PDA

View Full Version : Baptismal Regeneration?


Sam
05-22-2008, 07:07 PM
This article is from pages 18 and 19 of the June 2008 Pentecostal Herald.

The article is by Matthew Shaw, who is a librarian and teaches English at Ball State University. He serves as the minister of music at the United Pentecostal Church of New Castle, Indiana. His pastor is Jeffery y. Jaco.

Ancient Writings on the Efficacy of Baptism for the Remission of Sins
The Shepherd of Hermas, a second century apocalyptic work, supports both the notion of baptism by immersion and for spiritual cleansing: “[W]e went down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins.

Water baptism is the most ancient rite in Christianity, and the New Testament is replete with examples of baptism by immersion from John’s baptism of repentance in the River Jordan to the proselytes of the Apostles to the epistlary metaphors of baptism as burial with Christ (Romans 6:4) and Noah’s ark (1 Peter 3:20-21). While most Christian denominations observe some ordinance of baptism, the majority of Protestants reduce the act to a mere public profession of faith, decrying the doctrine of remission of sins in baptism as salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. In fact, neither biblical exegesis, nor history divides baptism from salvation. Patristical writings, which are non-canonical, post Apostolic epistles and apologetics, provide ample credence that early Christians universally accepted water baptism as the sole mode for remitting sins.

St. Clement, purportedly the same Clement named by Paul in Philippians, asks in a letter to the Corinthians, “[S]hall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, come into the kingdom of God?” Clearly, Clement identifies Christian baptism as the moment of cleansing. St. Barnabas examines foreshadowing of baptism and the cross in the Old Testament: “Concerning the water, it is written with respect to Israel, how that will not receive the baptism that bringeth remission of sins, but will establish one for themselves.” Further, he writes: “Learn e: having received the remission of our sins, and having hoped upon the name of the Lord, we have become new, having been again created entirely.” These passages explicitly connect the erasure of sins with water baptism, and Barnabas explains that this accompanies hoping on the name of the Lord, the most primitive apostolic baptismal formula.

The Shepherd of Hermas, a second century apocalyptic work, supports both the notion of baptism by immersion and for spiritual cleansing: “[W]e went down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins.” Hermas like Barnabas, refers to invocation of the name of Jesus in the rite: “’For before a man,’saith he, ‘has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he has deceived the seal, he layeth aside his deadness and resumeth life. The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive.’” Baptism in the name of Jesus is, in Hermas, regenerative.

Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,” but he retained the Apostolic teaching of baptism for the remission of sins; “[We] may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, and this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings.”

While the New Testament doctrine of water baptism by immersion solely in the name of Christ degenerated with the increasing schisms and encroaching apostasy of the early church, the nascent Catholic communion retained the biblical connection between baptism and the remission of sins. The Roman Creed, which dates from the third century, includes a generic belief in the “remission of sins,” and the fourth century Nicene Creed says: “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” Though most Protestant eschew the idea of spiritual regeneration in the baptismal ceremony, the scriptural view espoused by modern Oneness Pentecostals is greatly supported both by the primary text of God’s Word and the most ancient bishops and apologists for the Christian faith. Baptism is an indisputable element of the new birth; and b faith in the redemptive work of the blood of Jesus Christ, our sins are truly washed away in the fountain of His forgiveness.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 07:25 PM
Jim

This is quite an interesting argument for this point of view. However, I don't think you would totally agree with it.

Sam
05-22-2008, 07:39 PM
Jim

This is quite an interesting argument for this point of view. However, I don't think you would totally agree with it.

The author uses for his authority the writings of post-apostolic authors and creeds of the Roman church. Usually Oneness writers shun these things because that is where they say the doctrine of the trinity is found. Is this an admission in the Pentecostal Herald that the UPC holds to a Roman Catholic doctrine of washing away of sin in baptism? Also, he is strangely silent about another ancient document which may have been written as early as 60 AD which speaks of water baptism this way:
And concerning baptism, baptize in this manner:
Having first taught all of these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptize in other water ((preferably cold)); and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
This is from a writing called the Didiche or the Limuda. In the AESV Bible it is part of Acts 15:23-29.

TRFrance
05-22-2008, 07:56 PM
I think what the writer is essentially saying is that (unlike what some Evangelicals and Pentecostal "1-steppers" may wish for us to believe) the concept of baptism for remission of sins is not only in the bible, but was clearly and commonly expressed in the writings of the second and third century believers.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 08:00 PM
The author uses for his authority the writings of post-apostolic authors and creeds of the Roman church. Usually Oneness writers shun these things because that is where they say the doctrine of the trinity is found. Is this an admission in the Pentecostal Herald that the UPC holds to a Roman Catholic doctrine of washing away of sin in baptism? Also, he is strangely silent about another ancient document which may have been written as early as 60 AD which speaks of water baptism this way:
And concerning baptism, baptize in this manner:
Having first taught all of these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptize in other water ((preferably cold)); and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
This is from a writing called the Didiche or the Limuda. In the AESV Bible it is part of Acts 15:23-29.


Very good points

Yes, I was very surprised that he quoted Justin Martyr. I can remember reading stuff quoted from McClain an early oneness historian and he heavily criticized Justin Martyr.

