Baptismal regeneration....

OK. Who were the Christians from 100-1100 who did care about Scripture and who were doing what God wanted to keep the church on track? (There must be an answer to this unless we accept that the gates of hell did prevail until the 1640's.)

OK. Who were the Christians from 100-1100 who did not bow to these innovations? (Same gates-of-hell rational as above.)

On what basis can we maintain that the people who lived closer to the NT time period and in that part of the world did not understand that period and area?

Amen.

A nobel sentiment to be sure, but we are all influenced by the opinions of others. I appealed to men who lived about 100-200 years after the apostles. You appealed to men who lived 2000 years later. The trick is how to discern if I am hearing the voice of God, or the clang of my personal likes, dislikes, fears, and aspirations.

CA

 

How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life?

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?

By baptism (Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)?

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?

By works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)?

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit? These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They’re all involved in salvation. One shouldn’t divide these various elements of salvation up, overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather we should hold them all in their fullness

-

 

You appeal to opinions. I appeal to factual data. Ancient people did certain things; ancient people had certain views; Greek words/verb tenses meant certain specific things.

Now, as far as documenting inconsistencies with Scripture. 1 Peter 3:21 refers to Noah’s Flood and relates baptism to it as so: “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,| not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a |clear conscience” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952); the passage indicates that where there is no repentance for baptism to represent, there is no baptism.

By the turn at the beginning of the 200's, people were baptizing infants, who know nothing of the Gospel, let alone to respond to it.

. In c. 100 C. E., the Didache in chapter 7 has “pour” as a second-rate alternative to baptism, and calls for a delay of baptism for at least one full day to “fast” = not eat:

“Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize `in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times `in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.” ​

The baptism was to be “in” water as immersion, with pouring as a viable alternative when enough water is not available. Further, the baptism involved a delay of at least one full day.

The Greek word transliterated "baptize/baptism" means immersion, per common knowledge. In Scripture, baptism was commanded. Nowhere in Scripture are we encouraged to delay obedience to the Lord.

The church is very simply the collective body of followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus said at Matthew 16:15-8 that "and the gates of death will not overcome it" (TNIV). The church will never be snuffed out, and every follower of Jesus Christ will live forever. This will be in spite of our imperfections.

 

Emphasis mine:

No one has yet to prove that those passages you cite as requiring baptism mean that baptism is required to be saved. You are assuming what has to be proven.

You will find out, digging through past posts of mine on this thread, that those verses do not. I have amply shown that. There is no contradiction against Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

So I take it you don't disagree with the other 10 items...only the one that conflict with your interpretation?
-

 

OK. Who were the Christians groups from 100-1100AD who also appealed to factual data instead of opinions?

CA

 

Darron,

Much of the discussion about what the Bible says concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration seems to center on what words and phrases meant in the original Greek of the New Testament.

I'd like to point out that...

Hippolytus (170-236AD) was Greek.
Tertullian (145-220AD) quoted mostly from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible.
Justin (110-165AD) wrote The Discourse to the Greeks and Hortatory Address to the Greeks.

Thus, I think it's a pretty good bet that they understood what the New Testament is saying, in Greek, when the topic is baptism.

CA

 

You keep appealing to these men. I just do not get it. I appeal to facts, and document the sources of those facts to give credit.

I prefer to work closer to the Scriptures than these post-apostolic gentlemen and their contemporaries did.

You are not dealing with passages of Scripture directly, and seem desperate to get me to step away from doing so also.

These efforts to do so suggest that you doubt dealing directly with Scripture will support your belief. Of course, I know by actually doing it that that dealing directly with passages of Scripture will work against your belief.

 

I disagree only with the items of your list that conflict with SCRIPTURE. Whatever Scripture teaches, I agree with.

The passages you cited as favoring `salvation by completed baptism,' in opposition to Ephesians 2:8-10, have already been addressed, and how the New Testament churches would have understood them explained. These passages do not favor this error. Contrary to how these passages are often misused, they do not negate Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

Agnus Dei:

"Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another."

