly originated with the apostles. I decided that I could live a Christian faith that didn't overly emphasize devotion to Mary, and that emphasized Jesus and salvation as a free gift from Jesus, within the catholic church. I think Christ wanted us to all be in one Church, and I couldn't see any objection serious enough to justify splitting Christianity up into different groups. Sure, some people get carried away with Marian devotion, or with doing good works, but those things aren't required to be Catholic.

To be a Catholic, one must believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches, or the Church would deem you a heretic. The Popes believe they are infallible, they believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and not believing in even one of the teachings of the Church would make one anathema. That is what the Catholic Popes have taught.
Let me ask you, do you accept Pope Benedict XVI as your Church leader? If you are a Catholic, then you must acknowledge the Pope as the Church leader. Pope means 'father'. The Catholics even call their Pope 'Holy Father'. Jesus calls God “Holy Father,” see John 17:11. It is blasphemous calling sinful man the name reserved for God. It should make you cringe when you hear the Catholic Pope referred to as Holy Father.

Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other 'father'. Jesus said not to call any one on earth 'father' and that they are all brothers. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion--- the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

 

[JarJo]

And the other source of contention is infused vs. imputed. The catholic believes in an actual transformation into the New Man thus infusion. However, Protestants do not by their argument hold to actual transformation until after death because they hold to Imputed grace. In otherwords Christ covers the man but his nature is still the same. Snow covering manuer. Catholics believe we indeed are grafted heirs or true adopted brothers and sisters of Christ. Not just covered but changed by grace.

Isn't the baptist doctrine of regeneration basically the same as infusion?

 

[JarJo]

Let me ask you, do you accept Pope Benedict XVI as your Church leader? If you are a Catholic, then you must acknowledge the Pope as the Church leader. Pope means 'father'. The Catholics even call their Pope 'Holy Father'. Jesus calls God “Holy Father,” see John 17:11. It is blasphemous calling sinful man the name reserved for God. It should make you cringe when you hear the Catholic Pope referred to as Holy Father.

Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other 'father'. Jesus said not to call any one on earth 'father' and that they are all brothers. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion--- the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

Well yes of course I consider Pope Benedict to be the leader of the church on earth. Of course Christ is the real leader but He has ascended back to heaven for now. Does 'holy father' really give a divine title to the pope? I certainly would never intend it in that way. When I say those words I of course just mean that he is my teacher and his office as head of the church is a holy office, established by Christ. Peter, Paul and John seem to have begun the tradition of child-parent relationship between bishop and laity, referring to themselves as fathers of spiritual children, as we see in a few places in scripture. I trust them to have interpreted Jesus' words correctly.

e.g. 1 Cor 4:15 "...in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel"

So, while this seems to contradict Jesus' words, if you take Jesus' words literally, I trust the judgement of Paul, Peter, John, etc and the example shown in scripture that the apostles were fathers and the laity children.

 

[JarJo]

If you believe the difference is splitting hairs then you need to read your own Council of Trent and Erasmus' work against Luther. Then read Luther's work against Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will. No one on either side believes these to be "splitting hairs." That is why I quoted the Councile of Trent. The Council itself said these are serious issues, extremely serious. You can disagree with me because I am not a Catholic, but at least believe in Trent.

I asked my beginning question because whether you hold to Vatican II or Trent (which I do believe they contradict each other in places), you cannot deny these are serious issues.

Hi Ruiz,

I read about the Erasmus/Luther dispute. What I understand is that Erasmus believed humans have free will and must choose to cooperate and go along with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification. Luther denied that we can ever choose anything good on our own, and so the sanctification is completely done by God.

I definitely agree with Erasmus. I think we have the choice to refuse to be sanctified, which would mean we could be lost after once being justified by faith. So I believe I see the difference now between the two positions.

