Baptism and Born Again

[IowaLutheran]

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.

I highlighted a part of your post - how do you know what the Holy Spirit has shown you?

To go back to the OP, baptism is necessary, but we cannot say it is absolutely necessary. In other words, as many have pointed out, scripture and tradition both indicate that baptism is the point where we join Christ's death as well as the hope of the resurrection. However, is it possible for God's grace to work in ways beyond our knowledge? Of course.


Footnote - When you do read the Prayer Book someday, I think you will find that it is not only based on scripture, but that a large part of it is scripture, as much of it constitutes direct quotes from the Bible.

 

[No Swansong]

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.

The differences are not so much with Calvin and Aquinas as with those two and Augustine. But I am still making my way through "The Institutes" so I may learn of more agreement or disagreement as the case may be.

 

[No Swansong]

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

You'll notice in my previous post I agree with you. I believe that either Paedo or Creedal Baptism is valid.

 

[No Swansong]

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.

Actually it can be argued that Aquinas did indeed teach double predestination although I admit the passages referred to are ambiguous.

 

[No Swansong]

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.

And it doesn't always follow water baptism. I have known American missionaries with testimonies of Natives who had never heard the English language speak wonderfully of the goodness of God in perfect English with perfect Grammar, upon receiving the Baptism of the Spirit. Before water baptism.

 

[No Swansong]

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.

But which book of Common Prayer. Certainly doctrine shouldn't change but if you compare the 1928 with the 1979 it does. The BCP is a man-made book of man-made liturgy following a God revealed pattern, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[No Swansong]

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.

Have you ever made a three legged stool? They can indeed be wobbly. The point Cola has made and many Theologians agree is that it is a mistake to put Tradition, and especially Reason on the same level as Revealed Scripture. (yes I know the Anglo Catholics here will argue that the Scriptures are a part of Tradition)

 

[Secundulus]

The differences are not so much with Calvin and Aquinas as with those two and Augustine. But I am still making my way through "The Institutes" so I may learn of more agreement or disagreement as the case may be.

Actually it can be argued that Aquinas did indeed teach double predestination although I admit the passages referred to are ambiguous.

Augustine's treatise On the Predestination of the Saints (Book I) is here.

He says,

"Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." John 15:16

And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him.

As for double predestination, he does not use those words, but he says this.

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God.

My personal opinion is that this teaching, which I believe to be consistent between the three authors mentioned, is the best explanation for what I can physically observe in the world.

I understand that neither the Anglican nor Roman Churches accept this. However, I believe that to some extent both of these Churches are still infected with semi-pelagian philosophy.

 

[Colabomb]

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.

Since when were Analogies perfect?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Actually it can be argued that Aquinas did indeed teach double predestination although I admit the passages referred to are ambiguous.

When a theologian writes something ambiguous, I usually tend to lean towards interpreting it in such a way that it is consistent with the teachings of the Church he's devoted his life to if at all possible. I think it stands to reason that this was the more likely intent.

Augustine's treatise On the Predestination of the Saints (Book I) is here.

He says,

"Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." John 15:16

And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him.

What we see here are certain linguistic "triggers" that point us towards a Calvinist interpretation, because this is the language that Calvinists use. However, Calvin borrowed the language from St. Augustine and others to bolster his theories, which were not what was believed at the time, even though everyone venerated St. Augustine and he was perhaps one of foremost influences on western religious thought, which tells me that St. Augustine's language was misappropriated by Calvin.

In the first paragraph cited, I read St. Augustine as saying that one can not believe without grace from God to do so, and that people can not believe on their own (Which is mainstream Christian thought -- one believes because one cooperates with grace). The second paragraph is just too choppy in English to really form a definitive conclusion, honestly, when one considers that it was originally written in Latin -- it probably all depends on the translation, too many conjunctive clauses.

As for double predestination, he does not use those words, but he says this.

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God.

Some people aren't given grace enough to know and receive the Gospel. That's not double predestination, that's historic Christianity, in my view. It doesn't necessarily imply that people are predestined for heaven. People with grace still must choose to cooperate with it or not.

 

[higgs2]

Since when were Analogies perfect?

To have a wobbly stool completely negates the entire purpose of this analogy. The core of it is that it is *not* wobbly.

