The Need of the New Birth

[Kokavkrystallos]

From: The Doctrine of the New Birth, by A.W. Pink (I have occasionally run into people who attend services, but when asked if they are saved or if they know they are born again, will answer something like "I don't even know what that means - born again.")

The new birth is an absolute necessity. It is something for which there is no substitute whatsoever. None can enter the kingdom of God save those who have been born again. That the new birth is an imperative necessity is clear from the words of our Lord to Nicodemus—“Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again” (Joh 3:7). He did not say, “Ye may be born again,” or “Ye ought to be born again,” but “Ye must be born again.”

Nowhere else did Jesus Christ put a single statement so strongly or insist upon it with such emphatic repetition. Said He, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” And again, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And yet again, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (Joh 3:3, 5-7). On other occasions He threw wide open the door of mercy—“Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”—but here He deliberately bars the gate of heaven against all the unregenerate. Hence, His words to Nicodemus become the more solemn when we remember that they fell from the lips of One who never excluded a single soul from eternal blessedness unless truth compelled Him to do so. It is none other than the Son of God who says, “Ye must be born again.”

But why is the new birth an imperative necessity? Why is it that no unregenerated person can either see or enter the kingdom of God?

A. Man Is Spiritually Dead​

The new birth is a necessity because by nature man is spiritually dead. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). In the day that Adam ate of the forbidden fruit he died spiritually, and a person who is spiritually dead cannot beget a child who possesses spiritual life. By natural descent we enter this world “dead in trespasses and sins” and in consequence “alienated from the life of God” (Eph 2:1; 4:18). This is no figure of speech, but a solemn fact. Every child which is born into this world enters it entirely destitute of a single spark of spiritual life. Here, then, is the answer to the above questions—a dead person cannot see or enter any kingdom. Man is devoid of spiritual life, and if ever he is to enter the kingdom of God, which is the realm of spiritual life, he must be born into it.

B. The Spiritual Kingdom Requires a Spiritual Nature​

The new birth is necessary because the spiritual kingdom requires a spiritual nature. Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people. Heaven is the habitation of the thrice Holy God and only those who are holy can dwell in His presence for “without holiness no man shall see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). In order for a man to be happy he must be in harmony with his surroundings. If I were to take a number of live fish out of the water, place them on a silver salver, carry them into a garden full of fragrant flowers, and were to produce from a harp the sweetest strains of music, those fish would not be happy. Why? Because they are out of their natural element. They are not in harmony with their environment. So it would be if an unregenerate person were to enter heaven. He has no faculty for discerning spiritual things; he has no capacity to appreciate the divine glory; he has no power to worship in the beauty of holiness. An unregenerate person could no more enjoy heaven than could a deaf and dumb man an oratorio. To take such an one there, would be like leaving a blind man to walk through the halls of our art galleries.

The spiritual kingdom demands a spiritual nature. This follows a universal law. To appreciate or produce music, one must possess musical gifts. I take a young man and place him in the hands of an efficient music teacher. For several years he takes lessons from him. He diligently studies the theory of music and endeavors to master the laws of harmony. He practices regularly for several hours a day. In a few years’ time, will that boy be a musician? That depends altogether upon one thing—does he possess a musical nature? Musicians are born, not manufactured! It is the same in art. Artists are not the product of mechanical training, but the outcome of inherent genius. One cannot be an artist unless one possess the artistic talent. To be a real mathematician, one must have a mathematical turn of mind. To enter the realm of music, one must be musical. To enter the realm of art, one must have an artist’s soul. And to enter the kingdom of God, one must have a godly or spiritual nature, and the only way to acquire this is by being born again. Hence, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (Joh 3:7). It is self-evident. It is a logical as well as an imperative necessity. It is a requirement which follows a universal law. Take the purest woman to heaven who has never been regenerated, and she would be miserable. She cannot really enjoy a spiritual prayer meeting now, much less could she enjoy heaven. She prefers the social gathering, the dance, the picture show, and if she is deprived of them, she is discontented, and if she is compelled to spend an hour in the company of godly people, she is wretched.

C. Man Is Totally Depraved​

The new birth is an imperative necessity, because man is totally depraved. Every member of Adam’s race is a fallen creature, and every part of our complex being has been corrupted by sin. Man’s heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, his mind is blinded and darkened, and his thoughts are only evil continually. His reasonings are unsound, his affections are prostituted, and his will is alienated from God. He is without righteousness, under the curse of the law, and in bondage to sin and Satan; truly his case is desperate and his condition deplorable. He cannot better himself, for there dwelleth no good thing in him. He cannot work out his salvation for he is “without strength.” He cannot live a better life, for he is dead in trespasses and sins. He needs, then, to be born of God. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (Gal 6:15).

Man is a fallen creature. It is not that a few leaves have faded, but that the entire tree has become rotten, root and branch. There is in every one that which is radically wrong. The word “radical,” comes from a Latin word which means “the root” so that when we say a man is radically wrong, we mean that there is in him, in the very root and fiber of his being, that which is intrinsically corrupt and incurably evil. Sins are merely the fruit; there must of necessity be a root from which springs the fruit. We sin because we are sinful by nature; we are sinful by nature because we are fallen creatures. It follows, then, as a natural consequence, that man needs the aid of a Higher Power to effect a radical change. There is only One who can effect the change. God created man, and God alone can re-create him. Hence the imperative demand, “Ye must be born again.”