I agree with you about the fact that regenaration in water doctrine goes concurrent with the Roman Catholic belief.

I think most oneness proponents even the writer of this article would claim that there was a reason that the passage that you last quoted was left out of most of the protestant bibles. They would say because it was not inspired.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 08:04 PM
I think what the writer is essentially saying is that (unlike what some Evangelicals and Pentecostal "1-steppers" may wish for us to believe) the concept of baptism for remission of sins is not only in the bible, but was clearly and commonly expressed in the writings of the second and third century believers.

Yes, this is why Paul was so proud of the people that he had baptized in Corinth and also why he made baptism his central theme in Romans (Romans being his suma teologia of all his writings). But wait, baptism was not his central theme, it was faith in Jesus, SO THAT NO MAN COULD BOAST.

TRFrance
05-22-2008, 08:07 PM
Well, let's not miss the Bro. Shaw's point here.

The issue that the brother is getting at is not whether the Didache or these other writings were divinely inspired. The issue is whether the belief of baptism for remission of sins was widely held in the church of the first few centuries.

Without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine, the fact is...whether one agrees with the doctrine or not, one can not make an informed argument that the concept of baptism for the remission of sins wasn't a widely held doctrine in the church of the first few centuries.

TRFrance
05-22-2008, 08:09 PM
Yes, this is why Paul was so proud of the people that in baptized in Corinth and also why he made baptism his central theme in Romans (his suma teologia of all his writings). But wait, baptism was not his central theme, it was faith, SO THAT NO MAN COULD BOAST.

Maybe someone else wants to get dragged into that argument.

As for me, its been there, done that. Cant be bothered.

Sam
05-22-2008, 08:16 PM
Well, let's not miss the Bro. Shaw's point here.

The issue that the brother is getting at is not whether the Didache or these other writings were divinely inspired. The issue is whether the belief of baptism for remission of sins was widely held in the church of the first few centuries.

Without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine, the fact is...whether one agrees with the doctrine or not, one can not make an informed argument that the concept of baptism for the remission of sins wasn't a widely held doctrine in the church of the first few centuries.

I may be wrong here. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am. I seem to remember hearing or reading that Emperor Constantine waited until just before his death to be baptized because he believed that baptism would wash away sins and he wanted to be clean when he died. I don't have any historic writing to cite for that but it seems I heard or read it somewhere.

TRFrance
05-22-2008, 08:17 PM
Never heard of that one before.

Sam
05-22-2008, 08:18 PM
Never heard of that one before.

Like I said, I may be wrong about it but it seems to me I heard it or read it somewhere.

Grasshopper
05-22-2008, 08:20 PM
What is the difference between baptismal regeneration doctrine and our view of water baptism's role in salvation? Do we believe in baptismal regeneration?

staysharp
05-22-2008, 08:36 PM
What is the difference between baptismal regeneration doctrine and our view of water baptism's role in salvation? Do we believe in baptismal regeneration?

Baptismal regeneration is the commonly held view that something mystical happens to an individual when they take a religious bath. Somehow, God pours out a special vial of blood and removes their sins. They believe you are not saved unless you are baptized, because it is the actual act of baptism that removes sin.

The only problem with this is if you sin again, you need to be rebaptised and we all know we sin again probably within a few minutes of the original baptism.

I recently heard a very well know UPC evangelist state that baptism removes sin and if you sin again, God will deal with you about it. This is the stupidest remark I've ever heard. He is considered one of the most sought after evangelist in the Organ.

However, this view detaches salvation away from Christ and his finished work and places it in our hands.

It totally negates the work of the cross and allows us to be co-contributors in our own salvation.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 08:41 PM
I may be wrong here. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am. I seem to remember hearing or reading that Emperor Constantine waited until just before his death to be baptized because he believed that baptism would wash away sins and he wanted to be clean when he died. I don't have any historic writing to cite for that but it seems I heard or read it somewhere.

That is true sam. I have read the in one of my Christian History books (I believe the author was Eldridge). Also David Calhoun, seminary professor of I believe it is called Covenant Seminary (Presbeterian) in St Louis stated that.

If anyone wants free seminary lectures you can download like 20 different subjects from their web page. I heard Calhoun say that in one of his Early Church History lectures.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 08:45 PM
Baptismal regeneration is the commonly held view that something mystical happens to an individual when they take a religious bath. Somehow, God pours out a special vial of blood and removes their sins. They believe you are not saved unless you are baptized, because it is the actual act of baptism that removes sin.

The only problem with this is if you sin again, you need to be rebaptised and we all know we sin again probably within a few minutes of the original baptism.

I recently heard a very well know UPC evangelist state that baptism removes sin and if you sin again, God will deal with you about it. This is the stupidest remark I've ever heard. He is considered one of the most sought after evangelist in the Organ.

However, this view detaches salvation away from Christ and his finished work and places it in our hands.

It totally negates the work of the cross and allows us to be co-contributors in our own salvation.


Often UPC preachers imply that the blood is then applied afterwards during communion. This is why they will often say, now that we have taken communion let us rejoice because all of our sins since baptism have been washed away.