I still feel that it's not that important of a distinction. I see that it was important to the church (because the church wouldn't allow any one besides themselves to teach) and important to Luther (perhaps for philosophical reasons he wanted to neatly separate faith from works). But in practical day to day terms I don't see how this question will affect my walk with God. I will still give all the credit to God whether or not I freely choose good under the influence of grace, or whether I am compelled to go along with good by grace. None of this would happen without God, and I would have no hope without God.

I guess the problem is that God will be offended that I took some of his free gift and attributed it to my "choice to cooperate"? But if I made this mistake in good faith, wouldn't He forgive that mistake too?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isn't the baptist doctrine of regeneration basically the same as infusion?

No they will assert Imputation. OR That Christ Righteousness covers us. Basically, according to the Baptist whether we are actually righteous or not is irrelevant because we are declaired righteous. This is why the famous quote is that we are dung covered by snow and God see's only the snow part of it.

For the Catholic, not only does Christ righteousness cover us but we are being progressively transformed into his image actually as we partake of his person and the graces afforded to us. Catholics claim to become righteous indeed rather than just declaired legally. Thus infused.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi,

I'm a Catholic. I hope Catholic is considered a 'christian denomination' for purposes of this board. I wanted to come here and talk because I have a lot of respect for the Christian example I've seen in the baptists I've met.

I'm having trouble understanding what is so different between Catholic and Baptist beliefs about salvation regarding faith and works. Here's what I believe, isn't this basically the same as what Baptists believe?

1. Jesus died for my sins. My sins are forgiven, that is, I am justified because I believe in Jesus and repented and asked Him to forgive me.
2. God plans for us to be sanctified. I can't accomplish this sanctification on my own. My only hope is to ask God to compete the work of sanctification in me.
3. I believe God will complete the work of sanctification in me because I believe my name is written in the book of life and I am going to be in heaven one day. In other words I believe I will be given the gift of final perseverance. I have faith and hope in this.
4. I was regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit and I am a child of God.

Any help to understand what I'm missing would be appreciated!

I am a Baptist and you are a Roman Catholic. You are using the same terms we use (Biblical terms) but define them differently.

Your belief in Christ, justification, regeneration, remission of sins are all instrumentally connected and dependent upon sacraments in a cause and effect relationship, whereas Baptists believe their belief in Christ, regeneration, justification and remission of sins are all internal acts effected by the Holy Spirit literally completed preceding any external observations (baptism, Lord's Supper, church membership, etc.).

Those who misrepresent our position attempt to build the straw man that we believe that salvation is merely justification by faith exclusive of any works. However, that is not our position.

The term "salvation" covers a lot more than justification by faith.

It is true that we believe that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without our participation by works, but we do not believe that justification is the totality of our "salvation" nor do we believe that justification "alone" saves us.

We believe that "salvation" is more comprehensive than mere legal acceptance and right to enter heaven (Justification) but includes regeneration of the personal condition of the believer so that he is created in Christ Jesus in true holiness and righteousness in regard to his inward man. Hence, actual righteousness is imparted by new birth which is made progressively manifest in "good works" (Eph. 2:10). However, this imparted righteousness is incomplete and progressive and the regenerated man is never brought to a completed personal condition of righteousness until glorification.

This aspect of salvation begun in regeneration and manifested in progressive sanctification [visible evidence is good works] does not obtain entrance into heaven nor does its rate of progression or level of intensity determine heaven or hell. Entrance into heaven has been determined legally by Christ's merits obtained through justification by faith and by glorification whereby we are made personally fit to enter heaven at the resurrection ALL BEFORE any judgment of works by God.

This aspect of salvation [progressive sanctification] determines temporal growth in experiential salvation, present access to promises and blessings and eternal rewards. Our sins are no longer dealt with as God would deal with enemies but with children and therefore we are no longer under the judgment of God but under the loving chastening hand of God (Jn. 5:24). Our confession or lack of confession of sins does not obtain or lose entrance into heaven but lose or maintain fellowship with God and temporal benefits of salvation. Our sins have already been fully remitted (Rom. 4:4-8) and our temporal ongoing confession only obtains temporal experiential access to the blessings of our salvation but never determines eternal salvation as that has already been accomplished. Hence, we may lose and/or win temporal battles with sin but the war with sin has already been accomplished by the Captain of our salvation for us.

