Do sacraments save?

[ViaCrucis]

Come on, that is just tradition. I'm pretty sure John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus by sprinkling on his head.

I'm pretty sure John the Baptist didn't wear trousers either, but that doesn't make trousers wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

We are all saved through the sacrament of Baptism. That goes for baptized Catholics or Eastern Orthodox or Protestants.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. RSVCE

I see now how RCC thinks baptism is linked to being born again. From my experience, I think your interpretation that "water" in John 3:5 refers to "water baptism" is consistent with the beliefs of people I have spoken to from Church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventist denominations. I do have some questions for you though about your beliefs on being born again.

Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (Jn 3:6) The first birth obviously was our physical birth. The second birth is our spiritual birth. Concerning the spiritual birth, John says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12–13)

Does the RCC teach that 1) God giving birth to us by His Spirit is the second birth, and 2) that the second birth makes each one of us first gerneration offspring of the living God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see now how RCC thinks baptism is linked to being born again. From my experience, I think your interpretation that "water" in John 3:5 refers to "water baptism" is consistent with the beliefs of people I have spoken to from Church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventist denominations. I do have some questions for you though about your beliefs on being born again.

Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (Jn 3:6) The first birth obviously was our physical birth. The second birth is our spiritual birth. Concerning the spiritual birth, John says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12–13)

Does the RCC teach that 1) God giving birth to us by His Spirit is the second birth, and 2) that the second birth makes each one of us first gerneration offspring of the living God?

I feel it important to point out that the belief that "water" in John 3:5 means water is actually a view that has been held by virtually all Christian exegetes for the last two thousand years. Even Baptist exegetes until rather recent times agreed that the water in John 3:5 meant water and that baptism is being alluded to here, while denying baptismal regeneration; by understanding that baptism isn't the new birth itself but symbolized it.

Within the last couple months I actually did a bit of a dive into this subject by looking various commentaries of the past couple hundred years. I was curious when the "physical birth and spiritual birth" interpretation of "water and the Spirit" began to show up in commentaries. I would have to go back and look again for more details, but I was actually somewhat surprised to learn that I couldn't find commentaries from before the 1960's-70's that offered this interpretation. I simply couldn't find any commentaries, by anyone (and I specifically looked up commentaries from Baptists and others who reject baptismal regeneration) from before the mid-20th century that gave this view.

Virtually all commentaries agreed with the historic interpretation (going all the way back to the earliest commentaries/interpretations of the 2nd century) that the water in John 3:5 was water and was an allusion to baptism. Some did differ, IIRC Spurgeon understood the water of John 3:5 as being an allusion to repentance.

So whether "water and the Spirit" referred to baptism, or referred to regeneration (apart from baptism) such as understanding water as symbolic of repentance that comes with the Spirit; "water and the Spirit" were held together as a singular principle involved in regeneration. It isn't until the last half century that the two birth theory shows up anywhere. I'm still unsure, exactly, its origins; but prior to the 1960's I couldn't find anything, and by the 1980's some commentators speak of it as some kind kind of well known fact. So sometime between the 60's and 80's is likely the origin story of this particular interpretion of the text.

Also, when I did my research I didn't do anything fancy. The tools to do what I did are readily accessible by doing some Google searches.

That's how I found this: Comprehensive Overview of the Bible Commentaries available FREELY on StudyLight.org!
I looked up information about the commentators themselves, their denomination/tradition, when they lived, etc. So anyone can look this up for themselves and see if they notice the same things I did.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I feel it important to point out that the belief that "water" in John 3:5 means water is actually a view that has been held by virtually all Christian exegetes for the last two thousand years. Even Baptist exegetes until rather recent times agreed that the water in John 3:5 meant water and that baptism is being alluded to here, while denying baptismal regeneration; by understanding that baptism isn't the new birth itself but symbolized it.

Within the last couple months I actually did a bit of a dive into this subject by looking various commentaries of the past couple hundred years. I was curious when the "physical birth and spiritual birth" interpretation of "water and the Spirit" began to show up in commentaries. I would have to go back and look again for more details, but I was actually somewhat surprised to learn that I couldn't find commentaries from before the 1960's-70's that offered this interpretation. I simply couldn't find any commentaries, by anyone (and I specifically looked up commentaries from Baptists and others who reject baptismal regeneration) from before the mid-20th century that gave this view.

Virtually all commentaries agreed with the historic interpretation (going all the way back to the earliest commentaries/interpretations of the 2nd century) that the water in John 3:5 was water and was an allusion to baptism. Some did differ, IIRC Spurgeon understood the water of John 3:5 as being an allusion to repentance.

So whether "water and the Spirit" referred to baptism, or referred to regeneration (apart from baptism) such as understanding water as symbolic of repentance that comes with the Spirit; "water and the Spirit" were held together as a singular principle involved in regeneration. It isn't until the last half century that the two birth theory shows up anywhere. I'm still unsure, exactly, its origins; but prior to the 1960's I couldn't find anything, and by the 1980's some commentators speak of it as some kind kind of well known fact. So sometime between the 60's and 80's is likely the origin story of this particular interpretion of the text.

