Baptism and Born Again

[Colabomb]

Seems you left out Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized. Never met an infant who could repent yet.

note, dad is not questioning infant baptism, rather that Formulaic ideas of Salvation are flawed.

 

[PaladinValer]

Not in the least. I just know that Scripture is of higher authority than The traditions and reason of mankind.

Holy Tradition is of men?

So much for the Holy Trinity. So much for the Hypostatic Union. So much for the entire religion of Christianity.

Which Baptism are you speaking of?

There are two types of baptism: water, and Holy Spirit with fire.

They are one in the same. You cannot receive them separately. As the Nicene Creed says, there is ONE BAPTISM.

Pretty much the Anglican Church has no official stance on really anything.

Which isn't true.

note for PV it is not Baptismal Theology that is man-made it is your understanding and communication of it that is.

Which one is based on the Father's?

Which one is the one that has stood the test of time?

There have been very imminent and knowledgeable Theologians who have disagreed entirely with some if not all of your statements. Just as I am sure there would be who disagree on my understanding of Baptism.

The question is, which one is divinely-inspired. It can sometimes be difficult, but often, it isn't really at all.

 

[No Swansong]

Which isn't true.

Well let's see we have Scripture which many here have made over into their own image or completely denied as being anything more a book of suggestions and we have the 39 articles which many here feel mean nothing. So where exactly is this written down at?

Which one is based on the Father's?

In my opinion mine.

Which one is the one that has stood the test of time?

As I said in my opinion, mine.

The question is, which one is divinely-inspired. It can sometimes be difficult, but often, it isn't really at all.

I agree completely I am sure there are many I have read that are Divinely inspired and although as you point out it can be difficult to distinguish many times it is not. For example any Theologian that denies the truth of Scripture obviously, is not.

 

[Secundulus]

Seems you left out Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized. Never met an infant who could repent yet.

I agree. It seems there are two parts to this, both of which seem to be necessary. Belief/Repentance and Baptism. I'm not sure we can definitively say in which order they need occur.

Also, Tertullian speaks of even another Baptism, that of Blood. I believe he is talking about those who were martyred for Christ but perhaps had never been baptised with water. Hopefully, this one will not have to apply to anyone here.

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.​

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

 

[No Swansong]

I agree. It seems there are two parts to this, both of which seem to be necessary. Belief/Repentance and Baptism. I'm not sure we can definitively say in which order they need occur.

Also, Tertullian speaks of even another Baptism, that of Blood. I believe he is talking about those who were martyred for Christ but perhaps had never been baptised with water. Hopefully, this one will not have to apply to anyone here.

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.​

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

I'm glad you got that as my point. The Theology surrounding Baptism is not as clear as some would have us to believe. I in no way question the validity of Paedobaptism, nor do I verbally eviscerate those who believe in Creedal Baptism. The point is that Scriptural, Reasonable and Historical arguments can be made for both. I think I prefer Paedobaptism but would not even if I were an Anglican Priest insist on it.

With that said there is something about finding a creek, breaking the ice, and immersing a man who has just spent hours in tears understanding that he has lived his life separated from God and then seeing the joy of this same man when the wonderful meaning of Grace first enters into his understanding. It is indeed a privilege to get wet and cold with this man.

 

[Fish and Bread]

A four-part theory:

1. The Holy Spirit may blow where it wishes, being with people and in the elements as it deems fit. Thus, the Holy Spirit may act act within anyone at any given time and in any given place.

2. In baptism, a seed is planted and the Holy Spirit begins to dwell within Christians in a special and distinct way, and remains with them.

3. In confirmation, the Holy Spirit is received in an even stronger way and the seed that is planted in baptism is awakened and grows even stronger in an individual.

4. At other times in the Christian life, special graces may flow which lead to a closer connection and bond with the Holy Spirit.

Would you all agree with that?

 

[Secundulus]

A four-part theory:

1. The Holy Spirit may blow where it wishes, being with people and in the elements as it deems fit. Thus, the Holy Spirit may act act within anyone at any given.

2. In baptism, a seed is planted and the Holy Spirit begins to dwell within Christians in a special and distinct way, and remains with them.

