Featured An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

I think what you fail to understand is that regeneration is inseparable from REVELATION of Jesus Christ which is the necessary object of faith. Hence, IF in infant baptism faith is given with regeneration there is given REVELATION of Jesus Christ that is the object of their faith. That is simply not true because every NATURAL born Child has no such knowledge and that is precisely why you place the baptized in catechism and then confirmation.

The New Covenant and all who are actually UNDER the New covenant KNOW God by this direct revelation and that is why they need no catechism in order to KNOW God and what is true of the greatest under this covenant is equally true of the "least" of them:

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jesus is referring to this very verse when speaking in John 6:44-45 as he explains what it means to be drawn by the Father so that you can come to the Son in faith. "EVERYONE" thus taught by God comes to Christ (Jn. 6:45) as the drawing is simply the divine side (regeneration) of the coming (faith).

No living infant is brought into the New Covenant beforem at, or in baptism because no living infant KNOWS God but must be taught to KNOW who God is and you call it catechism and confirmation. If they had been regenerated in baptism they would ALREADY KNOW God by direct revelation from God and that would be the object of their faith as direct revelation produces understanding.

 

I am not a Calvinist and I am not an Arminian (who believes he can lose his salvation). I fall into neither camp. I am one who believes the Bible and takes it at face value.

Yes, and until you come to the Biblical definition of "dead" you will forever be confused. "Dead" does not mean "as a corpse," not having any life. In the Bible "death" always means "separation."
In James it says "for the body when it is separated from the spirit is dead."
Death is separation. James describes physical death--a separation of body and spirit.
Spiritual death is the same: the separation of the spirit from God. It is separated by sin. "You has he made alive who were once dead in sin." It doesn't say that you were lifeless and once a corpse. That is your rendering. It means that you were separated from God by your sin. When you were saved God reconciled you to himself by taking care of your sin problem. That is what happens at salvation. Death is simply separation.
Eternal separation is when the sinner will be eternally separated from God in a place called Hell and eventually the Lake of Fire. Death is separation. He will live on in separation from God for all eternity. Death is separation.

So says your vain philosophy, but not the Bible. You haven't proved anything through the Scripture. You have only spouted off someone else's unbilblical philosophy which cannot be supported by scripture.

As I said, you will never understand the Scriptures in this respect until you come to a proper understanding of the word "dead." It does not mean "lifeless."
Here is an example for you.
God gave Adam and Eve a command: Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and evil. In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die. They would die the very day they would eat.
Adam rebelled. He ate of that tree. He died that day.
This dead man called Adam then communed with God. God searched him out and God carried out an audible conversation with this dead man. Obviously Adam was not lifeless. He was very much alive, both in his spirit and in his body. How was he then dead? How could he talk to God if he had already died? Please answer.
I will answer for you. His fellowship was broken. In that way he was dead--that is separated from God by sin. He wasn't lifeless as you define death, but separated from God's sweet fellowship that he had before. He needed to be reconciled back to God. God did that for him by sacrificing an animal and providing coats of skin. The blood that was shed was the first blood-sacrifice in the Bible. It brought them back into a right relationship with the Lord. However, that dead man Adam could still talk to God. It doesn't mean he was lifeless.

A man must believe in order to be saved. That was the command of Jesus, the command of Paul, the command of Peter, the command of the Holy Spirit who authored the Bible. Why do you dispute Him? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That is not a difficult verse to understand.

No, it is not a process. Sola fide. It is by faith in Christ.

 

You are simply digging your hole deeper. It is not the "word" that is ordained as the power of God to save but the word "of the gospel" that is made the creative word by the Holy Spirit to regenerate.

Furthermore, Lutheranism is fundementally ignorant of regeneration. Regeneration is not an internal cleansing and renewing by using Ajax or comet detergent or the waters of baptism or any other external cleanser.
The condition of the UNregenerate state is described in these words by Paul:


Eph. 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:


The unregenerate state is the LACK OF UNDERSTANDING and IGNORANT and BLIND condition of the mind and heart in spiritual darkness. This is the condition at BIRTH and continues until they are regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Regeneration is the reverse of the above description or state of unregeneration. Or read it this way:

"Having the understanding ENLIGHTENED, being brought into spiritual union with God through DIRECT REVELATION by God in them becuase of a new enlightend heart"

This is what Hebrew 4:2 refers to the mixing of faith with the gospel WITHIN them so that the conscious is cleansed from the guilt of sin because of the revelation of the good news of the gospel to the heart and mind. This is what Jesus said and meant when he told Peter that "flesh and blood hath not revealed this" to him but it was by direct revelation from the Father - that is regeneration.

This is why NNE under the New Covennt needs to be TAUGHT to "KNOW" God as regeneration IS THAT INSTRUCTION BY DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE REVELATION to the heart and mind that removes IGNORANCE of who God is and brings UNION between God and the elect through the KNOWLEGE of salvation provided by the creative word - the gospel which serves also as the object of faith.