In regard to this aspect of salvation the spectrum of manifest righteousness differs as greatly as between a child of God like Lot and one like Paul and all the variables in between these two. The vast spectrum of practical godliness does not determine heaven or hell nor does it determine glorification as both Lot and Paul will be equally glorified and thus glorification is not dependent upon good works of any extent in number.

Hence, Justification by faith obtains both final fitness and entrance into heaven whereas regeneration obtains a righteous nature here and now, made progressively manifest by good works ultimately determined by God's good pleasure and measure of grace and faith given to every man (Eph. 2:10b; Rom. 12:4,7).

The bottom line is your ultimate JUSTIFICATION is sacramental in nature and dependent upon your own cooperative participation whereas the Baptist view of JUSTIFICATION is totally dependent upon the finished work of Christ without personal cooperative participation. Your REGNERATION is also sacramental in nature and dependent upon your own cooperative participation whereas the Baptist view of REGENERATION is that it is the soverign creative act of God (Jn. 1:13; James 1:18; Eph. 2:10a) inseparable from justification but made manifest in "good works" by the indwelling Holy Spirit enabling us to cooperatively participate according to the measure of grace and faith given every man in order to accomplish God's purpose in our life (Eph. 2:10b; Philip. 2:13; Rom. 12:4,7).

Your "justification" is church/sacrament dependent whereas the Baptist view is epitomized by the theif on the cross without church membership, without baptism and the Supper or any other ordinance. We veiw the theif on the cross not as the exception but as the rule in regard to justification whereas, baptism, church membership and etc. we veiw as the rule for progressive sanctification.

Your gospel is a PARTNERSHIP gospel but ours has no room for man's participation but only room for Christ and His finished works "for our sins."

Your gospel is "another gospel" that was preached among the Galatians (Gal. 1:8-9) that is begun by faith but finished by joint participation or your works (Gal. 3:2-3). Our gospel is characterized by "hearing" (Gal. 3:2) and receiving the finished works of Christ FOR US whereas your gospel is characterized by your "works" for Christ (Gal. 3:2,5).

Your gospel is characterized by doing the works of the Law (God's revealed standard of right versus wrong) and your final standard of condemnation is "cursed is every one that CONTINUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the Law to do them."

Our Gospel is characterized by "But no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith."

Our Gospel is characterized by "the just [justified] shall live by faith" in the finished works of Christ but your gospel is characterized by "the one wishing to be justied shall live by good works in addition to the works of Christ."

The difference between the Baptist and Roman Catholic view of Justification can be summarized in the following verses:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

 

[Moriah]

Well yes of course I consider Pope Benedict to be the leader of the church on earth. Of course Christ is the real leader but He has ascended back to heaven for now.

Therefore, you believe that it is okay to blasphemy because Jesus ascended back to heaven. In addition, Jesus sent His Holy Spirit to live in His people, so, Jesus is on earth inside believers.

Does 'holy father' really give a divine title to the pope? I certainly would never intend it in that way. When I say those words I of course just mean that he is my teacher and his office as head of the church is a holy office, established by Christ.

Jesus is the head of the Church, Colossians 1:18. You go against God to appease your religion. Jesus says they are brothers, and not to call each other 'father;' Jesus says God is the Holy Father. If you loved Jesus you would have his teachings and obey them! John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

Peter, Paul and John seem to have begun the tradition of child-parent relationship between bishop and laity, referring to themselves as fathers of spiritual children, as we see in a few places in scripture. I trust them to have interpreted Jesus' words correctly.
e.g. 1 Cor 4:15 "...in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel"

In the scriptures, Paul does not tell the Christians to call him 'father,' no one ever calls Apostle Paul ‘father.' Apostle Paul called everyone his brother and sister. I can give you many scriptures showing this.
You left out an important part of 1 Corinthians 4:15. 1 Corinthians 4:15 says, “Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”
Paul says, “You do not have many fathers.” Paul is merely noting that he is an Apostle, and as an Apostle, he is among the first and more knowledgeable among the brothers and sisters. However, in the Catholic religion, there ARE MANY fathers, in fact, thousands of fathers. This is more proof that Catholics pervert the word of God. The Bible says, "Not many fathers;" Catholic religion says, "many fathers."