GE:

But one only includes all others, the Holy Spirit. From initiation to beginning to end, if not for the Holy Spirit, nothing will come of salvation; since if not for Jesus Christ, nothing had come of salvation.

 

To All,

bmerr here. As I skimmed the posts thus far, I didn't notice anyone bringing up Rom 6:17-18. (This is from memory, so I won't qut it in quotation marks.)

But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you:
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I think that's pretty close. Anyway, what do you all think Paul meant when he said they had "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered" to them?

Two questions:

1. What doctrine was delivered to them?

2. What is a form of that doctrine?

Whatever it was, it was at the point of their obedience that they were made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness.

Whaddaya think?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Answers to questions 1-2 is Romans 10:8 "the word of faith, which we preach" (ASV).

As for whether they were saved upon obeying that doctrine: yes, and only then.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38252&page=11 #106 talks about this.

Mman brought up: "If you would continue reading you would read, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." - Jn 3:36

I agreed. I believe that this verse makes a good pair with Acts 16:31b “‘Believe on the Lord Jesus|, and you will be saved’” (ASV|NASB). When we genuinely believe Jesus to be Lord, we submit our wills to His in obedience.

However, Church of Christ people typically equate obedience with completed action. That is incorrect. Obedience is the submission of will.

The examples of Abraham at James 2:21-3 and of the lepers at Luke 17:12-9 testify to this. Posts #97 and #101 addressed these. Abraham did not finish his commanded sacrifice because Isaac lived, and the lepers were healed before they ever got to the priests as commanded. These people had not completed their commanded actions, but they were obedient, and had approved faith.

Acts 15:8 has “And God, who knows all hearts, gave them evidence by granting them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us” and 15:9b “He cleansed their hearts by faith” (NBV). God does not need us to complete acts to be external signs for Him to know faith; He knows the heart and acts on it. In fact, in this case it was He Who gave the evidence for others.

 

Darron,

bmerr here. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac. He did. That is obedience, which completes faith and saves.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. God does know the hearts of men. He knows this by what man does.

Gen 22:12 says, ...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thine only son from me.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Wasn't Abraham reckoned as Righteous before the Circumcision, before even Isaac wasn't born ?

Read Romans 4:10

 

Wow! That was creative. There was no doubt in Abraham's mind that this meant that to "offer" Isaac meant to kill him.

Genesis 22:2 says "offer him there as a burnt offering" (JPS 1985).

Isaac was not even killed, let alone burned. So again, the example of James 2:21-3 citing this example as an example of approved faith shows that obedience is not necessarily completed works.

Like at Luke 17:12-9, approved faith and obedience is not completed works. Obedience is submission of will, and that is approved faith.

 

True.

The Gospel worked in the OT as it does in the New.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where I to say that you are preaching a different gospel; what, in general, would be your defense?

Appealing to Scripture doesn't seem like it will work since Pentacostals appeal to the Bible for the gift of tongues, Espicopalians appeal to the Bible for acceptance of homosexuality, and television evangelists appeal to the Bible for the prosperity gospel.

The only appeal that would seem to work iss an appeal to history. The church having taught a particular idea from the earliest days would seem to be a reasonable defense. They believed it then, so we should believe it now.

Your thoughts?

CA

 

Emphases mine:

According to the Scriptures, I am not -- but you might be.

I get what I believe from Scripture, not history.

Evidently, according to Scripture, when the passages are interpreted in the way the New Testament-era Christians would have understood them, the church did not teach `salvation by completed baptism.' How better to get the teachings of the "earliest days" than by their documents = the New Testament? I think that is the best way.

Now, going to the Word of God, I return to a passage you have not attempted to reconcile with your view:

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).​

Passages linking baptism to salvation and Christian conversion do not conflict with this passage when understood how the New Testament-era Christians would have understood them, as I have already shown.

Is baptism subsequent to faith? Yes. Is baptism something that we DO subsequent to faith? Yes.

Again, it is very simple: if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

 

It is the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" according to 1 Peter 3 that forms the saving transaction connected to baptism. That means that the Romans 10 sequence is correct - with the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess - resulting in salvation.