D. Nothing Else Can Take the Place of the New Birth​

The new birth is a necessity because nothing else can take its place. There is no substitute for it. Education cannot take the place of the new birth. Education is simply the training of the natural man. Education can cultivate, but it cannot create. This should be apparent from the analogy furnished by the physical realm. Capacities which are missing at birth cannot afterwards be supplied by the extra cultivation of others. The sense of touch may be trained to a high degree of proficiency, but it cannot give sight. Hearing may be developed to the utmost acuteness, but it will not give the sense of taste or smell. Neither is it possible to produce a spiritual nature by the cultivation of the flesh. Nature maybe educated to the highest standard attainable, but it cannot be developed into something of a totally different order. There is no process by which a man may be developed out of a horse; nor a beast out of a bird. So also between the natural and the spiritual a wide gulf is fixed. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and it never becomes anything else. But, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” A spiritual nature is the result of a spiritual birth, and not the outcome of cultivating the natural man.

Reformation cannot take the place of the new birth. Reformation has to do with a man’s habits, and not the man himself. If the works of my watch are out of order, no altering of the hands or polishing of the case will make it keep correct time—the trouble is inside. So it is with the sinner. A man may be correct in his deportment, clean in his habits and punctilious in his dealings, and still be dead in trespasses and sins. To one of the Pharisees, our Lord said: “Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness” (Luk 11:39). So it is with reformers. No amount of reformation can change the heart. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” (Joh 6:63). I may gather some weeds out of a field and transplant them in my garden: I may fertilize and irrigate them, but no amount of attention will transform them into rose bushes. So a new environment will not change man’s sinful nature. He needs to be born “of God.”

Religion cannot take the place of the new birth. Spurgeon said: “It is difficult to say how far a man may go in religion and yet die in his sins.” The Pharisees read the Scriptures, fasted oft, gave tithes, and made long prayers, and yet they rejected the counsel of God. It is possible to have one’s name inscribed upon a church register, and yet not have it written in the Lamb’s book of life. No performance of religious duties can take the place of the new birth. How many there are who rely upon the fact that they say their prayers, read their Bibles, attend church, and partake of the Lord’s Supper, but who, nevertheless, are building upon the sand, rather than the Rock which is Christ!

The need of the new birth is universal. It was not to the woman taken in adultery, nor the thief on the cross, that our Lord said: “Ye must be born again,” but to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, a teacher in Israel, a man of unblemished character. Unless Nicodemus was “born again,” he could not enter the kingdom of God. Neither can you! Mark well, then, the Lord’s words: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.”

Sinner, in a little while at most you will be lying upon your deathbed (if deathbed you have). Then, it will matter nothing how large the fortune you have accumulated, how considerable the learning you may have acquired, nor how great the popularity or fame to which you may have attained; all that will matter then will be, Have you been “born again?”

Should any reader be exercised in soul, and led to inquire, “How can I be born again? How can I find Christ?” the best answer that we can give is contained in the words of the Lord Jesus when He said: “Search the Scriptures...they are they which testify of Me” (Joh 5:39).

Chapel Library

www.chapellibrary.org

 

[concretecamper]

The Sacrament of Baptism

 

[The Liturgist]

No performance of religious duties can take the place of the new birth. How many there are who rely upon the fact that they say their prayers, read their Bibles, attend church, and partake of the Lord’s Supper, but who, nevertheless, are building upon the sand, rather than the Rock which is Christ!

On the contrary, as my beloved friends @Ain't Zwinglian @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @JM @jas3 @chevyontheriver @dzheremi @HTacianas @prodromos @FenderTL5 @Jipsah and @Shane R will agree, the manner in which we are born again, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere, and the Gospel According to Matthew, ch. 28 v. 19, is to receive the One Baptism for the Remission of Sins confessed in the Nicene Creed, and thus become members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (however one defines this; my friends have different opinions, since some are Lutheran, some are Eastern Orthodox, some are Oriental Orthodox, some are Anglican and Methodist and some are Roman Catholic; for my part, I define it as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and those churches which agree with them doctrinally, for example, the high church Anglicans, Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, traditional Latin mass and Byzantine Rite Catholics, liturgical Methodists, the Assyrian Church of the East (and the much smaller Ancient Church of the East) and so on, which based on a recent conversation with an Eastern Orthodox chaplain in The Ancient Way subforum, I believe can be described as “heading towards Orthodoxy.”

When we are baptized into the church, we become, to quote St. Paul, grafted onto the Body of Christ, a term he uses to describe the Church, with Christ as its head. Baptism (and the Orthodox would argue Chrismation also) is clearly what is meant by being born again, for it is in this manner that one is born of water and the spirit.