Also, when I did my research I didn't do anything fancy. The tools to do what I did are readily accessible by doing some Google searches.

That's how I found this: Comprehensive Overview of the Bible Commentaries available FREELY on StudyLight.org!
I looked up information about the commentators themselves, their denomination/tradition, when they lived, etc. So anyone can look this up for themselves and see if they notice the same things I did.

-CryptoLutheran

So, I can now put Lutheran in with RCC, SDA, and CoC. I'm sure there are others. Should I take all this to mean that you (and Lutherans in general by extension) reject both parts of my question about God giving birth to us By His Spirit?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I feel it important to point out that the belief that "water" in John 3:5 means water is actually a view that has been held by virtually all Christian exegetes for the last two thousand years. Even Baptist exegetes until rather recent times agreed that the water in John 3:5 meant water and that baptism is being alluded to here, while denying baptismal regeneration; by understanding that baptism isn't the new birth itself but symbolized it.

Within the last couple months I actually did a bit of a dive into this subject by looking various commentaries of the past couple hundred years. I was curious when the "physical birth and spiritual birth" interpretation of "water and the Spirit" began to show up in commentaries. I would have to go back and look again for more details, but I was actually somewhat surprised to learn that I couldn't find commentaries from before the 1960's-70's that offered this interpretation. I simply couldn't find any commentaries, by anyone (and I specifically looked up commentaries from Baptists and others who reject baptismal regeneration) from before the mid-20th century that gave this view.

Virtually all commentaries agreed with the historic interpretation (going all the way back to the earliest commentaries/interpretations of the 2nd century) that the water in John 3:5 was water and was an allusion to baptism. Some did differ, IIRC Spurgeon understood the water of John 3:5 as being an allusion to repentance.

So whether "water and the Spirit" referred to baptism, or referred to regeneration (apart from baptism) such as understanding water as symbolic of repentance that comes with the Spirit; "water and the Spirit" were held together as a singular principle involved in regeneration. It isn't until the last half century that the two birth theory shows up anywhere. I'm still unsure, exactly, its origins; but prior to the 1960's I couldn't find anything, and by the 1980's some commentators speak of it as some kind kind of well known fact. So sometime between the 60's and 80's is likely the origin story of this particular interpretion of the text.

Also, when I did my research I didn't do anything fancy. The tools to do what I did are readily accessible by doing some Google searches.

That's how I found this: Comprehensive Overview of the Bible Commentaries available FREELY on StudyLight.org!
I looked up information about the commentators themselves, their denomination/tradition, when they lived, etc. So anyone can look this up for themselves and see if they notice the same things I did.

-CryptoLutheran

It is hard for me to believe that Christians have been for centuries ignorant of spiritual birth that makes us first generation children (offspring) of the living God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

okay point blank, is a person saved outside of the RCC

Point blank, Yes. Yes, many are "saved". But do not ask me to tell you whom by name.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, I can now put Lutheran in with RCC, SDA, and CoC. I'm sure there are others. Should I take all this to mean that you (and Lutherans in general by extension) reject both parts of my question about God giving birth to us By His Spirit?

Every baptized person is born again, of grace alone and has the Holy Spirit, as per God's promises in Scripture, that whoever is baptized is forgiven their sins and receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), for in baptism we are born again (John 3:3-5), united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-13), having been washed clean when Christ washed us with water and the word (Ephesians 5:26), and our regeneration (Titus 3:5). For it is by grace alone we are saved, through faith; not of ourselves or our works, it is the gift, work, and power of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), for Christ alone has completed the work on our behalf, that we might receive it through faith which God works in our hearts by His word (Romans 10:17).

It is impossible, therefore, to separate the Sacrament of Baptism from the Holy Spirit and the power, grace, and work of God which baptism is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is hard for me to believe that Christians have been for centuries ignorant of spiritual birth that makes us first generation children (offspring) of the living God.

That's because they weren't ignorant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Every baptized person is born again, of grace alone and has the Holy Spirit, as per God's promises in Scripture, that whoever is baptized is forgiven their sins and receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), for in baptism we are born again (John 3:3-5), united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-13), having been washed clean when Christ washed us with water and the word (Ephesians 5:26), and our regeneration (Titus 3:5). For it is by grace alone we are saved, through faith; not of ourselves or our works, it is the gift, work, and power of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), for Christ alone has completed the work on our behalf, that we might receive it through faith which God works in our hearts by His word (Romans 10:17).

It is impossible, therefore, to separate the Sacrament of Baptism from the Holy Spirit and the power, grace, and work of God which baptism is.

-CryptoLutheran

So, you are saying that you understand that God giving birth to us by His Spirit makes us first generation offspring of the living God? Or are you saying being born of God (or said another way, being born of the spirit) is something else?

 

[Jamdoc]

Every baptized person is born again, of grace alone and has the Holy Spirit, as per God's promises in Scripture, that whoever is baptized is forgiven their sins and receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), for in baptism we are born again (John 3:3-5), united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-13), having been washed clean when Christ washed us with water and the word (Ephesians 5:26), and our regeneration (Titus 3:5). For it is by grace alone we are saved, through faith; not of ourselves or our works, it is the gift, work, and power of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), for Christ alone has completed the work on our behalf, that we might receive it through faith which God works in our hearts by His word (Romans 10:17).