Like I said it is very similar to the Roman catholic view of imparted grace through special sacraments of the church.

mizpeh
05-22-2008, 08:48 PM
Baptismal regeneration is the commonly held view that something mystical happens to an individual when they take a religious bath. Somehow, God pours out a special vial of blood and removes their sins. They believe you are not saved unless you are baptized, because it is the actual act of baptism that removes sin.

The only problem with this is if you sin again, you need to be rebaptised and we all know we sin again probably within a few minutes of the original baptism.

I recently heard a very well know UPC evangelist state that baptism removes sin and if you sin again, God will deal with you about it. This is the stupidest remark I've ever heard. He is considered one of the most sought after evangelist in the Organ.

However, this view detaches salvation away from Christ and his finished work and places it in our hands.

It totally negates the work of the cross and allows us to be co-contributors in our own salvation.

How do we contribute anything to remission of sins? By stepping in the water and calling on the name of the Lord?

We don't have to be rebaptized after our initial burial in the water. That is as bad as me saying (which I have) that One steppers have to be continually rebaptized in the Holy Spirit because the Spirit departs from them every time they sin ....how can the Holy Spirit fill an unclean vessel except remission of sins happens at repentance otherwise sinners were filled with the Spirit before their sins were remitted in Acts 10.

mizpeh
05-22-2008, 08:50 PM
I may be wrong here. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am. I seem to remember hearing or reading that Emperor Constantine waited until just before his death to be baptized because he believed somewhere.

I can't site it for you off the top of my head either but I have read it before.

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 08:52 PM
There is no virtue in H20 but at the same time we can't reduce MARK.16:16 to a mere suggestion either.

staysharp
05-22-2008, 08:53 PM
Often UPC preachers imply that the blood is then applied afterwards during communion. This is why they will often say, now that we have taken communion let us rejoice because all of our sins since baptism have been washed away.

Like I said it is very similar to the Roman catholic view of imparted grace through special sacraments of the church.

I haven't heard this; however it doesn't surprise me. It is possible this doctrine is why the Catholics take communion daily though. Makes sense if they actually teach your sins are removed through the sacrament.

staysharp
05-22-2008, 08:55 PM
There is no virtue in H20 but at the same time we can't reduce MARK.16:16 to a mere suggestion either.

Scott, baptism is what we do because of what he did!

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 08:58 PM
Of course I agree water baptism is because of what He did.It's an act of faith.

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 09:04 PM
Here is something to consider Jesus alone can only forgive a person of their sins.
If a preacher could do something to you to forgive or remit sins,then men could have ability to forgive sins,then if that were possible Jesus would have died in vain.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 09:08 PM
There is no virtue in H20 but at the same time we can't reduce MARK.16:16 to a mere suggestion either.

Scott

I would never want to get on your bad side by offending you because you are one of the kindest people of this site.

Neverhteless, I would say to your post that you are right in that Mark 16:16 is a command of the Lord. Nevertheless, we go back to Paul's argument about how Abraham was not justified by circumsion but by his faith years before the circumsion. According do the Dake bible concordance there are 1050 commands in the New Testament for the New Testament believer. I doubt very seriously that we are in accordance with all of these commands all of the time. That is why we trust in HIM. I do think we are still write in trying to convince trinitarians that they should be baptized in Jesus name because it was a command from the Lord. Nevertheless, if they do not I am not going to disdain them.

Grasshopper
05-22-2008, 09:10 PM
Only Jesus can forgive sins, but I believe baptism is a command of Scripture. Refuse to be water baptized in Jesus name at your own risk. :preach

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 09:17 PM
Look at it this way if one believes in Christ they will desire to obey Christ.
No offense but Dake has some good points,but on alot of things he was nutty as a fruitcake.
It takes alot to get on my bad side disagreeing with me isn't one of them.

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 09:18 PM
Only Jesus can forgive sins, but I believe baptism is a command of Scripture. Refuse to be water baptized in Jesus name at your own risk. :preach

I concur.

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 09:26 PM
Look at it this way if one believes in Christ they will desire to obey Christ.
No offense but Dake has some good points,but on alot of things he was nutty as a fruitcake.
It takes alot to get on my bad side disagreeing with me isn't one of them.

I do not agree with Dake on all his points either. But all he did was go throught the NT and categorize all the times and things Christians were commanded to do.

By the way to try to bring down an argument by criticizing the author of the argument is an AD HOMINEM fallacy. It is a fallacy because it does not direct the specific point of the argument, it demeans the character of the author of the argument. By so doing it skirts the true issue.

Sam
05-22-2008, 09:29 PM
I have a partial Dake Bible, just the NT and Psalms. I don't really use it. Have you read some of the things he has to say on the nature of God (trinity)?

bkstokes
05-22-2008, 09:35 PM
I have a partial Dake Bible, just the NT and Psalms. I don't really use it. Have you read some of the things he has to say on the nature of God (trinity)?

I have read a few things. To be honest with you, I skip over those parts because he says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all their own spirit forms. I do not agree with that.

What did you think of his trinity statements?

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 09:36 PM
Dake is like Mattew Henry you chew the meat and try the fat away.
I personally think Dakes bible is too overpriced.Footnotes are good and are often helpful,but they themselves aren't the inspired scripture.Same with reading Bernard or anybody else.