 

[higgs2]

THis "Baptism of the Spirit", as something separate from Holy Baptism, is not a familar teaching to me.

My understanding of Holy Baptism is that we are grafted on the the Vine of Christ, and the Spirit dwells in our hearts. I believe that people ofen have some kind of personal experience that may or may not happen separately from their Baptism, but it is not a sacrament. Anglicanism holds that Holy Baptism is a Sacrament. That *is* Anglican doctrine.

Any Anglican prayer book will reflect that.

 

[higgs2]

And it doesn't always follow water baptism. I have known American missionaries with testimonies of Natives who had never heard the English language speak wonderfully of the goodness of God in perfect English with perfect Grammar, upon receiving the Baptism of the Spirit. Before water baptism.

Do you know these missionaries personally? I am very very sceptical of claims such as this. Before, during or after water baptism.

 

[Secundulus]

What we see here are certain linguistic "triggers" that point us towards a Calvinist interpretation, because this is the language that Calvinists use. However, Calvin borrowed the language from St. Augustine and others to bolster his theories, which were not what was believed at the time, even though everyone venerated St. Augustine and he was perhaps one of foremost influences on western religious thought, which tells me that St. Augustine's language was misappropriated by Calvin.

In the first paragraph cited, I read St. Augustine as saying that one can not believe without grace from God to do so, and that people can not believe on their own (Which is mainstream Christian thought -- one believes because one cooperates with grace). The second paragraph is just too choppy in English to really form a definitive conclusion, honestly, when one considers that it was originally written in Latin -- it probably all depends on the translation, too many conjunctive clauses.

Some people aren't given grace enough to know and receive the Gospel. That's not double predestination, that's historic Christianity, in my view. It doesn't necessarily imply that people are predestined for heaven. People with grace still must choose to cooperate with it or not.

I have read what he says and linguistic triggers or not, his text says that be beginning of Faith itself is God's gift and that God chooses to give that gift to some and not to give it to others. This gift is independent of anything we want or do and is given to those whom God chooses.

Calvin, throughout his Institutes, borrows heavily from Augustine and many other Church Fathers. Calvin did not make up the doctrine of election, he simply restated what the early church believed before becoming infected with Pelagius' heresies; an infection which continues to linger. That is why you see reflections of Calvin in Augustine because Calvin based his theology on what Augustine wrote.

 

[Tavita]

I highlighted a part of your post - how do you know what the Holy Spirit has shown you?

I knew someone would pick up on that.

Of course, when we read people saying such things we imagine all sorts of weird and crazy beliefs. I do check out what other christians believe and read commentaries etc, to make sure I'm not off track. I suppose you could say that following the Prayer Book and other Anglican teachings is the same thing, and it is. Only I wasn't Anglican to begin with and learned a great deal using the writings of other Protestant denoms to confirm what I'd learned in the scriptures and by experience.

To go back to the OP, baptism is necessary, but we cannot say it is absolutely necessary. In other words, as many have pointed out, scripture and tradition both indicate that baptism is the point where we join Christ's death as well as the hope of the resurrection. However, is it possible for God's grace to work in ways beyond our knowledge? Of course.

Footnote - When you do read the Prayer Book someday, I think you will find that it is not only based on scripture, but that a large part of it is scripture, as much of it constitutes direct quotes from the Bible.

Thanks. I think I should purchase my own copy.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I have read what he says and linguistic triggers or not, his text says that be beginning of Faith itself is God's gift and that God chooses to give that gift to some and not to give it to others. This gift is independent of anything we want or do and is given to those whom God chooses.

God gives the grace to anyone whom he chooses to, and declines to give it to those whom he chooses not to give it to, but people still have to cooperate with grace for it to be effective, and can reject it if they are determined to. That's what I believe St. Augustine believed, and that's not Calvinism in my book.

Calvin, throughout his Institutes, borrows heavily from Augustine and many other Church Fathers. Calvin did not make up the doctrine of election, he simply restated what the early church believed before becoming infected with Pelagius' heresies; an infection which continues to linger. That is why you see reflections of Calvin in Augustine because Calvin based his theology on what Augustine wrote.

If what you're saying is true, than true and important teachings regarding the nature of salvation would have been lost for centuries upon centuries. Wouldn't that mean that the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church, contrary to Christ's promise?

