The Need of the New Birth

[ViaCrucis]

I believe mostly according to this, with the exception of Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - rather, every instance of water Baptism in Acts is done in the name of Jesus, who actually IS the embodiment of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence, the NAME of, which is singular, not plural. (Father & Son being titles, Holy Spirit being Holy Spirit)
"The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

This is bad Trinitarian theology and amounts to a confession of Modalism. The singular name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is, well, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are not titles, but Persons. The Father is not a title, He is the Father of the Son. The Son is not a title, He is the Son of the Father. The Holy Spirit is not a title, He is the Divine and Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son.

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is incorrect. The Didache bears witness to the first century use of the Trinitarian formula in Holy Baptism. "In the name of Jesus" or "In the name of the Lord Jesus" isn't formulaic; it is about authority. Christian Baptism rather than some other baptism (e.g. John's baptism). Christian Baptism is by the authority of Christ who commanded His Church to baptize. We don't have, in the Acts of the Apostles, a detailed description of how to perform baptism, only descriptions of people being baptized. The Baptism is by Christ's name--His authority; texts like the Didache and all other early Christian works when talking about how to actually perform the baptismal rite consistently speak of the Triune formula.

From The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,

"Chapter 28

Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

1 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church a to the end of the world. (a Mat 28:19-20; 1Co 11:26)

2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according b to the commission of Christ.

(b Mat 28:19; 1Co 4:1)

Chapter 29

Of Baptism

1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (a Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27; b Mar 1:4; Act 22:16; c Rom 6:4)
2 Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (d Mar 16:16; Act 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8)

3 The outward element to be used in this ordinance eis water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ( e Mat 28:19-20; Act 8:38)

4 Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Mat 3:16; Joh 3:23)

Chapter 30

Of the Lord’s Supper

1 The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe to him; band to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

(a 1Co 11:23-26; b 1Co 10:16-17,21)

2 In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that cone offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all d possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. (c Heb 9:25-26,28; d 1Co 11:24; Mat 26:26-27)

3 The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, eand, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants. (e 1Co 11:23-26, etc.)

4 The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, fare all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ. (f Mat 26:26-28; 15:9; Exo 20:4-5)

5 The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the g body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only h bread and wine, as they were before. (g 1Co 11:27; h 1Co 11:26,28)

6 That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

(iAct 3:21; Luk 24:6,39; k 1Co 11:24-25)

7 Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, land all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

(l 1Co 10:16; 11:23-26)

8 All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, nor be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

(m 2Co 6:14-15; n 1Co 11:29; Mat 7:6)

[This shows the simple details about the Baptismal formula]:

History of Baptism in Jesus' Name

By the way, I DO believe in the Trinity, or the three in One of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - of whom each has specific attributes, yet all are God. 1 John 5:7 KJV
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
(Which will not appear in many modern corrupted translations)

The testimony of the Holy and Christian Church from the time of the Apostles until today is that Baptism is the precious and holy sacrament by which we, ordinarily, receive new birth, as written in Holy Scripture, c.f. John 3:3-5 and Titus 3:5.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What people should do instead is to consult documents which actually are authoritative and current, such as the freely available Catechism of the Catholic Church and other official documents published on vatican.va.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the various teachings of the Church and serves as a source for Catholic dogmatic instruction, yet it itself is not the dogmatic teaching of the Church. The Church's dogmas are contained in the decrees of councils, and the dogmatic definitions of the popes.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the various teachings of the Church and serves as a source for Catholic dogmatic instruction, yet it itself is not the dogmatic teaching of the Church. The Church's dogmas are contained in the decrees of councils, and the dogmatic definitions of the popes.