Scott Hutchinson
05-22-2008, 09:38 PM
I was friends with a Baptist pastor,and He said what Dake wrote on the Trinity was heretical.However he did have some stuff,I gave my Dakes bible away to someone in the church.

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:06 PM
The author uses for his authority the writings of post-apostolic authors and creeds of the Roman church. Usually Oneness writers shun these things because that is where they say the doctrine of the trinity is found. Is this an admission in the Pentecostal Herald that the UPC holds to a Roman Catholic doctrine of washing away of sin in baptism?

Also, he is strangely silent about another ancient document which may have been written as early as 60 AD which speaks of water baptism this way:
And concerning baptism, baptize in this manner:
Having first taught all of these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptize in other water ((preferably cold)); and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

This is from a writing called the Didiche or the Limuda. In the AESV Bible it is part of Acts 15:23-29.

Need I say more? I TOLD YOU SO!!!

It's laughable guys like TR now align themselves w/ this ....

TR ... u believe like Justin Martyr that not only does baptism apply the blood of Jesus but provides "illumination of understanding"?

I'm gonna like this thread ...

Thanks for sharing Sam.

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:10 PM
Who knew it??? the Catholics were right all the time

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:19 PM
Who knew it??? the Catholics were right all the time

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:19 PM
Let's add Tertullian to the list of Apostolic Fathers shall we ...

The most striking presentation of this conception, if not the earliest, is that of Tertullian. "Is it not wonderful too," he writes, "that death should be washed away by bathing?" To justify such ascription of efficacy to water baptism he expatiates on the age and the dignity of water. "Water is one of those things that, before all the furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapen state." It is venerable, therefore. It has dignity also as having been "the seat of the Divine Spirit, more pleasing to him, no doubt, than all the other then existing elements." "Water alone - always a perfect, gladsome, simple, material substance, pure in itself... supplied a worthy vehicle for God." "Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if water know how to give life." He speaks of water as "the primary principle of baptism." "The Spirit of God who hovered over the waters from the beginning would," he maintained, "continue to linger over the waters of the baptized." "Thus," he continues, "the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One, itself conceived withal the power of sanctifying." "All waters, therefore,in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from himself; and being thus sanctified they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying."


It's all in the water!!!!

Hoovie
05-22-2008, 11:22 PM
Who knew it??? the Catholics were right all the time

They most certainly are in some things! :)

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:29 PM
Brother Shaw why didn't you quote Justin Martyr in his fullest context??? ....

More of the OP scholarship ... or do we have to accept this because it's in the Herald?

Did you forget that he also taught that praying and fasting brought remission of sins ... that was part of the quote you provided ... but perhaps conveniently/cleverly edited ....

Surely this regenerates us too!!!!

The rest of the story ....

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water (The First Apology. Chapter LXI).

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:35 PM
Some of Justin Martyr's teachings, a Platoist, on regeneration were similar to

Mithra-Like Practices


The "god" Helios is actually also called "Mithra Helios". And Justin had practices that were similar to those employed by the followers of the sun-god Mithra: For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).


And this food is called among us Εύχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished...Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology 66).
Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly (First Apology 67).
Lest anyone think that he did not, notice what the historian and scholar K. Latourette observed: One of the earliest descriptions of the Eucharist, that by Justin Martyr, not far from the middle of the second century, recognizes the similarity to what was seen in one the mystery cults, Mithraism...it has been repeatedly asserted that in baptism and the Eucharist Christians borrowed from the mysteries and that Christianity was simply another one of these cults...The similarity is striking (Latourette KS. A History of Christianity, Volume 1: to A.D. 1500. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1975, p. 198).
Of course, true Christianity could not "borrow" from the sun-cults, but Justin and those that follow his examples apparently have.
It should be understood that while Justin calls the newly baptized "illuminated" the Bible does not.
Are you aware that one objective of mystery religions like Mithraism was to become illuminated? Notice the following: FOR more than three centuries Mithraism was practised in the remotest provinces of the Roman empire and under the most diverse conditions...the promise of complete illumination, long withheld, fed the ardor of faith with the fascinating allurements of mystery...The gods were everywhere, and they mingled in every act of life; the fire that cooked the food and warmed the bodies of the faithful, the water that allayed their thirst and cleansed their persons, the very air that they breathed, and the light that illuminated their paths, were the objects of their adoration. Perhaps no other religion ever offered to its sectaries in a higher degree than Mithraism opportunities for prayer and motives for veneration (Cumont, Franz. Translated from the second revised French edition by Thomas J. McCormack. The Mysteries of Mithra. Chicago, Open Court [1903] pp. 104,120,149).
I suspect that some who had some connection with Mithraism professed Christ and that those ceremonies got picked up by apostates who Justin apparently distantly came into contact with. And even though Justin is attempting to state that Mithraism copied "Christian" ceremonies, the fact is that the Mithra ceremonies, including Sunday worship, were in existence prior to Jesus coming. Jesus, of course, kept Saturday for the Sabbath.


Hence it would appear that those who practiced Sunday, called baptized persons "illuminated" (a term indicating "light", such as sunlight) and the mystic eucharistic ceremonies were following non-Christian influences as it obviously did not happen the other way around with these practices.


