The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Just what do you suppose the "regeneration" part is supposed to mean?

* - A New Birth! Yes!!! With the misapplication of John 3:5 we have baptismal regeneration - REGENERATION = "BORN AGAIN!"

From words like this, Pel, it looks like you are accusing me of baptismal regeneration. See what I mean?

You seem to infer here, for it is not totally clear what you are saying, that those who believe Jesus involved water baptism in "born of the water and of the Spirit" propose baptismal regeneration. The point actually is that SOME who actually DO believe baptismal regeneration see no place of faith in all of this. Yes, they use this verse, but they claim FAITH is not involved with baptism in this reference.

But those of us who believe this is indeed speaking of water baptism, and are not baptismal regenerationists, claim that this water baptism is useless without faith. We believe that our obedience to be baptized is the work that makes "faith that works" a present reality. Our faith includes belief that God actually does a circumcision of the heart while we are baptized in water. The action of baptism is not the saving element, though. This is what we have been trying to say over and over again. Baptism is just the inseparable work that comes along with the "faith that works".

[Sam]

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration is wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of the sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of hte sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.

Mike the point is Abraham entered every covenant because of a "previous and continued" response. Gen 12 and Gen 15:8-10 We do not enter Covenant at mental belief of something that is true. Because God judges a response just doesn't mean covenant is made. Nowhere is there any covenant given in Gen 15:6. God is simply considering the response of "it", just. God can present something or speak of what he wants to come to past. It doesn't mean we have obtained it nor are in covenant. Just as Abraham in Gen 15:8. "how do I possess/obtain it" God offers and is the source to those who obey that ask the question. Just like the person asked Jesus "what must I do to obtain eternal life" God's coming into covenant is always a result of response.

If we say anything else James is a liar that "faith alone" does not bring about God's judgment/consideration of our response to the context of his Word. Faith must be ajudged "right" "complete" "just" God judged cornelius and his household well before Peter came. God considered there hearts right toward him. Peter simply became the mouth piece to allow the "hearing" of which God showed there heart was already acceptable for entering covenant by manifesting his Spirit. Thus he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized saying
""Can anyone withhold water..." They had not entered covenant yet an obtained unification with Christ. THough God had already judged there heart.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

From words like this, Pel, it looks like you are accusing me of baptismal regeneration. See what I mean?

You seem to infer here, for it is not totally clear what you are saying, that those who believe Jesus involved water baptism in "born of the water and of the Spirit" propose baptismal regeneration. The point actually is that SOME who actually DO believe baptismal regeneration see no place of faith in all of this. Yes, they use this verse, but they claim FAITH is not involved with baptism in this reference.

But those of us who believe this is indeed speaking of water baptism, and are not baptismal regenerationists, claim that this water baptism is useless without faith. We believe that our obedience to be baptized is the work that makes "faith that works" a present reality. Our faith includes belief that God actually does a circumcision of the heart while we are baptized in water. The action of baptism is not the saving element, though. This is what we have been trying to say over and over again. Baptism is just the inseparable work that comes along with the "faith that works".

It's honestly a bit difficult to pin you down on this - and I haven't really even concerned myself with hanging any kind of tag on you anyway.

However: If some one were to say that water baptism is "essential" to the New Birth, then they are at least a "baptismal regenerationalist" in part and maybe in whole, such as the Campbellite groups.

Campbellites hold to the idea that God imparts the Spirit at the time a believer is baptized. They of course don't see "tongues" as an evidence of this. They do hold to the idea though, that the Holy Spirit comes upon an individual at the time of water baptism. This is perhaps one of the more extreme examples of baptismal regenerationalism in the Protestant world.

The RCC teaches that a "grace" is given with each sacrament bestowed by the Church. Baptism being one of those sacraments, a "grace" is bestowed that covers original sin (and sins that are "past" is the person is an adult) and "seals" the individual into the Body of Christ. There is much more, but the RCC practice isn't completely equivalent to the Campbellite doctrine. The Holy Spirit is "passed on" in the RCC directly through the laying on of hands from an ordained bishop who claims a direct apostolic descent from Jesus Christ and His apostles. It's sort of like a relay race with the Spirit of God in place of the baton. (This is one reason many bishops felt compelled to tolerate pedophile priests - because they need to whole system of "hand offs" intact for the Church to exist in the next generation. But that's a different matter).

