Featured Baptismal regeneration

Scripture teaches that regeneration precedes faith and only believers are baptised, so much for padeobaptism.

 

If only believers are baptised, what more has the Holy Spirit need to do if the person is already saved before he/she is baptised??

 

Baby baptism is a false hope it's a myth.

Baby baptism is a relic of popery, it should have been nipped at the bud a long time ago. I don't understand how padeobaptists can be so blatantly blind, there is not one single verse in the entire canon of 66 books to support baby baptism.

 

IF your first premise were true, then, yes, it would seem that "all of the above" would make "no sense". :smilewinkgrin:

 

What did Jesus say to Nicodemus?? Why wasn't Nicodemus able to make himself regenerated or born again? He should have been able to do that after hearing from the worlds best teacher.

 

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus was talking about baptism. Nicodemus would have understood it to be baptism. The ancient church understood it to be baptism. In all of history no commentator ever understood to be anything other than baptism until about 500 years ago.

 

First, GOD is the one who regenerates--I don't think anyone on here has argued otherwise. Second, although your argumentation may seem compelling to you personally, there is nothing in your above comments/rhetorical questions that establish the truthfulness of the premise, 'Regeneration has to precede faith'.

Now I would agree that the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus certainly does have bearing on the discussion which is the topic of this thread, but probably not in the manner that you suspect.

 

Indeed. MF Sadler in his book "THE SECOND ADAM AND THE NEW BIRTH" makes this same point in the early chapters--I highly recommend this book for anyone who is sincerely open to reading a reasoned and Scriptural defense of 'baptismal regeneration' and it's relationship to faith, election, etc. :thumbs:

And with this recommendation, I'll officially leave the discussion*. :wavey:

(*Especially since it now seems a certain poster is determined to turn this into another thread about Calvinism)

 

God's grace to the thief on the cross came without baptism.

Baptism is symbolic. It has no part in salvation.

But baptizing babies does make the parents feel better.

 

An interesting term to surf: alien immersion. See also: scriptural baptism.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Now that's another good discussion.

My church requires baptism in a true New Testament church for membership. I was baptized in Worcester, Mass, and moved to Missoula, gave the preacher there my credentials from new England, and granted membership. No re-baptism.

And scriptural baptism is simple.



1-You believe, AND repent, before being baptized. Matt.3:1-6
2-The word comes from the Greek baptizo, which means to plunge. We are symbolizing the death and resurrection of Christ, being literally buried with him. Romans 6:4. Immersion is the only biblical method of baptizing.
3-Only the blood of Christ can wash away sin. A human being cannot impart forgiveness or salvation to anyone, by any method. That reduces infant baptism to an empty ritual, meaning nothing.
4-Jesus never baptized anyone. He gave that power to his disciples. Scriptural authority to baptize can only come from Christ.

 

Thomas, you say man regenerates himself by making a free will choice. I think you also believe that faith is a self righteous act of man.

 

Wrong on both counts (but thanks for playing :applause: ). Your false statement about what I have written and your false presumption about what I believe both confirm that my suspicion--that debating this with you would be fruitless--was correct. :thumbs:

 

There's been no uncivil posts in this thread.

 

Thomas, is that another way of saying you have no answers, and just want to protect your free will idol and mans sovereignty? Think about it, if you say man is able to embrace the gospel before he is regenerated then you are preaching the heresy of Pelagianism.

 

No, it simply means I can't have a meaningful discussion with one who: (1) falsely accuses me of stating something I haven't actually stated (which any objective reader here can see is the case) or believing something that I don't actually believe; (2) who casts such ridiculous aspersions as "free will idol" and "mans (sic) sovereignty" at those who disagree with his (obviously) narrow neo-Calvinist viewpoint; and (3) who doesn't seem to have the foggiest clue as to what the historical "heresy of Pelagianism" really was, particularly given the fact that the great opponent of Pelagianism, Augustine of Hippo, was a proponent of baptismal regeneration.

You see, I've debated your type before, and it seems based on your talking points, that the neo-Calvinists have trained you well. It's not that I have no answers--it's that I've spent more than enough time in these debates to know that my answers will fall on the deaf ears of one like yourself who's content on slandering those who disagree with him, as evidenced by (1), (2), and (3) above. I have repeatedly read the false charges from the Calvinistas of "Pelagian", "semi-Pelagian", "man-centered salvation", "free will idol", etc, towards any who disagree with them ad nauseam for years now, to the point where I recognize the futility of engaging in debate with those who predictably follow the same script. However, such false charges (whether from you or them), far from being somehow decisive by their mere utterance, show instead an appalling ignorance of what their opponent actually believes as well as an utter lack of willingness to fairly characterize the other side with whom they are debating. This is especially ironic since the Calvinists always seem to be the ones quickest to complain that those who disagree with them "just don't understand Calvinism".

But, hey..thanks again for confirming my suspicion and proving my point. :thumbs:

(Congrats on officially derailing the thread :applause: )

 

DT, one of the Calvinists here once accused me of being semi-Pelagian. Does that mean I'm only half as bad as you?

 

Yeah, I think so. You need to work harder so you can be accused of being a full-fledged Pelagian like me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I guess it comes down to how many books you read, written by folks who purport to know what the Bible left out.