Likewise, regular partaking of the Eucharist, which you refer to as the Lord’s Supper** is extremely spiritually beneficial and important for our salvation, since the Eucharist is the Medicine of Immortality, and our salvation depends, as our Lord explains in John 6, on us being willing to consume His Body and Blood. However, if we partake unworthily, that is to say, without remorse of or repentance from our sins, both of which are facilitated through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we eat and drink to our own condemnation, as St. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. For this reason I strongly object to the recent push in some liberal mainline churches to allow the unbaptized to partake of the Eucharist, since owing to their unbaptized status, they might not have the Holy Spirit, and their sins have not yet been washed away in the font. In the Orthodox Church, we baptize, chrismate and give the Eucharist to infants on the same day.

*Chrismation is often likened to Confirmation in the West, although on studying the Western baptismal liturgies, I am inclined to think that Chrismation might actually correspond with other aspects of the Baptismal liturgy, such as insufflation, but in either case I believe it should be done when someone is received regardless of their age rather than as an adolescent rite of passage administered by a bishop, rather, it seems to me there are other ways such a rite of passage involving catechesis and an episcopal blessing could be performed, and I would also note that one can actually be chrismated more than once, although normally this is done only if one is converting to Orthodoxy from a non-Orthodox church or if one apotasized and became a member of another religion, such as Communist Atheism, Islam or Hinduism (these three religions are the most severe persecutors of Christians at the moment. Or indeed the oil of mercy or myrhh could be used to bless the youths upon their completion of a catechism and interview by the bishop.

Additionally, we are commanded by Christ our True God to pray without ceasing, and some, for example, the Hesychasts who originated on Mount Athos, manage to accomplish this, and it is of vital importance that we pray as much as possible. Prayer is very difficult, and the devil will try to stop us, but we have to endure.

**I have noted tends to be the preferred term used by low church, aliturgical evangelicals and fundamentalists. While not technically wrong, I believe it fails by itself to communicate the essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy, in which we partake of the very body of our Lord and the same blood He shed for us in his all atoning sacrifice (Lutherans regard this sacrifice as one made by God for us, and thus refer to the liturgy as Gottesdienst in German, meaning “God’s Service”, and when the pastor says the Word’s of Institution the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord, which are really present in, with and under the species of bread and wine. The Catholics and Orthodox believe that a sacrifice is made in the liturgy by us, and the Catholics believe at the words of institution the substance of the Bread and Wine is replaced by the substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Orthodox believe that we offer the bread and wine along with our worship, praise and thanksgiving, a bloodless and rational sacrifice, and that the bread and wine, which the liturgy of preparation is made to represent the Body and Blood of our Lord, are transformed by Holy Spirit transforms it into the actual body and blood of our Lord. For this reason, in the Syriac Orthodox church the Divine Liturgy is called the Qurbono Qadisho, and in the Armenian Apostolic Church it is called the Soorp Badarak, meaning, in both instances, “the Holy Sacrifice.” And in the Eucharist, we are in communion with our Lord and his disciples at the Last Supper, and with all other Christians who have partaken of it since, and also present is the Angelic host which celebrates the Liturgy with us. Given the extreme holiness of this mystery (which is what it is called in by the Assyrian Christians, the East Syriac word for mystery being Raza. Used by itself, the term “The Lord’s Supper” implies a dinner, but there is so much more to this sacrament than that, for it is Holy Communion with all the faithful, the Great Thanksgiving, God’s Service, or a Bloodless and Rational Sacrifice, and a Sacred Mystery, a Holy Sacrament of the Church and the medicine of immortality, if we reconcile the different perspectives on it from the different churches I have mentioned.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I believe you are born again when you receive the gift of eternal life through realizing you're a sinner, confessing, receiving forgiveness, and then seeking first the kingdom of God. Baptism is also vitally important, as we are baptized as a symbol of death, burial, and resurrection, and should then be walking in that new life as a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17), and old things are passed away, all things become new.
The Lord's supper is equally important as the partaking of the body & blood of the Lord, though I do not believe the unleavened bread becomes the actual body & blood by transubstantiation, as some do, as such goes against passages in Hebrews about a continual sacrifice, whereas Christ offered Himself once for all.
But the actual born again into the kingdom is that moment you surrender to Christ, apart from anything else - the gist of repentance is granted and received: From there one moves on to be baptized, and become part of a local congregation, or in some cases the lost soul was already in church, having gone through the motions, which sometimes even include being baptized and partaking of the bread & fruit of the vine, but yet unsaved, because their religion was outward, and based on head knowledge, perhaps historical religion, but they had not sought Him with all their heart as Jeremiah proclaims, and then He shall be found of them who seek Him with all their heart.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

There is one Anglican author I read, that being J.C. Ryle, Anglican Bishop. He has this to say,

"Not all members of churches and baptized persons have the Spirit. I see no ground in Scripture for saying that every man who receives baptism receives the Holy Ghost and that we ought to regard him as born of the Spirit. I dare not tell baptized people that they all have the Spirit and that they only need “stir up the gift of God” within them in order to be saved (2Ti 1:6). I see, on the contrary, that Jude speaks of members of the visible church in his day as “having not the Spirit.” Some of them probably had been baptized by the hands of apostles and admitted into full communion with the professing church. No matter! They had not the Spirit (Jude 1:19).