Sadly, however, it seems that many non-biblical practices slowly became part of the Greco-Roman churches. And while this apparently was not intentional on the part of people like Justin, the relatively early acceptance of such non-biblical practices seems to have led to additional ones being added later.

http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm




He was a sacramentalist when it came to the Eucharist and baptism and their proported roles in our regeneration!!!
(http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm)

James Griffin
05-22-2008, 11:36 PM
Sam- not commenting on conclusions here, but yes it was the custom of many in that era to be baptized upon death bed in the belief that baptism remitted sin, and it increased the likelihood of dying without sin. And it is a common belief Constantine did just that.


http://www.answers.com/topic/constantine-i-the-great

Above link is actually a compilation of several articles on Constantine but pertinent to your observation:

In 326, Constantine had his eldest son Crispus tried and executed, as he believed accusations that Crispus had been having an affair with Fausta, Constantine's second wife. A few months later he also had Fausta killed as the apparent source of these false accusations.

Eusebius reports that Constantine was baptized only shortly before his death in 337. He moved from the Capital to a neighboring thermal spa to take the waters, and thence to his mother's city of Helenopolis, where he prayed in the great church that she built in honor of Lucian the apostle. With this, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until old age or death[19]

19. In this period infant baptism, though practiced (usually in circumstances of emergency) had not yet become a matter of routine in the west. See Thomas M. Finn (1992), Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: East and West Syria. See also Philip Rousseau (1999). "Baptism", in Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post Classical World, ed. Peter Brown.

SDG
05-22-2008, 11:47 PM
Well, let's not miss the Bro. Shaw's point here.

The issue that the brother is getting at is not whether the Didache or these other writings were divinely inspired. The issue is whether the belief of baptism for remission of sins was widely held in the church of the first few centuries.

Without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine, the fact is...whether one agrees with the doctrine or not, one can not make an informed argument that the concept of baptism for the remission of sins wasn't a widely held doctrine in the church of the first few centuries.

Yeah held by paganist philosophers who believed the Eucharist, fasting and praying also remitted sins.

You got to be kidding me ....

Surely your best bet is sticking to the 7 or so passages mandating baptism and the countless analogies formulated by the 3 step theologians.

Encryptus
05-23-2008, 12:05 AM
I think what the writer is essentially saying is that ... the concept of baptism for remission of sins is not only in the bible, but was clearly and commonly expressed in the writings of the second and third century believers.

Well, let's not miss the Bro. Shaw's point here.

The issue that the brother is getting at is not whether the Didache or these other writings were divinely inspired. The issue is whether the belief of baptism for remission of sins was widely held in the church of the first few centuries.

Without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine, the fact is...whether one agrees with the doctrine or not, one can not make an informed argument that the concept of baptism for the remission of sins wasn't a widely held doctrine in the church of the first few centuries.

Yeah held by paganist philosophers who believed the Eucharist, fasting and praying also remitted sins.
.

I believe TR is merely trying to make a point that both views were manifest early on in the history of the church.

As an aside, in the first century converts to Judaism were baptized for the remission of sins and even they debated whether it was to remit sins or because sins had been remitted. I believe all TR was trying to say "without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine" is that BOTH beliefs were debated, perhaps as early as the FIRST century.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 05:24 AM
Many of us Prostestants or those of us who are not Roman Catholic often accuse the Catholics of JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier they believe that one is not saved by works but by imparted grace through and only through sacraments of their church. Many oneness pentecostals have arrived at a similar doctrine concerning baptism in the effect of believing that regenration takes places at baptism. Many times when a knowledgeable oneoness person wishes to convince a knowledgeable trinitarian to be baptized in Jesus name, the name no longer is the crux of the argument, but the regenration part (It all goes back to Luthers fight of justification by faith -- that we must totally depend upon the Lord and it is nothing in ourselves). To support this argument the AGs just had their secretary retire in the last several years, he wrote a book called "Transformational Discipleship". He spends a good portion of one of his chapters attacking Jesus name baptism. He did not necessarily attack the name (in my opinion because he couldn't) but he attacked the regenerational portion of the doctrine.

For those of you are interested in better understanding the Roman Catholic, so that you can better understand the imparted grace belief through sacraments. R C Sproul (Presberterian) has some great teachings on the matter.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 06:00 AM
I think what the writer is essentially saying is that (unlike what some Evangelicals and Pentecostal "1-steppers" may wish for us to believe) the concept of baptism for remission of sins is not only in the bible, but was clearly and commonly expressed in the writings of the second and third century believers.

TR

Yes, Shaw establishes that there were some who believed in this doctrine. The Apostle Paul also established that there were judiazers in the those days. Just because something is from long ago it does not make it right. The point we are making is that Paul never supported the regenrational argument (in baptism).

SDG
05-23-2008, 06:21 AM
BK,

I absolutely support this new approach apparently being used by the 3 step crowd to align themselves w/ the teachings and apologists of the Roman church as it relates to water baptism. I would like to see more of this in the official organ.

I also find it interesting that this was published in the Herald and that the editors found it publishable. When have we seen a piece like this before?