Indeed, I am aware of that. It is the same with the Orthodox, except to the extent that much of our dogmatic definitions are contained within the worship services of the Church, such as the Divine Liturgy (the Eucharist), the Divine Office / liturgy of the hours, the proper hymns and prayers for Lent, Holy Week, Pascha (Easter Sunday), Bright Week (the week after Easter Sunday) and the remainder of the Pentecostarion (which includes what in the West is called Eastertide and Ascension and Ascensiontide, but for us is often called the Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, following its original Jewish name, which culminates in Pentecost Sunday when the descent of the Holy Spirit is commemorated, and Pentecost Monday, which is the 49th day and the last day of the seven week Feast, and the Pentecostarion also includes All Saints Day, which is the sunday following Pentecost Sunday, since in the Byzantine Rite used by the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches, the feast of Pentecost is also the principal feast of the Holy Trinity, as opposed to this being celebrated on a second feast of Trinity Sunday (just as how prior to the fourth century, and even today in the Armenian church, Theophany, the Baptism of our Lord, and the Nativity of our Lord, were and are celebrated on the same day, which in the Armenian church conveniently corresponds to Christmas Eve on the Julian Calendar, except in Jerusalem where it is on January 18th. And still more dogma is contained in the fixed feasts that we celebrate throughout the year, such as the Feast of the Nativity, the Transfiguration, the Elevation of the Cross, and so on; the Eastern, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian dates for the feasts largely correspond to their dates in the traditional Roman Rite and in the Gallican liturgies, such as the Mozarabic Rite and the Ambrosian Rite, as well as various Protestant derivatives, such as the Anglican and Lutheran liturgies, with some exceptions, for example, a very large number of Protestant churches have moved the feast of the Transfiguration from the correct date of observance on August 6th to the last Sunday before Lent, which I highly object to, because among other things, it wrecks the pre-Lenten season which is a traditional part of the Roman and Byzantine Rites, specifically obstructing Septuagesima, Sexegesima and Quinquagesima, and it also contributes to a phenomenon in many Protestant churches where the main choir is on vacation in the summer and during the summer there are no significant liturgical events and everything becomes somewhat watered down, whereas in Orthodoxy it is very important to us that liturgy in the summer is full tilt. Additionally, the Typikon, which is similar to the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, in that it is a book of directions for how to celebrate the divine services, that has the effect of ordering and arranging these services throughout the year, and which can vary a bit between jurisdictions even when the traditional Sabaite Typikon is used, rather than the messier Violakis Typikon used by the Antiochian Orthodox and most of the Greek Orthodox (except, as far as I am aware, on Mount Athos, the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and the autonomous Church of Sinai under the aegis of the Hagiopolitan church, which consists primarily of the monastery of St. Catharine’s of Sinai, from which the ancient Biblical manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, was stolen by a Western European adventurer who sold half of it to the British Library, and another half to the Russians, after asking to borrow the manuscript so he could study it, and failing to return it. St. Catharine’s is also home to the bush on which the Holy Spirit appeared to St. Moses the Prophet as a fire that did not harm the bush, and indeed the once-burning bush is thriving and beautiful.

The Armenian orthodox have a similiar document to the Typikon called the Directory, but as far as I am aware the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox do not (perhaps @dzheremi might know) but rather rely on rubrics within their service books. Part of the reason why the Typikon is necessary is because the books containing the propers for the fixed holy days (the Menaion), the hymns based on the tone of the week (the Octoechos) and the hymns for Lent and Holy Week (the Triodion) and the Pentecostarion, are somewhat lacking in instructions on how to order the services, and indeed there are different positions on this (the ordinary of the liturgies is defined in the Horologion for the Divine Office, the Liturgikon or Sluzhbenik for the Divine Liturgies, and the Euchologion or Trebnik (“Book of Needs”) for other sacraments such as baptism, Holy Unction, Holy Matrimony, ordination, as well as other services such as funerals, and blessings such as The Great Blessing of Water performed on Theophany). However, there are abbreviations that are normally followed, for example, with All Night Vigils, so that it takes two and half hours rather than ten hours if done without abbreviation (only in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchre, and on Mount Athos, and in some Russian Old Believer communities, would one likely experience that intense a service; likewise in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Ethiopians have all night services, indeed, on major feast days they are known for having 24 hour services, albeit that contain a meal break).