It is vain to attempt to evade the power of this single expression. It teaches plainly that having the Spirit is not the lot of every man and not the portion of every member of the visible church of Christ. It shows the necessity of finding out some general rule and principle by which the presence of the Spirit in a man may be ascertained. He does not dwell in everyone. Baptism and churchmanship are no proofs of His presence. How, then, shall I know whether a man has the Spirit?

b. Visible effects​

The presence of the Spirit in a man’s soul can only be known by the effects which He produces. The fruits He causes to be brought forth in a man’s heart and life are the only evidence which can be depended on. A man’s faith, a man’s opinions, and a man’s practice are the witnesses we must examine if we would find out whether a man has the Spirit. This is the rule of the Lord Jesus: “Every tree is known by his own fruit” (Luk 6:44)." The effects which the Holy Spirit produces may always be seen. The man of the world may not understand them. They may in many cases be feeble and indistinct; but where the Spirit is, He will not be hid. He is not idle when He enters the heart. He does not lie still; He does not sleep. He will make His presence known. He will shine out little by little through the windows of a man’s daily habits and conversation and manifest to the world that He is in him. A dormant, torpid, silent indwelling of the Spirit is a notion that pleases the minds of many. It is a notion for which I see no authority in the Word of God. I hold entirely with the homily for Whitsunday: (11) “As the tree is known by his fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost.”
11. homily for Whitsunday – sermon for Pentecost from the Second Book of Homilies for the Anglican church.

d. Dangerous delusions​

Beware of supposing that a man may have the Spirit when there is no outward evidence of His presence in the soul. It is a dangerous and unscriptural delusion to think so. We must never lose sight of the broad principles laid down for us in Scripture: “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth…In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1Jo 1:6; 3:10).

You have heard, I doubt not, of a wretched class of Christians called Antinomians. They are persons who boast of having an interest in Christ and say they are pardoned and forgiven, while at the same time they live in willful sin and open breach of God’s commandments. You have been told, I dare say, that such people are miserably deceived. They are going down to hell with a lie in their right hand. The true believer in Christ is “dead to sin” (Rom 6:2). Every man that has real hope in Christ “purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1Jo 3:3).

- From, Having the Spirit

Chapel Library

www.chapellibrary.org

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe you are born again when you receive the gift of eternal life through realizing you're a sinner, confessing, receiving forgiveness, and then seeking first the kingdom of God.

That may be what you believe, but tis not what the early church believed, its not what the majority of Christians believe, and it also is inconsistent with the actual text of the New Testament, for example Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Some times we have to swallow our pride and reject beliefs that we might otherwise prefer to hold. For example, I would love to believe in the veracity of much of the New Testament apocrypha, for example, the Acts of Thomas, but I know it to be a distortion of his ministry written by Gnostic heretics.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is one Anglican author I read, that being J.C. Ryle, Anglican Bishop. He has this to say,

"Not all members of churches and baptized persons have the Spirit. I see no ground in Scripture for saying that every man who receives baptism receives the Holy Ghost and that we ought to regard him as born of the Spirit. I dare not tell baptized people that they all have the Spirit and that they only need “stir up the gift of God” within them in order to be saved (2Ti 1:6). I see, on the contrary, that Jude speaks of members of the visible church in his day as “having not the Spirit.” Some of them probably had been baptized by the hands of apostles and admitted into full communion with the professing church. No matter! They had not the Spirit (Jude 1:19).

It is vain to attempt to evade the power of this single expression. It teaches plainly that having the Spirit is not the lot of every man and not the portion of every member of the visible church of Christ. It shows the necessity of finding out some general rule and principle by which the presence of the Spirit in a man may be ascertained. He does not dwell in everyone. Baptism and churchmanship are no proofs of His presence. How, then, shall I know whether a man has the Spirit?

b. Visible effects​

The presence of the Spirit in a man’s soul can only be known by the effects which He produces. The fruits He causes to be brought forth in a man’s heart and life are the only evidence which can be depended on. A man’s faith, a man’s opinions, and a man’s practice are the witnesses we must examine if we would find out whether a man has the Spirit. This is the rule of the Lord Jesus: “Every tree is known by his own fruit” (Luk 6:44)." The effects which the Holy Spirit produces may always be seen. The man of the world may not understand them. They may in many cases be feeble and indistinct; but where the Spirit is, He will not be hid. He is not idle when He enters the heart. He does not lie still; He does not sleep. He will make His presence known. He will shine out little by little through the windows of a man’s daily habits and conversation and manifest to the world that He is in him. A dormant, torpid, silent indwelling of the Spirit is a notion that pleases the minds of many. It is a notion for which I see no authority in the Word of God. I hold entirely with the homily for Whitsunday: (11) “As the tree is known by his fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost.”
11. homily for Whitsunday – sermon for Pentecost from the Second Book of Homilies for the Anglican church.

d. Dangerous delusions​

Beware of supposing that a man may have the Spirit when there is no outward evidence of His presence in the soul. It is a dangerous and unscriptural delusion to think so. We must never lose sight of the broad principles laid down for us in Scripture: “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth…In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1Jo 1:6; 3:10).

You have heard, I doubt not, of a wretched class of Christians called Antinomians. They are persons who boast of having an interest in Christ and say they are pardoned and forgiven, while at the same time they live in willful sin and open breach of God’s commandments. You have been told, I dare say, that such people are miserably deceived. They are going down to hell with a lie in their right hand. The true believer in Christ is “dead to sin” (Rom 6:2). Every man that has real hope in Christ “purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1Jo 3:3).