Methinks that the debates online have rekindled a need for apologists to address various issues... this is not the first time we have seen this .... apparently there is a stirring to "hold the fort".

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 07:00 AM
BK,

I absolutely support this new approach apparently being used by the 3 step crowd to align themselves w/ the teachings and apologists of the Roman church as it relates to water baptism. I would like to see more of this in the official organ.

I also find it interesting that this was published in the Herald and that the editors found it publishable. When have we seen a piece like this before? I have never seen an article like this before. Thank you Jim or Sam.

Methinks that the debates online have rekindled a need for apologists to address various issues... this is not the first time we have seen this .... apparently there is a stirring to "hold the fort".

I would also like to see more articles like this one. Thank you Sam! I am not only interested but surprised that they have published this article in the Herald. I can't imagine Nathaniel Urshan (if he were still there) allowing something like this in the Herald. Who beside Bernard do the 3 steppers have who could fill the role of an apologist?

SDG
05-23-2008, 07:15 AM
Sam- not commenting on conclusions here, but yes it was the custom of many in that era to be baptized upon death bed in the belief that baptism remitted sin, and it increased the likelihood of dying without sin. And it is a common belief Constantine did just that.


http://www.answers.com/topic/constantine-i-the-great

Above link is actually a compilation of several articles on Constantine but pertinent to your observation:

In 326, Constantine had his eldest son Crispus tried and executed, as he believed accusations that Crispus had been having an affair with Fausta, Constantine's second wife. A few months later he also had Fausta killed as the apparent source of these false accusations.

Eusebius reports that Constantine was baptized only shortly before his death in 337. He moved from the Capital to a neighboring thermal spa to take the waters, and thence to his mother's city of Helenopolis, where he prayed in the great church that she built in honor of Lucian the apostle. With this, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until old age or death[19]

19. In this period infant baptism, though practiced (usually in circumstances of emergency) had not yet become a matter of routine in the west. See Thomas M. Finn (1992), Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: East and West Syria. See also Philip Rousseau (1999). "Baptism", in Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post Classical World, ed. Peter Brown.

Elder Epley has expressed a similar need for baptism at the deathbed ... His recounting an elderly woman who I believe suffered a stroke was fascinating.

TRFrance
05-23-2008, 07:54 AM
I believe TR is merely trying to make a point that both views were manifest early on in the history of the church.

As an aside, in the first century converts to Judaism were baptized for the remission of sins and even they debated whether it was to remit sins or because sins had been remitted. I believe all TR was trying to say "without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine" is that BOTH beliefs were debated, perhaps as early as the FIRST century.
Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

RevBuddy
05-23-2008, 08:02 AM
Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

TR, I am appropriately impressed...a measured response, but one that contains no virtriol or baiting...good show! :happydance

TRFrance
05-23-2008, 08:21 AM
TR, I am appropriately impressed...a measured response, but one that contains no virtriol or baiting...good show! :happydance
Thank you sir.
But I'll freely admit that some days it's fairly easy; other days...well, not so much!
:D

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:27 AM
The question that I am about to post is not to provoke strife and I would really prefer a 1 stepper to answer it so that there would be no contention in the matter. I joined the forum in Feb., so I have not discussed a lot of these issues with people here. This being said the question is:

How do 3 steppers deal with the passage of the Ethiopian Eunich? Phillip the Evangelist was taken from the Eunich and he was still not filled with the Holy Ghost.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:56 AM
TR

Let me also say that I by no means was writing about this in a manner to bash you or anyone else over the head. Beside all of the doctrinal inconsistencies that I see with the doctrine, I believe that the oneness pentecostal churches would be able to influence and thereby see more people baptized in Jesus name if they did not preach it as regenerational. Although Kevin J. Conner is a trinitarian (and he does not believe in baptismal regenration), he has influenced many more denominal leaders to be baptized in Jesus name then any oneness preacher that I am familiar with. A good example of his influence is the book "The Name of God".

SDG
05-23-2008, 09:07 AM
Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

TR ... let you in a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 09:33 AM
TR ... let you in a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?

:toofunny

TRFrance
05-23-2008, 11:38 AM
TR ... let you in on a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?
Dan, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

Some of you guys here are really not as wise and clever as you think yourselves to be.
------

And the mere fact that you think I have "an affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration" either shows just how much you're missing the point of what I've said, or perhaps it's just another cynical attempt on your part to bait me into a debate on the issue.

Anyway...carry on, sir.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 01:06 PM
Dan, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

Some of you guys here are really not as wise and clever as you think yourselves to be.
------

And the mere fact that you think I have "an affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration" either shows just how much you're missing the point of what I've said, or perhaps it's just another cynical attempt on your part to bait me into a debate on the issue.

Anyway...carry on, sir.

I know that his remark is cynical but I think it has some merit. It could be said that the Catholic church slowly evolved into what it is today. There is no doubt that part of this evolution has been an inordinate amount of dependance upon their church's sacraments.

Sam
05-23-2008, 07:42 PM
I have read a few things. To be honest with you, I skip over those parts because he says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all their own spirit forms. I do not agree with that.

What did you think of his trinity statements?