Now in Anglicanism, unlike Lutheranism or the Calvinist churches, there are no dogmatic definitions of faith, nor is there a Book of Concord, rather, the Book of Common Prayer traditionally contained the entirety of Anglican doctrinal definitions, including the 39 Articles, the Creeds and the Catechism, as well as the Propers for various Sundays and Holy Days throughout the year, and the content of the Sacraments and the Divine Office. In this respect Anglicanism went a step beyond Orthodoxy, in that in Orthodoxy, our doctrine is substantially defined in the liturgy, but also exists in the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils and in the Nicene Creed and certain other texts. The problem in Anglicanism is that recent editions of the Book of Common Prayer no longer agree with each other theologically, a problem that has only been exacerbated as some provinces have been taken over by liberal postmodern theology and capitulated on issues relating to human sexuality. Like sense, common prayer isn’t so common any more.

Not that I would object to different provinces having different versions of the BCP based on their needs, but there is a need to ensure doctrinal commonality, and the changes that have been allowed to happen to Anglican doctrine since the 1940s, when we started to see the emergence of a liberal theological movement, which became quite intense in the Episcopal Church in the 1960s under Bishop James Pike with his infamous call for “Fewer beliefs and more belief” and his deprecation of the Trinity and other essential doctrines, and the disastrous failure of the bishops to convict him at the trial convened after he was properly charged with heresy (ironically I don’t think Bishop Pike would likely agree with the ChristianForums Statement of Faith given his interest in Gnosticism, but we will never know, since he tragically died of dehydration while driving around in the deserts of Israel without proper provisions or preparation looking for evidence of “the Historical Jesus” (which often translates to looking for evidence to contradict the Gospels or traditional Christian doctrine), but miraculously his wife survived and was rescued by Bedouins if I recall.

This event prompted Philip K Dick, a noted and talented science fiction writer who was a close friend of James Pike, who also had an interest in early Christians and also some peculiar Gnostic beliefs including a belief that an alien satellite called VALIS, or connected to VALIS, was communicating with him using a pink laser beam (the subject of his books Radio Free Albemuth and VALIS) wrote his final book, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, in which the titular character, who was James Pike but with a fictional name, was reincarnated in the body of a four year old girl. So that was a bit of an unusual incident.

The schisms that led to the emergence of the more doctrinally consistent and orthodox Continuing Anglican churches and the Global South and ACNA would not have happened had it not been for this liberal movement in Anglicanism going unchecked.

 

[d taylor]

I would literally ask the same question of you, except to do so would be to engage in an Argumentum ad Hominem combined with a an Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and also a non-sequitur (which is not a great way to begin an argument), since you seem to think your view is the only possible “Simple Bible Teaching,” when in reality Sola Scriptura Christians do not agree on this subject at all.

Thus, we find the fallacy of Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and this becomes particularly unpleasant when coupled with the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy directed not only at myself, but at the very large number of Christians, well over a billion, who reject the credobaptist position, and who instead believe in baptismal regeneration (that baptism is the means of being born again), a group including 290 million from my own denomination (which is presently the second largest denominational, and the other top 5 groupings (Roman Catholicism, and then Anglicanism in the no. 3 position with 120 million, followed by Lutheranism with I think around 90 million and Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian churches) with around 74 million, as well as the approximately 60 million members of the Oriental Orthodox communion and the 1.5 million members of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, both the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches having endured such terrible persecution in recent years from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, along with the Antiochian Orthodox Church (which is Eastern Orthodox).

At any rate, you claim to only be following the Bible, but numerous other Christians who very definitely were only following Scripture, for example, Karl Barth, and the Congregationalists of New England such as Jonathan Edward, and the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland and in Ireland and North America, came to completely different conclusions regarding baptism and infant baptism. Indeed my Reformed friend @bbbbbbb rejects infant baptism.

So it is clear that your interpretation of Scripture is not as obvious as you suggest, but rather, this claim constitutes a non-sequitur.



