Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

[ViaCrucis]

Do you believe that preaching likewise always produces faith in the hearers?

There are those who will reject the Gospel when it is preached. Just as there are those who reject their baptism have scorned faith and rejected it.

Consider the Parable of the Sower.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, as I would hold that God has decided to apply directly Himself the saving Grace of the Cross of Christ towards such as those!

That means that in these special cases God saves them differently. Which is at odds with your former statements, such as

So any one who has even been saved by him, would always be by the same way!

The basis of salvation never changes, and the method its applied to save us does not change...

The power is in the Gospel, as one hears and believes in Jesus to save them.... As to be old enough to respond to what they hear!

If you believe that the very young or those with severe learning disabilities represent extraordinary situations requiring extraordinary means, then you are in agreement with me; but all your statements thus far have stated that you reject that God can use extraordinary means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tree of Life]

There are those who will reject the Gospel when it is preached. Just as there are those who reject their baptism have scorned faith and rejected it.

Consider the Parable of the Sower.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree that people can accept or reject their baptism just like people can accept or reject the preaching of the gospel. But I think that in the same way that preaching God's word does not automatically produce faith in the hearers, so baptism cannot be said to automatically produce faith in the baptized.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree that people can accept or reject their baptism just like people can accept or reject the preaching of the gospel. But I think that in the same way that preaching God's word does not automatically produce faith in the hearers, so baptism cannot be said to automatically produce faith in the baptized.

When Christ said "talitha koum" could the little girl have remained dead?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

just like people can accept or reject the preaching of the gospel.

I disagree. We can reject the Gospel, but we aren't the ones who accept it. It is God who accepts us in the Gospel. We aren't doing the accepting. When the Gospel is preached and faith is created, it is God alone who has done it, we have done nothing. Faith comes extra nos, outside of ourselves, as pure gift; and that pure gift is given to us, created and given to us by God alone, out of His infinite and rich kindness. I did not accept the Gospel, God through His Gospel accepted me, converted me, saved me.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tree of Life]

When Christ said "talitha koum" could the little girl have remained dead?

-CryptoLutheran

Nope. You believe this implies that baptism always produces faith in the baptized? You'll have to make that connection for me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope. You believe this implies that baptism always produces faith in the baptized? You'll have to make that connection for me.

So when God's word acts upon someone, it is efficacious--doing what it was set out to do, correct?

Not all who hear the Gospel will believe, many will reject it.
But when that word acts upon the person, accomplishing its purpose, it has acted--that person has faith.

When Christ told the little girl to get up, the word acted and made happen what was commanded.
When the hearer of the Gospel is made alive by the word, that person has faith--even if they were to reject it later.
When a person is baptized the word connected to the water has so acted, and that person is born again, they have faith--even if they later reject it.

There is no failure in the word, the word is faithful, true, and perfectly efficacious.

Much further than this and we begin to get into Crux Theologorum territory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tree of Life]

So when God's word acts upon someone, it is efficacious--doing what it was set out to do, correct?

Not all who hear the Gospel will believe, many will reject it.
But when that word acts upon the person, accomplishing its purpose, it has acted--that person has faith.

When Christ told the little girl to get up, the word acted and made happen what was commanded.
When the hearer of the Gospel is made alive by the word, that person has faith--even if they were to reject it later.

I agree with all of the above.

When a person is baptized the word connected to the water has so acted, and that person is born again, they have faith--even if they later reject it.

There is no failure in the word, the word is faithful, true, and perfectly efficacious.

Here's where you lose me. We know that the preached word does not always produce faith in its hearers. It's not that everyone who hears the gospel automatically believes, but that unbelievers reject their faith in the very next moment! Some hear and believe because the Holy Spirit makes the word effective. Others hear and do not believe because the Holy Spirit does not make the word effective to their salvation, but rather makes the word effective to their judgment.

If you're drawing a parallel between baptism and the preached word, your parallel fails here. You suggest that baptism is always made effective by the Holy Spirit. Your rationale is that baptism is just as effective as the preached word. But your analogy fails because the preached word, as you admit, does not always produce faith. So I believe you are left without a rationale for your view on baptism.

 

[Kaon]

If you are someone opposed to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, please give your reasons for being opposed, and preferably back up your argument from the text of Scripture.

Where did the Most High God, or the Word of God ever say water baptism was required for salvation? I am honestly asking. To make a doctrine of something, it would be wise to make sure a significant portion comes from The Source.

We have 1) circumcision of the heart, and 2) baptism by fire as necessary to be people of the Most High God. We should be very careful about what other humans tell us as opposed to what [the Word of God] Himself says.

If any created entity contradicts or adds to the Most High God, at best s/he/it is wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree with all of the above.



Here's where you lose me. We know that the preached word does not always produce faith in its hearers. It's not that everyone who hears the gospel automatically believes, but that unbelievers reject their faith in the very next moment! Some hear and believe because the Holy Spirit makes the word effective. Others hear and do not believe because the Holy Spirit does not make the word effective to their salvation, but rather makes the word effective to their judgment.