So, those who do insist upon water baptism as a component or as the "complete package" of the New Birth (like the Campbellites) are to varying degrees, "baptismal regenerationalists."

Where you stand is completely up to you.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It's honestly a bit difficult to pin you down on this - and I haven't really even concerned myself with hanging any kind of tag on you anyway.

However: If some one were to say that water baptism is "essential" to the New Birth, then they are at least a "baptismal regenerationalist" in part and maybe in whole, such as the Campbellite groups.

Campbellites hold to the idea that God imparts the Spirit at the time a believer is baptized.

Thanks for your clarification. I honestly thought you were slurring me with accusations of catholic baptismal doctrine.

But I personally disagree entirely with your definition of what baptismal regeneration involves. And to prove it to you, which may throw another wrench altogether in your assessment of my thoughts... (Whatever... matters not to me.) let me say that my concept of baptism as part of salvation involves the all-important element of FAITH THAT WORKS. And I believe this so strongly, that if someone repented and agreed to be baptized, indicating to God a real and present "FAITH THAT WORKS" (God knows the intents of the heart), and such a person DIED before getting baptized, THAT PERSON IS SAVED.

And before you throw out a huge, YOU ARE A ONE STEPPER (!!) accusation, let me say that if the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.


Now, try to chew that one up and spit it out.

I think you agree, but the issue is far more complicated than good men like notofworks think it is.

People can throw around, "Yeah, but if God saw they WOULD get baptized, He would not allow them to die," or "God would send someone to a heart whom He knew would get baptized had they known of it." But I am not dealing with those sorts of hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals that concern the state of the heart and how God sees it in relation to the works that faith produces. I do not believe an iota of baptismal regeneration because it is done in that concept in order to to create faith.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Thanks for your clarification. I honestly thought you were slurring me with accusations of catholic baptismal doctrine.

But I personally disagree entirely with your definition of what baptismal regeneration involves. And to prove it to you, which may throw another wrench altogether in your assessment of my thoughts... (Whatever... matters not to me.) let me say that my concept of baptism as part of salvation involves the all-important element of FAITH THAT WORKS. And I believe this so strongly, that if someone repented and agreed to be baptized, indicating to God a real and present "FAITH THAT WORKS" (God knows the intents of the heart), and such a person DIED before getting baptized, THAT PERSON IS SAVED.

Yes, I remember your "guy who dies in the car" analogy now.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And before you throw out a huge, YOU ARE A ONE STEPPER (!!) accusation, let me say that if the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

Why does agreement have to be an "accusation?"

Originally Posted by mfblume

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.


Now, try to chew that one up and spit it out.

Say, for example, Apollos and the disciples of John? We don't know at what point they "dropped out" of the action that was going down in Israel at the time; but let's say John had communicated enough to them that they understood the coming Messiah was "The Lamb of God" who takes away the sin of the world..." Obviously whatever experience with water baptism that they had would be irrelevant to entering into the Christian community (I say this because Paul would later rebaptize them). So, they were "saved" - at least from the penalty of sin by their belief and repentance. If anyone had died in the car on the way to Ephesus, their eternal life was still secure?

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think you agree, but the issue is far more complicated than good men like notofworks think it is.

People can throw around, "Yeah, but if God saw they WOULD get baptized, He would not allow them to die," or "God would send someone to a heart whom He knew would get baptized had they known of it." But I am not dealing with those sorts of hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals that concern the state of the heart and how God sees it in relation to the works that faith produces. I do not believe an iota of baptismal regeneration because it is done in that concept in order to to create faith.

There is an element of predestination to all of our lives. Whoever is going to be saved is already saved in the foreknowledge of God. None of us will show up at the Supper and surprise our Host with our presence.

"Whoa! Mike and Pel made it?" says the Almighty. "I didn't see that one coming..."

I don't envision such a scene. Instead, I see a welcome prepared for our expected arrival. "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world!" Matthew 25:34.