Baptismal Regeneration?

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

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

Thank you sir.
But I'll freely admit that some days it's fairly easy; other days...well, not so much!

[bkstokes]

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.