3. In confirmation, the Holy Spirit is received in an even stronger way and the seed that is planted in baptism is awakened and grows even stronger in an individual.

4. At other times in the Christian life, special graces may flow which lead to a closer connection and bond with the Holy Spirit.

Would you all agree with that?

I would agree, although I would phrase #2 differently. I believe that at Baptism the soul is restored to a state from which union with God is possible. I think some would call this regeneration. This is the work of God that occurs behind the physical symbol of the washing with water.

 

[higgs2]

No offense intended, but Paladin, you are an angloCatholic.... you are of course gonna say that.

I'm not, and I love the video!

 

[Tavita]

Which Baptism are you speaking of?
There are two types of baptism: water, and Holy Spirit with fire.

They are one in the same. You cannot receive them separately. As the Nicene Creed says, there is ONE BAPTISM.

But I did and so did the first Gentiles to be saved. The Nicene Creed is not on the same level as scripture.

In this account of the first Gentiles receiving the gift of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit there is no mention of water at all.

Take note of what Peter said in bold...

Act 11:11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea.
Act 11:12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house.
Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Act 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." .

And you can also see that as soon as Peter began to preach the gospel the Holy Spirit fell to baptize in the Spirit... which is my own experience... I was baptized in the Holy Spirit as soon as I said yes to God.

Baptism in water in not the same as Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I suggest to you that water baptism is of man and meant for confession of faith and entry into the Church. Holy Spirit baptism is of the Spirit and meant for regeneration and sanctification and for the power to witness, and the power to 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The Holy Bible : King James Version., Mt 28:19.
.
And I think the Baptism spoken of in this verse means the Baptism of the Spirit.. Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,


Can you argue with scripture when it gives several different sequences in born again, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism?

And I agree with jbdad when he says the theology surrounding baptism is not as clear as some would have us to believe. I am not absolutely firm in what it all means but I do know that water and Spirit baptism are two separate things.... and so it being born again.

 

[Tavita]

Unfortunately my friend you have wandered into Deep Waters.

Pretty much the Anglican Church has no official stance on really anything.

Yes, I didn't realize how deep it was! But I'm glad of the discussions, it does help to be reminded of the knowledge that the Anglican Church pretty much has no official stance on anything, which is what attracted me to it in the first place.

 

[Secundulus]

The logical next step in this thread is to address election as taught by St. Augustine, Thomans Aquinas, and John Calvin. Given the names of who taught this, it is is apparent that both Catholics and Protestants have believed it at different periods of history.

Anyone want to be the first to breach this controversial belief?

 

[No Swansong]

The logical next step in this thread is to address election as taught by St. Augustine, Thomans Aquinas, and John Calvin. Given the names of who taught this, it is is apparent that both Catholics and Protestants have believed it at different periods of history.

Anyone want to be the first to breach this controversial belief?

I might add different versions as well?

 

[Secundulus]

I might add different versions as well?

Yes, to some extent. However, after reading both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, I see few differences.

If their interpretation of scripture is correct, which I believe can be supported by the Bible, then whether baptism or belief comes first becomes merely an academic discussion.

 

[Tavita]

Yes, to some extent. However, after reading both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, I see few differences.

If their interpretation of scripture is correct, which I believe can be supported by the Bible, then whether baptism or belief comes first becomes merely an academic discussion.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of it that way before. This should be interesting.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The logical next step in this thread is to address election as taught by St. Augustine, Thomans Aquinas, and John Calvin. Given the names of who taught this, it is is apparent that both Catholics and Protestants have believed it at different periods of history.

Anyone want to be the first to breach this controversial belief?

Well, everyone believes in "the elect" -- it's the bible. To the best of my knowledge, though, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas didn't teach double predestination, which is the controversial part of Calvinism as it pertains to election. In light of Calvin's later interpretation, some of the wording these two Saints used may appear to be teaching Calvin's doctrines, but most people tell me a careful reading will reveal that Calvin was aping their terminology to different effect. Of course, in all honesty, I haven't read any of their works in their entirety, so I could be wrong -- I have just passing familiarity with the doctrines of each.

 

[Aymn27]

But I did and so did the first Gentiles to be saved. The Nicene Creed is not on the same level as scripture.

In this account of the first Gentiles receiving the gift of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit there is no mention of water at all.