 

[Tavita]

Do you know these missionaries personally? I am very very sceptical of claims such as this. Before, during or after water baptism.

I suggest getting hold of a book called 'Chasing the Dragon' by Jackie Pullinger. Jackie felt the call of God as a young 20 year old in the 1960's, so she jumped on board a ship and asked God to let her know when to get off. Her Pastor and family were totally against it, but she obeyed God. She got off in Hong Kong and travelled into the Walled City, a place of gangs, drugs, murder and every kind of crime. She started witnessing to the men first and found that when they believed and were Baptized in Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues (before water baptism took place) they were set free and instantly delivered of their drug habit... called 'chasing the dragon'. She still lives there and has set up homes and ongoing ministries. It's a great book, I think you can get it at most christian book shops and online at Amazon.

There are stories like this from all over the world that you never hear of in the secular news.

 

[Secundulus]

God gives the grace to anyone whom he chooses to, and declines to give it to those whom he chooses not to give it to, but people still have to cooperate with grace for it to be effective, and can reject it if they are determined to. That's what I believe St. Augustine believed, and that's not Calvinism in my book.

And those whom God chooses not to give the gift of faith are never given any choice. They have been predetermined by God not to have faith.

If what you're saying is true, than true and important teachings regarding the nature of salvation would have been lost for centuries upon centuries. Wouldn't that mean that the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church, contrary to Christ's promise?

No, I wouldn't say that. The Church teaches that salvation is through Christ. That they hold some semi-pelagian views does not change that. At worst, they cause people to worry too much about their standing with God.

Whether they believe in election or not really doesn't change what we should do since we are not privy to the information to know if someone is elect or not.

What it does do is allow one to make sense of the world and such questions as why did God only appear in one place to one people. or Why does God allow good people not to believe in him. or Why does God allow different religions to exist.

 

[Fish and Bread]

And those whom God chooses not to give the gift of faith are never given any choice. They have been predetermined by God not to have faith.

Doesn't Calvin also teach that people are predestined to be saved? That's where I think he differs from orthodoxy (and probably even St. Augustine) on the predestination question, when he says that individuals have no choice but to cooperate with grace. My understanding is that (non-Calvinist) Christianity traditionally teaches that people can be predestined to receive grace, but they can't be predestined for salvation, as salvation requires that an individual choose to cooperate with grace (Though of course God knows in advance who will cooperate and who will not, because God doesn't exist in a linear fashion).

I don't think the hell situation is as clearcut. There are probably people in this life who doesn't receive the necessary grace to reach heaven, in a normal sense of some what would normally be absolutely required (Which includes faith in Jesus Christ). However, Jesus said less is expected from those who receive less, so I'm not sure that we can definitely say someone who doesn't receive the grace of the gospel can't be saved -- because that person is going to have a lower hurdle to clear on Judgment Day (How much lower, it's hard to say).

 

[Secundulus]

Doesn't Calvin also teach that people are predestined to be saved? That's where I think he differs from orthodoxy (and probably even St. Augustine) on the predestination question, when he says that individuals have no choice but to cooperate with grace. My understanding is that (non-Calvinist) Christianity traditionally teaches that people can be predestined to receive grace, but they can't be predestined for salvation, as salvation requires that an individual choose to cooperate with grace (Though of course God knows in advance who will cooperate and who will not, because God doesn't exist in a linear fashion).

I don't think the hell situation is as clearcut. There are probably people in this life who doesn't receive the necessary grace to reach heaven, in a normal sense of some what would normally be absolutely required (Which includes faith in Jesus Christ). However, Jesus said less is expected from those who receive less, so I'm not sure that we can definitely say someone who doesn't receive the grace of the gospel can't be saved -- because that person is going to have a lower hurdle to clear on Judgment Day (How much lower, it's hard to say).

This is what St. Augustine said,

Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so.
​

According to Augustine, the elect have faith and justification solely because God decided they would. Nothing these people do on their own free will has anything to do with it. That the elect think they are cooperating with God and contributing to their salvation is an illusion. The saved are saved solely because God predestined to save them and the unsaved are unsaved solely because God predestined not to save them.

This looks like Calvin's doctrine because it is Calvin's doctrine. But Calvin did not make it up, he simply repeated Augustine.