It's been a long time since I read anything in that Bible.
It's just gathering dust.
I may not remember this correctly but I think I read in one of his notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each had individual body, soul, spirit. This way the trinity was three separate beings and each being had a body, soul, and spirit. Maybe I quit reading too soon but this just seemed "off" to me.

I realize trinitarians and oneness may use the word "person" differently but what little I read by Dake seemed almost like tritheism.

Sam
05-23-2008, 07:54 PM
...
As an aside, in the first century converts to Judaism were baptized for the remission of sins and even they debated whether it was to remit sins or because sins had been remitted. I believe all TR was trying to say "without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine" is that BOTH beliefs were debated, perhaps as early as the FIRST century.

And here we are in 2008, still discussing whether the "for" or "eis" in Acts 2:38 means "in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins" or "because of remission/forgiveness of sins." Maybe there really is nothing new under the sun.

Sam
05-23-2008, 08:08 PM
Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.


Bro. French,
I don't know if you are UPC or not, but when the UPC was originally formed allowance was made for both doctrinal stands that we now call "one-step" and "three-step" on these forums. The idea was that "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" would respect one another and fellowship one another. Over the years the "three-steppers" marginalized the "one-steppers" and tried to silence them or squeeze them out. This pretty well happened through the revision of fundamental doctrine statement in 1973 and then the affirmation statement in 1992. I'm sure there are many "closet" one-steppers in the UPC but they are afraid to let it be known for fear that they will be considered heretics. This is not the original intent of the elders who established the UPC over 60 years ago.

Today in 2008, as a "one-stepper" I need to remind myself that these old timers in 1945 meant for "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" to get along together and to respect one another. Some times in my posts I act as poorly as some of the "three-steppers" have over the years. That attitude isn't right. Nor is it right to respond in the same manner that I as a one-stepper have been treated.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:25 PM
It's been a long time since I read anything in that Bible.
It's just gathering dust.
I may not remember this correctly but I think I read in one of his notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each had individual body, soul, spirit. This way the trinity was three separate beings and each being had a body, soul, and spirit. Maybe I quit reading too soon but this just seemed "off" to me.

I realize trinitarians and oneness may use the word "person" differently but what little I read by Dake seemed almost like tritheism.

Yes that is what I didn't like about his comments. You are correct. He wrote that all of them had spirit body, soul and spirit. That also seems like tritheism to me.

Sam
05-23-2008, 08:28 PM
The question that I am about to post is not to provoke strife and I would really prefer a 1 stepper to answer it so that there would be no contention in the matter. I joined the forum in Feb., so I have not discussed a lot of these issues with people here. This being said the question is:

How do 3 steppers deal with the passage of the Ethiopian Eunich? Phillip the Evangelist was taken from the Eunich and he was still not filled with the Holy Ghost.

In the first part you said you would prefer a one stepper to answer, then in the latter part you asked for a three stepper explanation.

As a one stepper, my explanation is as follows. Philip is called an evangelist, actually the only person called an evangelist in our New Testament. Philip had a way of preaching that got folks saved. He also had a ministry of healing and miracles. But, did not seem to have a ministry of ministering the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism). In Acts 8 it speaks of all the folks who were saved, healed, delivered, and baptized in water but they had not received the HGB. Peter and John were sent down from the Jerusalem assembly to minister the HGB to those folks. Later in the chapter Philip was sent into the desert. He obediently went. Someone has dubbed this "from Samaria to the Sahara." When he came upon an Ethiopian Eunuch the Spirit told him to "go near and join (stick to, adhere) to his chariot. He accepted the invitation to come up into the chariot and began to explain the portion of Scripture (Isaiah chapter 53) the Ethiopian was reading and "preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). They came to some water, probably the Wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip did not want to baptize someone who was not converted so he stated, "If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized." The eunuch made a profession of faith, "I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and is the Son of God." Based on this confession of faith, the chariot was stopped, and they both went down into the water, and he (Philip) baptized him (the eunuch). Then, according to some old manuscripts, the story continues. "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch, and the angel of the Lord snatched Philip away..." So, it seems that the eunuch received the HGB in the water without the customary laying on of hands.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:28 PM
It just occured to me -- IS TRFRENCH -- Talmadge French? Hey if it is -- I got your book man. I like the cover! Thanks for categorizing all of the oneness people as well.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:29 PM
In the first part you said you would prefer a one stepper to answer, then in the latter part you asked for a three stepper explanation.

As a one stepper, my explanation is as follows. Philip is called an evangelist, actually the only person called an evangelist in our New Testament. Philip had a way of preaching that got folks saved. He also had a ministry of healing and miracles. But, did not seem to have a ministry of ministering the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism). In Acts 8 it speaks of all the folks who were saved, healed, delivered, and baptized in water but they had not received the HGB. Peter and John were sent down from the Jerusalem assembly to minister the HGB to those folks. Later in the chapter Philip was sent into the desert. He obediently went. Someone has dubbed this "from Samaria to the Sahara." When he came upon an Ethiopian Eunuch the Spirit told him to "go near and join (stick to, adhere) to his chariot. He accepted the invitation to come up into the chariot and began to explain the portion of Scripture (Isaiah chapter 53) the Ethiopian was reading and "preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). They came to some water, probably the Wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip did not want to baptize someone who was not converted so he stated, "If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized." The eunuch made a profession of faith, "I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and is the Son of God." Based on this confession of faith, the chariot was stopped, and they both went down into the water, and he (Philip) baptized him (the eunuch). Then, according to some old manuscripts, the story continues. "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch, and the angel of the Lord snatched Philip away..." So, it seems that the eunuch received the HGB in the water without the customary laying on of hands.