It is impossible, therefore, to separate the Sacrament of Baptism from the Holy Spirit and the power, grace, and work of God which baptism is.

-CryptoLutheran

according to Acts 16 and Romans 10, they were born again before any ordinances. The thief on the cross was not baptized and is one of the only people Jesus directly promised would go to heaven with Him.

I just see ordinances as not necessary for salvation, but they are marks of obedience because Jesus said to do them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, you are saying that you understand that God giving birth to us by His Spirit makes us first generation offspring of the living God? Or are you saying being born of God (or said another way, being born of the spirit) is something else?

I have no idea what "first generation offspring of the living God" means. That's not language the Bible uses, or language which the Christian Church has ever used. And I haven't been following this thread closely enough to know if you've already explained it.

I can say that I wouldn't use those words to describe what the new birth is. I would instead rely on the words Scripture uses and the ways in which the Christian Church have historically spoken; and as a Lutheran would rely on the language of the Lutheran Confessions to provide theological explanation to what Scripture says and the Church historically believes because those Confessions are biblically and doctrinally sound.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

according to Acts 16 and Romans 10, they were born again before any ordinances. The thief on the cross was not baptized and is one of the only people Jesus directly promised would go to heaven with Him.

I just see ordinances as not necessary for salvation, but they are marks of obedience because Jesus said to do them.

I also don't view ordinances as necessary for salvation. But I'm not talking about ordinances, but the holy Sacraments of Jesus Christ which He Himself instituted and has given for the express purpose of God's grace making us new in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I have no idea what "first generation offspring of the living God" means. That's not language the Bible uses, or language which the Christian Church has ever used. And I haven't been following this thread closely enough to know if you've already explained it.

I can say that I wouldn't use those words to describe what the new birth is. I would instead rely on the words Scripture uses and the ways in which the Christian Church have historically spoken; and as a Lutheran would rely on the language of the Lutheran Confessions to provide theological explanation to what Scripture says and the Church historically believes because those Confessions are biblically and doctrinally sound.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, I'll use the Bible's words. Maybe that can help us come to a concensus.

Let's start with John 1:12-13

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12–13)​

Children of God become God's "children" (synonyms would include "offspring" and "descendants") when they are "born" of God. Do you recognize that God makes people His children by giving birth to them? If not, what do you think Jn 1:12-13 is talking about?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

My Bible doesn't say that baptism can't be by pouring or sprinkling. My Bible doesn't say that only being dunked in water is valid for baptism.

Perhaps you have a passage of Scripture in your Bible that isn't in the rest of our Bibles?

-CryptoLutheran

My Bible does say that you must be born again (in spirit), baptism by immersion is a ritual which symbolizes the childbirth process - newborn baby emerges from the amniotic fluid in the womb, and the first thing to do is a loud cry to draw in air, that’s what the word spirit literally means - breath. In the beginning the spirit of God hovered above the water, you emerge from the water, you draw in spirit. If you do it by pouring or sprinkling, you lose this element, that’s more like raining on your parade which does nothing but gets you wet.

 

[RileyG]

Alright, if you say so, boss.

God bless you

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

which does nothing but gets you wet.

I use an umbrella so rain doesn't get me wet.

In baptism it is God who gives me life and washes away my sins, the water is the instrument through which he does this, he chose water because water is what we use to wash. It really has nothing to do with amniotic fluid, that's a modern novelty, an explanation of last resort used after all the previous explanations were shown to be inappropriate and incorrect.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I use an umbrella so rain doesn't get me wet.

In baptism it is God who gives me life and washes away my sins, the water is the instrument through which he does this, he chose water because water is what we use to wash. It really has nothing to do with amniotic fluid, that's a modern novelty, an explanation of last resort used after all the previous explanations were shown to be inappropriate and incorrect.

Well I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but no, water only washes away dirt, it’s the blood that washes away sins.

Also, just because amniotic fluid is a modern novelty doesn’t mean it’s a novel phenomenon. All human beings are born from this fluid throughout history, like all scientific discoveries, it was just discovered at modern time, not invented at modern time, but God knows it all the time.

 

[Valletta]

Well I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but no, water only washes away dirt, it’s the blood that washes away sins.

Also, just because amniotic fluid is a modern novelty doesn’t mean it’s a novel phenomenon. All human beings are born from this fluid throughout history, like all scientific discoveries, it was just discovered at modern time, not invented at modern time, but God knows it all the time.

GOD washes away sin, not blood. Water is the normal sign of the sacrament of Baptism, where our sins are washed away.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

GOD washes away sin, not blood. Water is the normal sign of the sacrament of Baptism, where our sins are washed away.

The god I know made a covenant of blood and shed his blood on the cross, but who am I to judge yours.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

no, water only washes away dirt

Guess you haven't read Acts 22:16 lately, nor 1 Peter 3:21.