In other words, regardless of the age of the elect regeneration produces UNDERSTANDING and KNOWLEGE of God because it is direct revelation of God to the elect.

Hence, the idea that "regeneration" or faith is imparted in baptism to infant elect is absurdly rediculous as all such infants must be TAUGHT the knowledge of God. Moreover, imparted "faith" that lacks understanding, comprehension or mental enlightenment is not faith in any Biblical sense.

 

No it is not! It is your failure to understand what I said and meant. Dying infants are given faith - MENTAL CAPACITY TO TRUST IN CHRIST WITH UNDERSTANDING but that does not occur in baptism of ANY living infants whether they are elect or non-elect as that must be TAUGHT them and that is precisely why you catechize and then confirm.

Dying infants do not need catechism or confirmation because regeneration IS the gift of MENTAL COMPREHENSION and KNOWLEGE of God and salvation as presented in the gospel directly and immediately to them by God.

My friend (DHK) is correct on his definition of spiritual "death" and Ephesians5:18 support his definition in the words "being alienated from THE LIFE OF GOD through IGNORANCE that is in them." The term "alienated" means SEPARATED. What separates us from the life of God is "IGNORANCE that is in them."

That "ignorance" is removed by DIRECT REVELATION from God to man through the Gospel as His CREATIVE word with power. Note Paul's description of his salvation:

Gal. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me,

He is comparing the first PHYSICAL birth with the second or NEW birth and define it as a REVELATION according to "WHEN" God was please to save him.

This revelation is by His creative word illustrated by Genesis 1:3 when God effectually called light out of darkness:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This occurs to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) when the gospel comes in power and NOT WORD ONLY (1 Thes. 1:5).

4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.


This is God's way of salvation in all the elect regardless of age and it is always the giving of KNOWLEGE with ABILITY to UNDERSTAND that knowledge thus reversing all the negative characteristics listed in Ephesians 4:18.

No living infant possesses this revelatory knowledge at baptism or thereafter but must be TAUGHT about God by parents (catechized) and only later confirmed by for the first time expressing personal faith.

This makes it impossible to occur in LIVING infants at baptism as no infant coming out of baptism comprehends or knows God in the face of jesus Christ but must be later TAUGHT this by men.

 

You are doing what characterizes all who embrace and teach error when confronted with evidence they cannot repudiate. You ignore the evidence, mock or ridicule the evidence, then repeat your errors and then say repent.

It is YOU that cannot respond to solid Biblical evidence but are intentionally ignoring and mocking what you cannot repudiate.

No, I would not kick you off. I would simply challenge you with the same Biblical evidence that you have chosen simply to mock and ridicule and ignorae rather than be a man and confront it honestly.

 

And all this from one who is only seeking the truth -- what a joke!

You call people here "brother", and then you turn around and lump them in with Mormons and JW's. And you don't just do that once but numerous times. And then you add the further insult and lie above that they/we are listening to the Devil!

It is you who are spewing false doctrines and backing them up with all kinds of vile charges and lies. The Anabaptist and Baptist movements were a RETURN to the New Testament and apostolic Christianity, not an invention of new doctrine as you so vainly and falsely assert.

If you think posting here is a waste of your time and energy, you needn't wait to get booted; you can leave of your own choosing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

But if you stay, don't ever again post the lie that you are here seeking to learn the truth.

You think your joining the LCMS is an escape from your fundamentalist Baptist upbringing, but it is not; you have merely exchanged one extremist error for a worse extremist error, trading one brand of fundamentalism for another with more and worse errors. So, instead of advancing, you have instead regressed from what you were previously.

 

That is about the most baloney I have seen in one post. Your understanding of Scripture and the Gospel is lacking to be nice about it. Have you ever read Eph 2:8-9?

Return to the one true catholic church? Since I did not come from there, do not believe I will bother to return. If I ever have a divine visit from Gabriel and he tells me to go through a priest to forgive me of my sins and pray to Mary, I might consider it.

Tell you what, I will take my chances with the Bible, and will let you take yours with whatever it is you are reading and smoking. There is not much common sense exhibited by a person who would come onto a Baptist forum and compare them to Mormoms and JWs, then again, it matches your theology.

 

We have proven that paedobaptism and regeneration of infants in baptism is a false doctrine:

1. No examples in the New Testament
2. No precepts that command infants to be baptized.
3. Repentance always precedes baptism and never follows - Mt. 3:8; Acts 2:38
4. Precepts that contradict baptismal regeneration - 1 Cor. 1:17-18
5. Circumcision is not sacramental - Rom. 4:11
6. Evangelization precedes baptism - Mt.28:19; Acts 2:40
7. New covenant demands "the least" need no man to teach them to "know" God but sacramentalist do need to catechize and confirm.
8. Baptism does remit sins, save, regenerate but not literally - Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 4:11

Our Lutheran friend was not honest in his repeated affirmation that he was open to scriptural evidences that prove him wrong. He was proven wrong in every text he presented.