Now, as a Christian presbyter, I am required to know the contents of the Gospels, and thus were it not Lent and were I not charitably disposed I might take offense at your suggestion that I “go back and read John 3”, particularly considering that in your post you failed to address John ch. 3 v. 5, which becomes something of an elephant in the room with respect to your argument. This constitutes eisegesis and is also another non-sequitur, and also an ad hominem insofar as your argument implies that I am unfamiliar with the third chapter of The Gospel According to St. John the Theologian.

Ergo, the manner in which you present your supposed “simple Scriptural truth” depends on a selective eisegesis rather than the proper exegesis of the entire New Testament text, since you are relying on individual proof texts in isolation, and even appear to be glossing over portions of those proof texts that could undermine your position:



As noted previously in all of the above, you fail to quote John 3 verse 5. What is more, your conclusions about what is meant by the dialogue with St. Nicodemus are Non-Sequiturs, and also constitutes a Reduction Fallacy insofar as you admit only one possible interpretation of the text, which is clearly not the case.

Christ our True God, in John 3:5 very clearly says that we must be born again of Water and the Spirit. This text, we believe, refers to Baptism. In addition, we have 1 John 5:7-9, and numerous other texts, as well as the narratives of the Baptism of our Lord in the Jordan.

This is not inconsistent with John 3:16 or the Dialogue with St. Nicodemus; on the contrary, the doctrinal position of those churches such as mine which hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that those who believe in our Lord will be saved, but their salvation requires the pursuit of being born again in the baptismal font, because Christ teaches the neccessity of baptism, and baptism is obviously the second birth, in that in baptism, what St. Paul describes as the “old man” is put to death, as St. Paul teaches is necessary, and the “new man” emerges from the font.

It is also clear that the text in question is compatible with our interpretation (which as a matter of historical record is also the only documented Patristic interpretation of the text in question), which is why I assert that your insistence this text contradicts baptismal regeneration is both a non-sequitur and a reduction fallacy. Now, I don’t believe that the text in question is compatible with the credobaptist position, however, the risk of a reduction fallacy becomes great when one says that a text must not mean X but rather can only mean Y, when a very large number of people believe it means X, and indeed, St. Irenaeus of Lyons argued that the Bible can be interpreted in different and incorrect ways, and likened this to rearranging the pieces of a mosaic that depicted a King, so that the mosaic would depict a dog or a fox. For this reason, I normally refrain from accusing Calvinism of being unscriptural, even though I no longer subscribe to it (although I am sympathetic towards it and like many Calvinist churches), because it is clear to me that for the most part, the text supports a Calvinist interpretation, and so if I were to assert that the scriptural text itself was contrary to all of Calvinism and all subsequent developments of Reformed and Presbyterian theology, this would constitute a serious reduction fallacy and consequently, a logical non-sequitur. In the case of the Credobaptist position, I am less hesitant to categorize it as contrary to scripture, but am reticent to make such an argument publically, lest it appear to Credobaptists that I am engaging in a reduction fallacy and concomitant non-sequitur by virtue of dismissing outright the logical integrity of their scriptural interpretation.

To put it another way, it is not logical to assert that there is only one possible interpretation of the Holy Bible, but one can assert that a given interpretation is superior to other interpretations. I myself regard continuity with the writings of the Apostolic and Nicene Fathers and also the shared faith of the traditional liturgical churches to be a good way to do that.

So, in summary, the argument you made opens with an ad simplicitatem fallacy combined with an ad hominem fallacy and continues with a non-sequitur, and then employs scriptural eisegesis and a reduction fallacy, and can thus be rejected as invalid both in terms of logic and hermeneutical consistency. Additionally, it suffers from being delivered in a manner that is deeply disrespectful towards the faith of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, Methodists, Assyrians, Moravians, and Roman Catholics, and all other churches, denominations, communions and denominational groupings that accept, in whole or in part, either the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and/or the baptism of infants.

+

By the way, I want to make it clear that my argument here is specifically a rejection of your criticism of my faith and your argument to the extent that only the position you adhere to is the simple and obvious teaching of the Bible, which in my view is very obviously not the case, and furthermore the manner in which you delivered the argument was patronizing and condescending and would have caused offense to many members of ChristianForums. The reason furthermore I am specifically seeking to refute your argument is one based in loving charity, because I believe you are unaware as to how your argument came across, and obviously you would not want to cause offense, which is a risk when making such an argument, and attacking someone’s faith in such a severe manner, and also with such eisegetical and fallacious arguments.

