Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

[Ttalkkugjil]

Dream on.

There's an educated response. Have a good evening Steven.

 

[Hillsage]

That doesn't agree with scripture, which states..."Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor 5:17)
Your POV precludes the truth written of above.

It does agree with scripture. But it must be understood without the misleading translation you and most others read. In the Greek the words "HE IS" are not there. A correct literal rendition is this;

"So as if anyone in Christ A new creation" Translators add words to make it flow in English, but in this case it leads to the shallow reasoning which you and others have come to. You are a triune being and being "IN CHRIST" is the result of a change of your spirit alone being born again/saved and not your soul or body.

It pains me to think that a man reborn of God's seed isn't sanctified wholly.
Which part of Jesus Christ wasn't sanctified?

It should pain you to not know the difference between 'imputed righteousness' which comes from being 'in Christ' and 'imparted righteousness' which comes from Christ being "formed" in you.

GAL 4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!

The above was written to CHRISTIANS Phil. And I share Paul's frustration for them, as much as my frustration in dealing with you.

It should also 'pain you' to crucify your sinful flesh like Paul said, in order to "work out your soul's salvation with fear and trembling" like scripture states.
That's what Jesus had to do since he too was sent with a sinful flesh nature to contend with just as us;

ROM 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Jesus overcame the temptations of his human sinful flesh nature, and became the pattern son for us to do the same thing.

1PE 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

As we are now "bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh" we are as sanctified as Christ Jesus was/is.
Made holy, separated, consecrated, atoned for: all describers of the word "sanctify".
To be less would be an indicator of non-repentance.

You quote a verse in Genesis describing how Eve was like Adam BEFORE THE FALL and make the HUGE JUMP to say that means you're just like Christ Jesus!!!!!! Maybe I should move on and dialogue with others Phil.

You must consider warnings to be accusations.
You describe a hearer, but not a doer.

If that's the best you can offer, I'll categorize you as 'another one' here to thinks himself a bit too perfect for me.

 

[Hillsage]

I have always contended that there are two types of baptism. You seem to be claiming they are synonymous.

Then explain why Jesus, who already had two...water and the Holy Spirit, still had a third baptism? I know we've talked about it, but still you hang on to your orthodox paradigm. I'm in the Unorthodox forum for a reason. My theology really is.

LUK 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not going to make a sweeping generalization over the entire people group. Each person is an individual case.

You already made a sweeping generalization by claiming that infants were a people group. And on what basis would you, or anyone else, judge infants?
Do you believe God would hold them accountable for not being baptized?
Or even that God would consider them saved for the act of their parents against their will?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

You already made a sweeping generalization by claiming that infants were a people group. And on what basis would you, or anyone else, judge infants?
Do you believe God would hold them accountable for not being baptized?
Or even that God would consider them saved for the act of their parents against their will?

God will consider those infants as saved whom God has saved. Do you think the omnipotent God is unable to save infants?

 

[Saint Steven]

Then explain why Jesus, who already had two...water and the Holy Spirit, still had a third baptism? I know we've talked about it, but still you hang on to your orthodox paradigm. I'm in the Unorthodox forum for a reason. My theology really is.

LUK 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

That was a personal "baptism" (as he called it) and nothing to do with our baptisms. Unless you are claiming that we too have a third baptism. Is that right?

 

[Saint Steven]

God will consider those infants as saved whom God has saved. Do you think the omnipotent God is unable to save infants?

I think God is unchanging and will not violate his own word. I have had to remind you of this more than once. If you disagree, please tell us why. Do you think God saves whomever he wants to on a whim? Maybe he will change his mind about the atonement as well? I still wonder if Calvinism is driving these outlandish claims.

 

[BABerean2]

I have always contended that there are two types of baptism. You seem to be claiming they are synonymous.

There are two different baptisms in Luke 3:16, and Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17.
Therefore they clearly cannot be synonymous, and I have never claimed otherwise.

One of those baptisms is of water, and the other is of the Holy Spirit.

.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I think God is unchanging and will not violate his own word. I have had to remind you of this more than once.

No you haven't.

I agree with you that God's unchanging and won't violate God's own word.

Interested in what you believe God's stance toward infants is Steven. Do you figure God just waits around until they're old enough to decide for Jesus?

 

[Saint Steven]

There are two different baptisms in Luke 3:16, and Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17.
Therefore they clearly cannot be synonymous, and I have never claimed otherwise.

One of those baptisms is of water, and the other is of the Holy Spirit.

.

Please identify our point of disagreement then?

 

[Saint Steven]

No you haven't.

I agree with you that God's unchanging and won't violate God's own word.

Interested in what you believe God's stance toward infants is Steven. Do you figure God just waits around until they're old enough to decide for Jesus?

I agree with the age of accountability theory. I wouldn't call that, God just waiting around though. He called me when I was of age. I remember it very clearly. But I can only speak for myself.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I agree with the age of accountability theory. I wouldn't call that, God just waiting around though. He called me when I was of age. I remember it very clearly. But I can only speak for myself.