Take note of what Peter said in bold...

Act 11:11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea.
Act 11:12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house.
Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Act 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." .

And you can also see that as soon as Peter began to preach the gospel the Holy Spirit fell to baptize in the Spirit... which is my own experience... I was baptized in the Holy Spirit as soon as I said yes to God.

Baptism in water in not the same as Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I suggest to you that water baptism is of man and meant for confession of faith and entry into the Church. Holy Spirit baptism is of the Spirit and meant for regeneration and sanctification and for the power to witness, and the power to 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The Holy Bible : King James Version., Mt 28:19.
.
And I think the Baptism spoken of in this verse means the Baptism of the Spirit.. Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,


Can you argue with scripture when it gives several different sequences in born again, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism?

And I agree with jbdad when he says the theology surrounding baptism is not as clear as some would have us to believe. I am not absolutely firm in what it all means but I do know that water and Spirit baptism are two separate things.... and so it being born again.

This is a very clear and well put argument. I would also note that the Nicene Creed says that "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin..." that in no way shape or form declares the baptism of the water and of the Spirit to be the same event. It means you can only be baptized once into Christ for the forgiveness of sins (water baptism). The subsequent baptism (of the Spirit) has nothing to do with repentence and foregiveness of sin, but with being immersed in the power of the Spirit.

 

[Tavita]

This is a very clear and well put argument. I would also note that the Nicene Creed says that "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin..." that in no way shape or form declares the baptism of the water and of the Spirit to be the same event. It means you can only be baptized once into Christ for the forgiveness of sins (water baptism). The subsequent baptism (of the Spirit) has nothing to do with repentence and foregiveness of sin, but with being immersed in the power of the Spirit.

Amen, well said.

The Baptism in Holy Spirit is for Power...

Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."


The Greek word is Dunamis and means...

1. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
   [*] strength power, ability
   1. inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth
   2. power for performing miracles
   3. moral power and excellence of soul
   4. the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth
   5. power and resources arising from numbers
   6. power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hosts
   [/FONT]

As you said, water baptism is meant for repentance and the washing away of sin.

 

[AngCath]

. . . it does help to be reminded of the knowledge that the Anglican Church pretty much has no official stance on anything. . .

This is a terrible error and one does damage to the Church by teaching it.
The Anglican stance is built into the very words of her liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer. What is needed is less narrow use of verses of Scripture and more meditation upon and exegesis of the Prayer Book. To say that Anglicanism has no official stance on anything betrays one's complete lack of wrestling with the Book of Common Prayer which is itself a product of centuries of wrestling with Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 

[Tavita]

This is a terrible error and one does damage to the Church by teaching it.
The Anglican stance is built into the very words of her liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer.
What is needed is less narrow use of verses of Scripture and more meditation upon and exegesis of the Prayer Book. To say that Anglicanism has no official stance on anything betrays one's complete lack of wrestling with the Book of Common Prayer which is itself a product of centuries of wrestling with Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

Fair enough, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I'm not trying to take away from the Prayer Book. And no I haven't wrestled with it, I prefer to wrestle with the scriptures, they will always come first. I love the Liturgy and the parts of the Prayer Book read in church, but they don't give me the whole counsel of God. And the truth is, not much of the Prayer Book is ever read in a service... isn't that so? Unless I buy a Prayer Book just for myself how am I to know what the rest of it says?

Even if I had a Prayer Book, and I want to study or meditate on anything, it will be the scriptures. I appreciate that you say the Prayer Book is the product of the Anglican Church over many years of Scripture Tradition and Reason. However, I'd like to know it's source. When I read all the Prayer Book one day I'd like to be able to nod the head in agreement, but if it says something contrary to what Holy Spirit has shown me (He is our Teacher) then I cannot nod the head in agreement.

If the Prayer Book says that one is born again AND baptized in Holy Spirit because one is baptized in water, that it's all the same thing, then it doesn't line up with scripture.

 

[ebia]

Contrary to what the Anglo Catholics will tell you, The stool is wobbly.

Scripture, over tradition, over reason.

How can a three legged stool be wobbly? It either stands up (perhaps on an angle) or it doesn't. That's what distinguishes it from any other number of legs.