Thus, in seeking to refute your argument, I am not seeking to undermine the faith of all Baptist members of the forum. Indeed, one of my direct ancestors was the first baptist minister in America, and I get along very well with a number of traditional Baptists who are well educated with regards to Scripture, for example, my pious colleague @Der Alte , who is a Baptist minister I greatly respect despite disagreeing with him on this issue, but in his case I regard it as an extremely minor disagreement, since the fact that we disagree over baptism has never caused animosity. Likewise I regard the Southern Baptist divine* Dr. Albert Mohler as the foremost teacher of moral theology in Western Christianity since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in 2007, following a severe heart attack after Christmas in 2006. I did have the pleasure of seeing Dr. Kennedy preach in person, and he was immensely talented at homiletics, and the liturgical music at his church was exquisite. Dr. Albert Mohler I have not encountered in person, but I should love to see him preach at some point, and I greatly respect his work, particularly in opposition to abortion and sexual immorality.

I am Free Grace Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I am Free Grace Grace Evangelical Society

I looked at that. You may be interested in this thread I posted

Canons of Dort

(Usually I do not gravitate to Canons, Creeds, Statements of Faith just for the sake of reading them, unless it's to explore a specific church's beliefs. However, as I was looking up the booklet "Faith No Fancy" on Chapel Library website I spotted a number of books, including "The Canons of...

www.christianforums.com

I agree with most of the GES, except for head faith and heart faith. There is a "faith" that does not save, (James 2:19, Luke 8:13, 1 John 2:4 & 3:2-10) for it bears no fruits, and by their fruits ye shall know them, as Jesus said.
Also, as far as the rapture: watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is. (Mark 13:33) While scripture seems to indicate it might be before or in the beginning of the tribulation, nothing at all says the tribulation cannot start till believers are taken away. (Luke 21:28 & 36)
1 Thess. 5:9 is used out of context to support pretrib teaching.

If I were to take a denominational stand, I'm a Messianic BaptaMethodCostal.
But I am rather, a follower of Jesus Christ, chosen of Him to walk in His Word and the Fathers will.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

much of our dogmatic definitions are contained within the worship services of the Church, such as the Divine Liturgy (the Eucharist), the Divine Office / liturgy of the hours, the proper hymns and prayers for Lent, Holy Week, Pascha (Easter Sunday)

We too have a deposit of Sacred Tradition in the prayers of the church contained in her liturgies. It is the source from which dogma is drawn, as are also sacred scripture, and the living magisterium serves as interpretive authority for all these things.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We too have a deposit of Sacred Tradition in the prayers of the church contained in her liturgies. It is the source from which dogma is drawn, as are also sacred scripture, and the living magisterium serves as interpretive authority for all these things.

The conundrum, of course, happens when the Orthodox Sacred Tradition conflicts with other Sacred Traditions, including your own. When the dust usually settles, it comes down to the various proponents falling back on an argument that their Sacred Tradition is the only true Sacred Tradition because their denomination has said so and they trust their denomination.

 

[The Liturgist]

The conundrum, of course, happens when the Orthodox Sacred Tradition conflicts with other Sacred Traditions, including your own. When the dust usually settles, it comes down to the various proponents falling back on an argument that their Sacred Tradition is the only true Sacred Tradition because their denomination has said so and they trust their denomination.

And that’s not even what @Xeno.of.athens and I were talking about. Rather I was curious if the liturgy is a source of official dogma in the Roman Catholi Church like how it is in Orthodoxy, or especially, historic Prayer Book Anglicanism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And that’s not even what @Xeno.of.athens and I were talking about. Rather I was curious if the liturgy is a source of official dogma in the Roman Catholi Church like how it is in Orthodoxy, or especially, historic Prayer Book Anglicanism.

It seems like the chicken and egg question to me. Could there be an undogmatic liturgy?