What's your scriptural support for the age of accountability?

 

[Hillsage]

That was a personal "baptism" (as he called it) and nothing to do with our baptisms. Unless you are claiming that we too have a third baptism. Is that right?

You know that I believe the 'shallow thinkers' believe there's only 'one baptism' based upon

EPH 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

And you know I believe in multiple baptisms as being essential, to leave 'principles' and foundational doctrines, in order to attain spiritual perfection/maturity;

HEB 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms,

And I've shared how the Great Commission was speaking of THREE baptisms and not one baptism with triune terminology "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." A 'mantra' which is never followed once in scripture by the apostles themselves.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME OF Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. :16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord….


ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Orthodoxy would have us believe that Stephen was dumber than the church of Rome, and forgot to add the Father and Holy Spirit to his baptism 'mantra' in Acts 8. And the church of Rome would also have to admit that even Peter himself also missed the 'mantra' in Acts 10. And of course Paul blew the 'mantra' in Acts 19.

 

[Hillsage]

Do we find commas, and semicolons in the original Greek, or do they come from the English translation?

(KJV+) ThenG1161 PeterG4074 saidG5346 untoG4314 them,G846 Repent,G3340 andG2532 be baptizedG907 every oneG1538 of youG5216 inG1909 theG3588 nameG3686 of JesusG2424 ChristG5547 forG1519 the remissionG859 of sins,G266 andG2532 ye shall receiveG2983 theG3588 giftG1431 of theG3588 HolyG40 Ghost.G4151

.

You’re absolutely right. All ‘grammatical punctuation’ and ‘Capitalization’ is completely added by interpretation and not from translation of the Greek. And the interpretation by translators is effected immensely by their religious indoctrination based upon the 'traditions and commandments of men'. But in this Acts 2 case I believe the case is made for three separate events when speaking of timeline. And I see and post scripture supporting that POV. We also see inconsistent orthodox theological positions as screwed up as a termite in a yo-yo for that very same reason.

 

[Hillsage]

I agree with the age of accountability theory. I wouldn't call that, God just waiting around though. He called me when I was of age. I remember it very clearly. But I can only speak for myself.

It is a comfortable theory to be sure. But without scripture that's all it is. Religious people just can't imagine God sending babies to ETERNAL HELL because He consigned ALL to be born into disobedience and sin.

ROM 11:32 For God has shut up ALL in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

GAL 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded ALL under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

And there's no doubt that even a baby can get mad and throw a fit...eg SIN!!!. So unless there's a scripture saying 'age of accountability' then orthodoxy must live with the conclusion of their theology. Unless of course you're a Catholic and then they get Limbo and miss the 'beautific revelation' or whatever it is they believe. But for sure babies get a free pass because....well they're BABIES and how horrible would God be if He sent babies to HELL....along with MOST of the human race He created.

 

[Phil W]

Chapter 11 is the most impressive section on faith's power in Priscilla's letter, if not in the whole Bible.

Faith that has Christ is mind's firmness, a persuasion concerning the things which God has promised us for the purpose of having us hope upon them. It's a conviction regarding those things which we can't see, which it's impossible for us to grasp.

So faith thus concerns things which are future, though they may have their beginning in this life. It's gifts' hope. It keeps its form, even when it's weak, a taper. It's opposed to doubt.

Faith stands firm in afflictions. Faith overcomes weakness, for it's in persecution's midst that faith proves itself a persuasion of the heart that clings to God’s promises.

Faith's qualities Priscilla now intends to bring out by referring to a number of examples of OT people. For in this lay the people's commendation. It was on the ground of their having faith that the OT's leading people received God's commendation.

Priscilla's letter?
I thought Priscilla was a wife of Aquila, and it is written that women should not have authority over men.
Wouldn't a letter such as the book of Hebrews infer authority of the writer?
Or do you think Hebrews was written to women only?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Priscilla's letter?
I thought Priscilla was a wife of Aquila, and it is written that women should not have authority over men.
Wouldn't a letter such as the book of Hebrews infer authority of the writer?
Or do you think Hebrews was written to women only?

I know of nothing in the Bible that says that women can't be authors.

 

[Phil W]

Hmm... work... effort... doing our part...

Again, Steven, I hold that when it comes to salvation, God does it all. Since we're spiritually dead before we're saved, we can't do any part of saving ourselves. Thankfully God breaths new life into us. And God's fully capable of making anyone spiritually alive, including an infant.

Does God do the "hearing", "believing", "having faith", "repenting", "accepting", and "confessing" too? Not to mention enduring till the end.
Of course not.
We have a part to play in our salvation whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[Phil W]

I know of nothing in the Bible that says that women can't be authors.

We're off topic, but where did you get the idea Priscilla wrote the letter to the Hebrews?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Does God do the "hearing", "believing", "having faith", "repenting", "accepting", and "confessing" too? Not to mention enduring till the end.
Of course not.
We have a part to play in our salvation whether you acknowledge it or not.

God does the giving of faith. God does the forgiving of sins. God does the sustaining of life.