- From, Having the Spirit

Chapel Library

www.chapellibrary.org

It is clear from Scripture and the Early Church Fathers that everyone who is baptized receives the Spirit, but some people commit apostasy while remaining hypocritically members of a church and thus no longer have a living faith. And we see several examples of that in the New Testament.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

That may be what you believe, but tis not what the early church believed, its not what the majority of Christians believe, and it also is inconsistent with the actual text of the New Testament, for example Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Some times we have to swallow our pride and reject beliefs that we might otherwise prefer to hold. For example, I would love to believe in the veracity of much of the New Testament apocrypha, for example, the Acts of Thomas, but I know it to be a distortion of his ministry written by Gnostic heretics.

I believe mostly according to this, with the exception of Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - rather, every instance of water Baptism in Acts is done in the name of Jesus, who actually IS the embodiment of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence, the NAME of, which is singular, not plural. (Father & Son being titles, Holy Spirit being Holy Spirit)
"The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

From The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,

"Chapter 28

Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

1 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church a to the end of the world. (a Mat 28:19-20; 1Co 11:26)

2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according b to the commission of Christ.

(b Mat 28:19; 1Co 4:1)

Chapter 29

Of Baptism

1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (a Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27; b Mar 1:4; Act 22:16; c Rom 6:4)
2 Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (d Mar 16:16; Act 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8)

3 The outward element to be used in this ordinance eis water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ( e Mat 28:19-20; Act 8:38)

4 Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Mat 3:16; Joh 3:23)

Chapter 30

Of the Lord’s Supper

1 The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe to him; band to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

(a 1Co 11:23-26; b 1Co 10:16-17,21)

2 In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that cone offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all d possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. (c Heb 9:25-26,28; d 1Co 11:24; Mat 26:26-27)

3 The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, eand, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants. (e 1Co 11:23-26, etc.)

4 The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, fare all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ. (f Mat 26:26-28; 15:9; Exo 20:4-5)

5 The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the g body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only h bread and wine, as they were before. (g 1Co 11:27; h 1Co 11:26,28)

6 That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

(iAct 3:21; Luk 24:6,39; k 1Co 11:24-25)

7 Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, land all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

(l 1Co 10:16; 11:23-26)

8 All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, nor be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

(m 2Co 6:14-15; n 1Co 11:29; Mat 7:6)

[This shows the simple details about the Baptismal formula]:

History of Baptism in Jesus' Name

By the way, I DO believe in the Trinity, or the three in One of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - of whom each has specific attributes, yet all are God. 1 John 5:7 KJV
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
(Which will not appear in many modern corrupted translations)

 

[d taylor]

-

​

A person is born again when they believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. They are born again because they now have in them The Life of God. That is the only way to be born again.

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

A person is born again when they believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. They are born again because they now have in them The Life of God. That is the only way to be born again.

No, they are born again when they receive baptism, and from an Orthodox perspective, Chrismation, preferrably by full immersion, as either infants, children or adults, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, followed by reception of the Eucharist. Your doctrine and that of @Kokavkrystallos effectively denies salvation to infants, young children and the mentally disabled.

 

[The Liturgist]

4 The denial of the cup to the people

I am not a Roman Catholic, but even the Roman Catholics now serve communion in both kinds. For the Orthodox, the Eucharist is always served in both species. Indeed, if we did not offer the chalice to the laity, in which in all Eastern and Orthodox liturgies except the Armenian, the Blood of our Lord is mixed with Xenon, that is, hot water, immediately before the people partake of it, which ensures it is warm and which reflects the pouring of blood and water from the side of Christ our true God, it would be impossible for us to easily give the Eucharist to infants in both species.

2 In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that cone offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all d possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. (c Heb 9:25-26,28; d 1Co 11:24; Mat 26:26-27)

This statement mischaracterizes the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice, at least the bloodless and rational sacrifice as understood by the Orthodox, but probably the Roman Catholic one as well, since the Byzantine Catholic churches in communion with Rome use our liturgical texts, but what is more, the verses it provides do not support the Memorialist interpretation of the Eucharist. Indeed, given that anamnesis actually means “put yourself in this moment”, the Orthodox doctrine that we participate in the actual Last Supper offered by Christ makes quite a bit more sense.

 

[The Liturgist]

4 Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

The Orthodox will whenever possible baptize by threefold immersion in water, immersing the energumen in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. However, in the event of medical necessity, or in many jurisdictions, when receiving converts from other denominations, such as myself (for I was baptized as an infant by aspersion, or sprinkling), other methods can be used. I have heard the Serbian Orthodox have often used affusion (pouring) as a standby.

If a Catechumen (someone preparing to be baptized who is learning the Orthodox faith) or Energumen (someone during Holy Week who is to receive illumination, that is, to be baptized, at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on Holy Saturday during the reading of the Old Testament prophecies*) dies before being baptized, they are generally regarded as being saved through what is sometimes called the Baptism of Desire, just as martyrs who die before being liturgically baptized are said to have received the Baptism of Blood.