So, while this seems to contradict Jesus' words, if you take Jesus' words literally, I trust the judgement of Paul, Peter, John, etc and the example shown in scripture that the apostles were fathers and the laity children.

The Catholic religion goes against the Word of God, and tries to pit Apostle Paul against Jesus! Why in Hell would anyone not take Jesus' words literally?

 

[Walter]

Moriah, your not saying that "call no man father" applies to addressing one’s biological father are you? It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Here is the problem with your literal take on Matthew 23 as I see it. Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28. Didn't Jesus himself appoint men to be teachers in his church? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11).

 

[JarJo]

The bottom line is your ultimate JUSTIFICATION is sacramental in nature and dependent upon your own cooperative participation whereas the Baptist view of JUSTIFICATION is totally dependent upon the finished work of Christ without personal cooperative participation. Your REGNERATION is also sacramental in nature and dependent upon your own cooperative participation whereas the Baptist view of REGENERATION is that it is the soverign creative act of God (Jn. 1:13; James 1:18; Eph. 2:10a) inseparable from justification but made manifest in "good works" by the indwelling Holy Spirit enabling us to cooperatively participate according to the measure of grace and faith given every man in order to accomplish God's purpose in our life (Eph. 2:10b; Philip. 2:13; Rom. 12:4,7).

Thank you for the complete reply. I read and enjoyed your whole post and I think I understand now. The part I quoted seems to sum it up - its all about whether we cooperate somehow with God's work or not.

The kind of cooperation that I think I do is,
1. I choose to attempt to work along with the Holy Spirit
2. I choose to pray and seek out a relationship with God to help my sanctification along
3. I make an effort to avoid sin and near occasions of sin

The thing is... before I could do any of this, I was already bought and paid for because of Jesus' sacrifice. And I couldn't do any of that without grace. But, still, I see how it is cooperative.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for the complete reply. I read and enjoyed your whole post and I think I understand now. The part I quoted seems to sum it up - its all about whether we cooperate somehow with God's work or not.

The kind of cooperation that I think I do is,
1. I choose to attempt to work along with the Holy Spirit
2. I choose to pray and seek out a relationship with God to help my sanctification along
3. I make an effort to avoid sin and near occasions of sin

The thing is... before I could do any of this, I was already bought and paid for because of Jesus' sacrifice. And I couldn't do any of that without grace. But, still, I see how it is cooperative.

Your welcome!

We do not deny this cooperative work in progressive sanctification but wholly deny it in justification or regeneration. Rome makes regeneration/justification a cooperative work whereas Baptists deny this.

The seriousness of this disagreement is that Rome denies the work of Christ is sufficient to completely justify the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) apart from cooperative works from man. The seriousness of this disagreement is that Rome believes that the "ungodly" can particpate in the CREATIVE work of regeneration (Eph. 2:10a). Thus Rome robs the glory from God by contributing it to some extent of joint participation.

 

[Moriah]

Moriah, your not saying that "call no man father" applies to addressing one’s biological fathe are you? It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Abraham was not among these Christian brothers and sisters. Jesus was speaking to the sisters and brothers in Christ, this is about our spiritual sisters and brothers in Christ, not physical brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here is the problem with your literal take on Matthew 23 as I see it. Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28. Didn't Jesus himself Christ appoint men to be teachers in his Church? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.""For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11).

Rabbi means Master, and Teacher. Jesus tells us not to call ourselves ‘Teacher,’ thus signifying a title of superiority, not that we do not teach! For an Apostle or any ‘brother’ to require that others call him the ‘teacher’ would be in defiance to the teachings of Jesus. Note that Rabbi means Teacher, and note how those in the Buddhist religion have a leader whom they call ‘Teacher.’