If you're drawing a parallel between baptism and the preached word, your parallel fails here. You suggest that baptism is always made effective by the Holy Spirit. Your rationale is that baptism is just as effective as the preached word. But your analogy fails because the preached word, as you admit, does not always produce faith. So I believe you are left without a rationale for your view on baptism.

Your Calvinism is getting in the way. Placing the onus of rejection on God. I.e. God chooses some and not others, those He chooses are necessarily saved and those He does not are necessarily damned. That simply isn't the case, however. For it is the will of God that all be saved, all meaning all--all. Everyone.

And, hence, as I said before, that is leading us to Crux Theologorum territory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

circumcision of the heart,

That's baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tree of Life]

Your Calvinism is getting in the way. Placing the onus of rejection on God. I.e. God chooses some and not others, those He chooses are necessarily saved and those He does not are necessarily damned. That simply isn't the case, however. For it is the will of God that all be saved, all meaning all--all. Everyone.

I don't see how this supports your view of baptismal regeneration.

And, hence, as I said before, that is leading us to Crux Theologorum territory.

-CryptoLutheran

Can't we just talk about whether or not baptismal regeneration is biblically viable?

 

[Kaon]

That's baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes it is - an ancient definition.

But, why and when did baptism with water - something John the Baptist did as a diligent prophet in foreshadowing the Redeemer and the spiritual process of being His brother/sister and disciple - become salvation doctrine?

 

[Kaon]

Yes it is - an ancient definition.

But, why and when did baptism with water - something John the Baptist did as a diligent prophet in foreshadowing the Redeemer and the spiritual process of being His brother/sister and disciple - become salvation doctrine?

In other words, there are Christians whondont believe they have to follow the Law of the Most High God, but believe baptism by water is a crucial step to save them. Why?

If the heavens are separated by waters, then to "ascend" is a literal baptismal process (coming out of the denser waters of this plane of existence into the "air"/aether above.) An on-earth water baptism is an allusion to that literal baptism in spirit.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I agree that people can accept or reject their baptism just like people can accept or reject the preaching of the gospel. But I think that in the same way that preaching God's word does not automatically produce faith in the hearers, so baptism cannot be said to automatically produce faith in the baptized.

Isn't it that those who see water baptism as essential and required would say that either God Himself grants salvation by the rite, or else gives faith to one getting it supernaturally, so by that system, would have to be always effective when administered?

 

[Tree of Life]

Isn't it that those who see water baptism as essential and required would say that either God Himself grants salvation by the rite, or else gives faith to one getting it supernaturally, so by that system, would have to be always effective when administered?

There's a lot of different views on this.

Many churches that believe that baptism is automatically efficacious do not believe that it is strictly essential for salvation. Roman Catholics and Lutherans, for example, certainly believe in the importance of baptism and in normal circumstances would call it essential to salvation. But they are willing to make many exceptions like the thief on the cross, infants who die before baptism, and those who die without the opportunity to be baptized. In these instances I believe they would say that the desire to be baptized is enough.

Some churches that believe that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation do not believe that baptism is automatically efficacious. Some Church of Christ churches, for example, believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but they believe it's only a sign and in itself does nothing to save.

Pretty weird, huh?

 

[YeshuaFan]

There's a lot of different views on this.

Many churches that believe that baptism is automatically efficacious do not believe that it is strictly essential for salvation. Roman Catholics and Lutherans, for example, certainly believe in the importance of baptism and in normal circumstances would call it essential to salvation. But they are willing to make many exceptions like the thief on the cross, infants who die before baptism, and those who die without the opportunity to be baptized. In these instances I believe they would say that the desire to be baptized is enough.

Some churches that believe that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation do not believe that baptism is automatically efficacious. Some Church of Christ churches, for example, believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but they believe it's only a sign and in itself does nothing to save.

Pretty weird, huh?

Indeed, and I still have to hold with the truth that a sinner is freely justified by God on the basis of the Cross of Christ, and that we receive that by faith alone, nothing more, and nothing less!

 

[Tree of Life]

Indeed, and I still have to hold with the truth that a sinner is freely justified by God on the basis of the Cross of Christ, and that we receive that by faith alone, nothing more, and nothing less!

I don't think the Lutherans or the Reformed would argue with you. We would just add, in different ways, that baptism is part of God's ordained means of our receiving the gospel and exercising faith.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I don't think the Lutherans or the Reformed would argue with you. We would just add, in different ways, that baptism is part of God's ordained means of our receiving the gospel and exercising faith.

Yes, I am a reformed Baptist, so would agree with you on that!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes it is - an ancient definition.

But, why and when did baptism with water - something John the Baptist did as a diligent prophet in foreshadowing the Redeemer and the spiritual process of being His brother/sister and disciple - become salvation doctrine?

When Christ our God said we are born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

The Apostle is clear, we were circumcised spiritually in our baptism, Colossians 2:11-12.

-CryptoLutheran