As far as the rest of your arguments and those of @d taylor concerning baptism are concerned, these have been entirely refuted by my pious Lutheran friend @Ain't Zwinglian , who has established himself as the leading defender of a correct sacramental theology of baptism on these forums. Other Lutherans including @ViaCrucis have done excellent work here as well, along with Orthodox members such as my friend @prodromos , and of course @Xeno.of.athens advocates with alacrity for the Roman Catholic position, which I regard as having been mostly correct during the reign of Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who were both superb theologians.


*Baptizing the energumens on Holy Saturday during the reading of the Old Testament prophecies was also practiced in the Roman Rite at the Vigil Mass on Holy Saturday until 1955 when Pope Pius XII modified it, although I have heard that his disastrous changes were, in a rare moment of liturgical prudence from the Concilium, partially reversed in the Novus Ordo Missae. This was due to the influence of St. Gregory Diologos, also known as St. Gregory the Great, on both the Byzantine and Roman liturgies; to my knowledge he is the last Pope of Rome venerated to a major extent in the Eastern Orthodox church, for his successors introduced errors such as the filioque, Papal Supremacy and so on, and excommunicated the Orthodox, and during the Crusades, Eastern Christians were cannibalized when the crusading armies ran out of food, except in the Fourth Crusade, when in a bit of bait and switch the Venetian Republic redirected the crusade to the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople, occupying the latter city for several years and ensuring that even when the Empire regained control over its lost territories from the Venetians, it would be weakened to the point that conquest by the Muslims became an inevitability. There was also the issue of the extortionate Council of Florence, in which military aid was promised in return for recognizing the Pope as the supreme bishop and the Vicar of Christ, which all of the Greek Orthodox bishops except St. Mark of Ephesus aceded to, but the laity and St. Mark heroically refused, choosing to preserve Orthodoxy at the very high price of Turkocratia (that is to say, accepting the probability of conquest by, and subjection to, the exceptionally cruel and barbaric rule of the Ottoman Empire, which turned out worse than could have been feared when the Turks began seizing the firstborn sons of Christians for indoctrination as Janissaries, a barbaric custom that lasted until the Janissaries were finally abolished in the 19th century due to its tendency to overthrow sultans it disliked and otherwise wield its power politically; in 1915 the Turks engaged in a genocide against Orthodox Christians in which the majority of the Armenian Orthodox, and also it appears nearly all Armenian Catholics, and a majority of the Syriac Orthodox Christians (who refer to the genocide as the Sayfo, meaning sword) and of the Pontic Greeks (those Greeks living in Asia Minor) were killed, with the Armenians having the largest total body count, the Suroye suffering the highest casualty rate with the possible exception of Armenian Catholics, and the Pontic Greeks being ethnically cleansed from Turkey after the end of WWII first with a population exchange agreement with Greece, and then in terms of the remaining Eastern Orthodox population, including some Russian Orthodox Old Believers, a series of Pogroms, so that only a small number of ethnically Hellenic Christians remain in the Phanar district of Istanbul.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

The Catholic encyclopaedia is a good scholarly source but it is not and never has been a repository of Catholic Dogmatic faith. So, its expressions regarding baptism are scholarly but not dogmatic. The Catholic Church teaches in her dogmas and the Catholic Church's dogma regarding baptism is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as follows:

Grace Of Baptism​

VII. The Grace of Baptism​

VII. The Grace of Baptism

1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolises not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.64​

​

For the forgiveness of sins . . .​

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.​

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptised, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."66 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."67​

​

"A new creature"​

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and coheir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.70​

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptised sanctifying grace, the grace of justification: - enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues; - giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit; - allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues. Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.​

​

Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ​

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."71 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body."72​

1268 The baptised have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."73 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvellous light."74 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.​

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptised belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.75 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders,76 holding them in respect and affection.77 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptised person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.78​

1270 "Reborn as sons of God, [the baptised] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church" and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.79​

​

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians​

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptised are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."80 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."81​

​

An indelible spiritual mark . . .​

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptised is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.82 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.​

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.83 The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.84​

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption."85 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."86 The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"87 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.​

Catechism ​

• Prologue
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four

---

 

[d taylor]

No, they are born again when they receive baptism, and from an Orthodox perspective, Chrismation, preferrably by full immersion, as either infants, children or adults, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, followed by reception of the Eucharist. Your doctrine and that of @Kokavkrystallos effectively denies salvation to infants, young children and the mentally disabled.

No, how have you and your fellow followers of your beliefs, gotten so far off from simple Bible teachings. A person is born again the moment they believe in Jesus. Go back and read the context of John 3, where being born again is addressed.

There is Jesus telling Nicodemus he must be born again then just a few verse down in the same context Jesus states.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Having Eternal Life is being born again, a simple teaching by Jesus, but this just simply confounds so many who simply do not believe Jesus' testimony, as Jesus states in John 3

Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

 

[concretecamper]

I believe mostly according to this, with the exception of Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - rather, every instance of water Baptism in Acts is done in the name of Jesus, who actually IS the embodiment of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence, the NAME of, which is singular, not plural. (Father & Son being titles, Holy Spirit being Holy Spirit)
"The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Reference the Didache and you will see that the Church used the Trinitarian formula from its earliest day.