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isn't the baptist doctrine of regeneration basically the same as infusion?

I re-read your question and missed the whole regeneration part. I answered too quickly. The baptist doctrine of regeneration is nothing like infussion. In the Baptist view God had ordained that specifically you would be chosen and others unchosen to be in his Kingdom. Therefore when God wants you to accept him he makes you alive so you can choose him but not as if you have a choice. You are at this point incapable of rejecting God. This regeneration doesn't get rid of your sin nature but adds another foriegn nature to yours by the Holy Spirit. Therefore for the rest of your life you are a dichotomy of two natures at war with each other. You don't loose the sinful nature until you die. Which all that is left is the spiritual nature. No matter how much time you spend in sanctification it doesn't deminish your sin nature it just keeps it at bay for a while.

 

[DHK]

I re-read your question and missed the whole regeneration part. I answered too quickly. The baptist doctrine of regeneration is nothing like infussion. In the Baptist view God had ordained that specifically you would be chosen and others unchosen to be in his Kingdom.

That is not Baptist doctrine; that is Calvinist doctrine. Not all Baptists, including me, are Calvinists. Get your facts straight.

Therefore when God wants you to accept him he makes you alive so you can choose him but not as if you have a choice.

Not true. False premises lead to false conclusions.

You are at this point incapable of rejecting God.

Again false. Go and do some study.

This regeneration doesn't get rid of your sin nature but adds another foriegn nature to yours by the Holy Spirit. Therefore for the rest of your life you are a dichotomy of two natures at war with each other. You don't loose the sinful nature until you die. Which all that is left is the spiritual nature. No matter how much time you spend in sanctification it doesn't deminish your sin nature it just keeps it at bay for a while.

Are you sinless? If not, why not?

 

[The Biblicist]

I re-read your question and missed the whole regeneration part. I answered too quickly. The baptist doctrine of regeneration is nothing like infussion. In the Baptist view God had ordained that specifically you would be chosen and others unchosen to be in his Kingdom. Therefore when God wants you to accept him he makes you alive so you can choose him but not as if you have a choice. You are at this point incapable of rejecting God. This regeneration doesn't get rid of your sin nature but adds another foriegn nature to yours by the Holy Spirit. Therefore for the rest of your life you are a dichotomy of two natures at war with each other. You don't loose the sinful nature until you die. Which all that is left is the spiritual nature. No matter how much time you spend in sanctification it doesn't deminish your sin nature it just keeps it at bay for a while.

Don't you think you are using the term "Baptist" too narrow here? For example, DHK is a Baptist and he does not believe what you have described as regeneration in regard to the will of man or irresistable grace or that one must be regenerated to choose God.

Furthermore, the new nature is not a "foreign nature to yours" but rather is a restoration or being renewed in the image of God that was lost in the fall (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5). So actually the degenerate nature is the "foreign nature" that is destroyed in death or transformation (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Don't you think you are using the term "Baptist" too narrow here? For example, DHK is a Baptist and he does not believe what you have described as regeneration in regard to the will of man or irresistable grace or that one must be regenerated to choose God.

Furthermore, the new nature is not a "foreign nature to yours" but rather is a restoration or being renewed in the image of God that was lost in the fall (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5). So actually the degenerate nature is the "foreign nature" that is destroyed in death or transformation (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

You have a point. I was being general suppossing that most are reformed in their view. However, there are free will baptist who would disagree with this irrisistable grace view. There are differing views as well on the New Nature we recieve. I agree with your assessment about that nature however others would disagree because the fallen nature is so prevelant in our race that the Nature Given to us when we are (Born Again) is introduced or given by the Holy Spirit outside of ourselves or foriegn to our natural state. To be honest it is hard to nail a baptist down on a specific theological issues. The only way to do it is on Baptistic distinctives which don't delve to deep on certain theological issues.
However, I believe the transformation begins here. Not upon death.