 

I am all for allowing different points of view from other faiths, however, it seems some forget where they are, a Baptist forum. If they want to disagree on baptism or election, and discuss it, fine. When they call for us to "return to the one catholic holy church," and compare us to Mormons and JWs, IMO, the line has been crossed.

 

Yep! His intent was clearly an attempt to proselyte. I agree with you, we cannot "return" to something we never were a part of. Besides the Bible calls on those who are in the Old Babylonian Harlot to "come out of her" not return to her.

 

2 things...

can God regenerate a sinner apart from faith in jesus by that person?

Goes grant grant the Spirit to the person thru the water baptism itself or not?

 

May I, another Lutheran, add my $.02 to a subset of the above?

We have proven that paedobaptism and regeneration of infants in baptism is a false doctrine:

1. No examples in the New Testament
How do you know that? Entire households were baptized on a number of occasions. Aren't babies and small children part of households ... especially the extended households of Roman times that even included slaves? On Pentecost, Peter specifically included children in the promise of forgiveness of sins through repentance-baptism.
2. No precepts that command infants to be baptized.
"Therefore go and disciple the nations, baptizing them ... and teaching them."
8. Baptism does remit sins, save, regenerate but not literally - Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 4:11.
Really? How can baptism remit, save, and regenerate figuratively? Where, where, where does Scripture speak of symbolic forgiveness, symbolic granting of faith, symbolic justificaction, symbolic grace? There are symbols "of" these things, but nowhere is the promise of grace, forgiveness, new life, or justification itself symbolic.

This discussion has gotten where they generally have for 500 years and more. You insist on seeing baptism as a human act, and therefore you are horrified by the idea that it could be a saving act. Scripture and Lutherans see baptism as a divine act.

Let's start where I hope you'd agree: Preaching the Word of God is a divine act. The human being is involved, speaking, etc., but to the degree his words are God's Word, God himself is speaking to us, using a human being as a microphone, if you will. The Spirit of God himself is speaking every time the Word of God is uttered, even by an evil man like Caiphas. (John 11:49-51, 1 Thess. 2:13).

Lutherans teach with Scripture that in a similar way, Baptism is a divine act, something God himself is doing through a human instrument. That's really what a "sacrament" is, and that is why early Lutherans were willing to call absolution a 3rd sacrament -- this was later changed in that a "sacrament" is defined as involving a physical element joined with God's word, which absolution lacks. But the point is, Baptism saves precisely because it is an act of the gracious God. Saving us is something God does, from first to last. We are saved "by grace alone," and nowhere does this become more evident than in infant baptism.

What does a baby have to offer God? Nothing. What does the baby do to merit grace? Nothing. What can the baby do for God? Nothing. The baby does nothing, God does everything. That is grace.

I'll end with one more thought. The term "born again" is thrown about so frequently I think it has lost exactly what Jesus originally intended it to convey. Being born is a purely passive event. I didn't "get myself born," rather, my mother "gave birth" to me. If I claim to have done any of the labor, my mother will be quite cross with me; she's the one who was in labor and did all the work, did all the doing. "So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Grace, and grace alone.

So the Biblicist can fume and mutter and lack all the behaviors of a Christian gentleman, the fact remains that Lutherans are not work-righteous because we believe that in baptism God is working. And I assume there are some others who might spew less vitriol and be more interested in learning.

m00tpoint

 

I suggest you go back and review the discussion, as your points have already been fully addressed and your Lutheran friend was unable to respond.

 

You are following in the footsteps of your friend. When he could not respond with substance he fled to name calling and insults. However, when you can't respond to the evidence, that is about all you have left for protection.

 

This summary statement has been fully developed previously and your friend could not respond. The words "sign" and "seal" are used in Romans 4:11 to describe an external divine rite in its connection with justificaiton by faith.

Abraham is set forth as the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH and thus the standard both here in Romans 4 and in Galatians 3:6-8 both of which deal with the very same issue - Justification by faith without works.

I have given an entire post to defining the Biblical value of a "sign" or "symbol." You can go back and read it but here is the summation - The value of a "sign" or "symbol" is found in its correct or proper external administration as the design of a "sign" is to visibly communicate certain truth(s). Distort the administration and you distort the truth it is designed to convey.

Baptism is explicitly called a "figure" (1 Peter. 3:21) that is "like" another figure found in the Old Testament both of which are designed to communicate "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Only baptism by immersion can externally communicate such a truth (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3 "buried").

 

He'd find it easier to respond to your statements had he not been banned from the site. Nor does silencing someone by repeating the same verbiage repeatedly (what I see in the thread) mean you have "won" an argument. Since I have no interest in arguing with you, I'll leave it at that unless others would be interested in picking up this discussion.