 

[d taylor]

I would literally ask the same question of you, since you seem to think your view is the only possible “Simple Bible Teaching,” when in reality Sola Scriptura Christians do not agree on this subject at all.

Credobaptists claim to only be following the Scripture, but numerous other Christians who very definitely were only following Scripture, for example, Karl Barth, and the Congregationalists of New England such as Jonathan Edward, and the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland and in Ireland and North America, came to completely different conclusions regarding baptism and infant baptism. Indeed my Reformed friend @bbbbbbb rejects infant baptism.

So it is clear that your interpretation of Scripture is not as obvious as you think it is.



Now, as a Christian presbyter, I am required to know the contents of the Gospels, and thus were it not Lent and were I not charitably disposed I might take offense at your suggestion that I “go back and read John 3”, particularly considering that in your post you failed to address John ch. 3 v. 5, which becomes something of an elephant in the room with respect to your argument.

Ergo, the manner in which you present your supposed “simple Scriptural truth” depends on a selective eisegesis rather than the proper exegesis of the entire New Testament text, since you are relying on individual proof texts in isolation, and even appear to be glossing over portions of those proof texts that could undermine your position:



Notice that in all of the above, you fail to quote John 3 verse 5.

Christ our True God, in John 3:5 very clearly says that we must be born again of Water and the Spirit. This obviously and directly refers to Baptism. In addition, we have 1 John 5:7-9, and numerous other texts, as well as the narratives of the Baptism of our Lord in the Jordan.

This is not inconsistent with John 3:16 or the Dialogue with St. Nicodemus; on the contrary, those who believe in our Lord will be saved, but their salvation requires the pursuit of being born again in the baptismal font, because Christ teaches the neccessity of baptism, and baptism is obviously the second birth, in that in baptism, what St. Paul describes as the “old man” is put to death, as St. Paul teaches is necessary, and the “new man” emerges from the font.


By the way, I want to make it clear that my argument here is specifically a rejection of your criticism of my faith and your argument to the extent that only the position you adhere to is the simple and obvious teaching of the Bible, which in my view is very obviously not the case, and furthermore the manner in which you delivered the argument was patronizing and condescending and would have caused offense to many members of ChristianForums.

Thus, in seeking to refute your argument, I am not seeking to undermine the faith of all Baptist members of the forum. Indeed, one of my direct ancestors was the first baptist minister in America, and I get along very well with a number of traditional Baptists who are well educated with regards to Scripture, for example, my pious colleague @Der Alte , who is a Baptist minister I greatly respect despite disagreeing with him on this issue, but in his case I regard it as an extremely minor disagreement, since the fact that we disagree over baptism has never caused animosity. Likewise I regard the Southern Baptist divine* Dr. Albert Mohler as the foremost teacher of moral theology in Western Christianity since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in 2007, following a severe heart attack after Christmas in 2006. I did have the pleasure of seeing Dr. Kennedy preach in person, and he was immensely talented at homiletics, and the liturgical music at his church was exquisite. Dr. Albert Mohler I have not encountered in person, but I should love to see him preach at some point, and I greatly respect his work, particularly in opposition to abortion and sexual immorality.

-

​

No need to quote John 3:5 as it is simply saying a person must be born physically into the world. Even this is being discussed in the context by Nicodemus, asking how can a person go back and be born again.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Water baptism is not being born of the flesh

 

[The Liturgist]

The Catholic encyclopaedia is a good scholarly source but it is not and never has been a repository of Catholic Dogmatic faith.

Indeed so. This forum is littered with posts where people make false arguments about the Roman Catholic Church owing to the use of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which, while filled with interesting historical information, is not only unofficial (and thus entirely devoid of any official authority as a source of Roman Catholic doctrine), but also seriously out of date, having been written before Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, or the important pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom had a very positive impact following the very problematic papacy of Pope Paul VI and the extremely short lived papacy of John Paul I. And in some cases even more unreliable sources are used, for example, polemical tracts written by people with a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church (Jack Chick tracts come to mind).

All of these arguments can be dismissed out of hand on the basis of a fallacious Appeal to Unqualified Authority.

What people should do instead is to consult documents which actually are authoritative and current, such as the freely available Catechism of the Catholic Church and other official documents published on vatican.va.

 

[The Liturgist]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Reference the Didache and you will see that the Church used the Trinitarian formula from its earliest day.

Not only the Didache, but Matthew 28:19 prove that this is the correct formula. The longer ending of Mark is of disputed authenticity, but even bearing that in mind, if one baptizes in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one has baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for Jesus Christ is God, in the person of the Son, and is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all three persons coequal and coeternal persons united in the unoriginate divine essence of the Father.

Speaking of which, one thing that troubles me is when I fail to see people refer to Jesus Christ as God or to have a substantially Trinitarian or Incarnational basis for their theological positions. I feel like this implies Nestorianism or even Arianism or Sabellianism.

One thing I love about the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the various Byzantine Rite Catholics (and other Eastern Rite Catholics* is the extremely strong Trinitarian and Incarnational liturgy, for example, in the Byzantine Rite, the phrases “Christ our True God”, “Glory to the holy and consubstantial, and life‑giving, and undivided Trinity” and others.