True, true Sam

I also must watch my tongue in cheek remarks. Thank you for reminding us.

Sam
05-23-2008, 08:34 PM
I have a book by Talmadge L. French titled, "Our God is One."
I don't know if he is the TRFrance posting here.

bkstokes
05-23-2008, 08:41 PM
I have a book by Talmadge L. French titled, "Our God is One."
I don't know if he is the TRFrance posting here.

Yes that is who I am talking about. I thought it might because it is not a common last name. However, Talmadge French says that he is a greek expert (heard a couple of his sermons on the Name), so I am sure if it was him he would throw some greek on us.

TRFrance
05-23-2008, 08:48 PM
Bro. French,
I don't know if you are UPC or not, but when the UPC was originally formed allowance was made for both doctrinal stands that we now call "one-step" and "three-step" on these forums. The idea was that "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" would respect one another and fellowship one another. Over the years the "three-steppers" marginalized the "one-steppers" and tried to silence them or squeeze them out. This pretty well happened through the revision of fundamental doctrine statement in 1973 and then the affirmation statement in 1992. I'm sure there are many "closet" one-steppers in the UPC but they are afraid to let it be known for fear that they will be considered heretics. This is not the original intent of the elders who established the UPC over 60 years ago.

Today in 2008, as a "one-stepper" I need to remind myself that these old timers in 1945 meant for "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" to get along together and to respect one another. Some times in my posts I act as poorly as some of the "three-steppers" have over the years. That attitude isn't right. Nor is it right to respond in the same manner that I as a one-stepper have been treated.
No argument here, Sam.

Unfortunately, there are some among us who seem to display a win-at-all-costs over-aggressiveness you might expect to see in a bunch of high school debaters.

If everyone here took on the same attitude and tone as you do on this forum, the atmosphere around here would be a whole lot better.

Blessings.
TRF


(And for the record, yes I am UPC)

TRFrance
05-23-2008, 09:04 PM
It just occured to me -- IS TRFRENCH -- Talmadge French? Hey if it is -- I got your book man. I like the cover! Thanks for categorizing all of the oneness people as well.

I have a book by Talmadge L. French titled, "Our God is One."
I don't know if he is the TRFrance posting here.

Yes that is who I am talking about. I thought it might because it is not a common last name. However, Talmadge French says that he is a greek expert (heard a couple of his sermons on the Name), so I am sure if it was him he would throw some greek on us.

I must say I found it somewhat amusing reading that stuff.

Anyway,for the record... no, I'm not Talmadge French.

SDG
07-21-2008, 09:47 AM
bump for luke

stmatthew
07-21-2008, 10:01 AM
I do not believe that water baptism = regeneration. I believe when one is born again (water and spirit) that they are regenerated.

Thoughts???

Sam
07-21-2008, 05:25 PM
I do not believe that water baptism = regeneration. I believe when one is born again (water and spirit) that they are regenerated.

Thoughts???

So, you believe that
-water baptism (properly administered) equals born of water
-the Holy Ghost Baptism equals born of the Spirit.
-both baptisms together equal the one new birth (these two are one)
and
-since water baptism (birth of water) is only a partial rebirth experience, it cannot be called baptismal regeneration.

I think that is the opinion of quite a few Oneness Pentecostals.
I don't think I have misstated it.

So, are people who have been baptized in water but not in the Spirit called brother or sister? and would they go to heaven if they died in that condition?
And, are people who have been baptized in the Spirit but not (properly) in water called brother or sister? and would they go to heaven if they died in that condition?

Ron
07-21-2008, 10:26 PM
Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

I missed this post before, it is good.

cilat
06-06-2014, 06:23 AM
What is the difference between baptismal regeneration doctrine and our view of water baptism's role in salvation? Do we believe in baptismal regeneration?



No we do not believe Baptismal regeneration(Which makes water baptism the savior.) We believe the name in water baptism remits the sins. not water Baptism.Beside that fact; you must be born again of the water and of the spirit. Being born of the water in Jesus name is not being born of the spirit. one must have the new birth and that is only half of the equation. I run into this all the time now having to help people understand this. I carried an article around with me back the 80's or 90's I cannot remember when that David Bernard wrote in the Pentecostal Herald explaining perfectly we are not Baptismal regenerationist.

Aquila
06-06-2014, 09:26 AM
Most don't realize that water baptism is an element of conversion. When God begins to draw the soul to Himself, the sinner feels convicted. Then they experience "conversion". Conversion has to do with coming to faith, repenting of sin, being water baptized, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

When one comes to faith and repents of sin, they take the first step in a new direction... water baptism. Faith and repentance bring "justification". That means the repentant sinner stands before God as though he or she never sinned. It is through justification that one can receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is what brings regeneration... the impartation of the divine nature through the abiding Spirit.