These phrases emphasize, in no uncertain terms, the deity of Christ and His status as God Incarnate, and also the doctrine of the Trinity and its implications for all aspects of Christian theology, of one God in three coequal and coeternal persons, an eternal union of perfect love we are called to be an icon of in our relationships with our neighbors, relations and fellow Christians. There are also frequent prayers directed to Christ as well as to the Holy Spirit, which helps to further stress the doctrine of the Trinity, and these prayers are a feature of both the Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Rite liturgies (and presumably, the Oriental Catholic liturgies, such as that of the Coptic Catholics).

*That is to say, with regret, the possible exception of the Maronite Liturgy, which used to have a great deal in common with the Syriac Orthodox Liturgy, but which was really dramatically watered down after the revision of the Roman Rite in 1969, the result being something of an oversimplification which resulted in it losing the beautiful and unique flowery, poetic style of oration and hymnody which it previously had in common with the neighboring West Syriac uses of the Middle East (the liturgies of the Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox churches). However, I have not yet conducted a survey of the Maronite use to determine the extent to which it continues to contain those positive attributes of the other Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies mentioned above.

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

No need to quote John 3:5 as it is simply saying a person must be born physically into the world. Even this is being discussed in the context by Nicodemus, asking how can a person go back and be born again.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Water baptism is not being born of the flesh

Forgive me, but the text you replied to must have been posted by accident; I thought I had posted the present version of the post directly, but perhaps I inadvertently posted and edited it without realizing it.

At any rate, your post does not address the arguments made in the completed post, which is substantially different than the draft that was posted in error. I do apologize for any inconvenience. I will delete and repost the reply for your convenience.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, how have you and your fellow followers of your beliefs, gotten so far off from simple Bible teachings.

I would literally ask the same question of you, except to do so would be to engage in an Argumentum ad Hominem combined with a an Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and also a non-sequitur (which is not a great way to begin an argument), since you seem to think your view is the only possible “Simple Bible Teaching,” when in reality Sola Scriptura Christians do not agree on this subject at all.

Thus, we find the fallacy of Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and this becomes particularly unpleasant when coupled with the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy directed not only at myself, but at the very large number of Christians, well over a billion, who reject the credobaptist position, and who instead believe in baptismal regeneration (that baptism is the means of being born again), a group including 290 million from my own denomination (which is presently the second largest denominational, and the other top 5 groupings (Roman Catholicism, and then Anglicanism in the no. 3 position with 120 million, followed by Lutheranism with I think around 90 million and Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian churches) with around 74 million, as well as the approximately 60 million members of the Oriental Orthodox communion and the 1.5 million members of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, both the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches having endured such terrible persecution in recent years from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, along with the Antiochian Orthodox Church (which is Eastern Orthodox).

At any rate, you claim to only be following the Bible, but numerous other Christians who very definitely were only following Scripture, for example, Karl Barth, and the Congregationalists of New England such as Jonathan Edward, and the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland and in Ireland and North America, came to completely different conclusions regarding baptism and infant baptism. Indeed my Reformed friend @bbbbbbb rejects infant baptism.

So it is clear that your interpretation of Scripture is not as obvious as you suggest, but rather, this claim constitutes a non-sequitur.

A person is born again the moment they believe in Jesus. Go back and read the context of John 3, where being born again is addressed.

There is Jesus telling Nicodemus he must be born again then just a few verse down in the same context Jesus states.

Now, as a Christian presbyter, I am required to know the contents of the Gospels, and thus were it not Lent and were I not charitably disposed I might take offense at your suggestion that I “go back and read John 3”, particularly considering that in your post you failed to address John ch. 3 v. 5, which becomes something of an elephant in the room with respect to your argument. This constitutes eisegesis and is also another non-sequitur, and also an ad hominem insofar as your argument implies that I am unfamiliar with the third chapter of The Gospel According to St. John the Theologian.

Ergo, the manner in which you present your supposed “simple Scriptural truth” depends on a selective eisegesis rather than the proper exegesis of the entire New Testament text, since you are relying on individual proof texts in isolation, and even appear to be glossing over portions of those proof texts that could undermine your position:

No, how have you and your fellow followers of your beliefs, gotten so far off from simple Bible teachings. A person is born again the moment they believe in Jesus. Go back and read the context of John 3, where being born again is addressed.

There is Jesus telling Nicodemus he must be born again then just a few verse down in the same context Jesus states.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Having Eternal Life is being born again, a simple teaching by Jesus, but this just simply confounds so many who simply do not believe Jesus' testimony, as Jesus states in John 3

Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

As noted previously in all of the above, you fail to quote John 3 verse 5. What is more, your conclusions about what is meant by the dialogue with St. Nicodemus are Non-Sequiturs, and also constitutes a Reduction Fallacy insofar as you admit only one possible interpretation of the text, which is clearly not the case.

Christ our True God, in John 3:5 very clearly says that we must be born again of Water and the Spirit. This text, we believe, refers to Baptism. In addition, we have 1 John 5:7-9, and numerous other texts, as well as the narratives of the Baptism of our Lord in the Jordan.

This is not inconsistent with John 3:16 or the Dialogue with St. Nicodemus; on the contrary, the doctrinal position of those churches such as mine which hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that those who believe in our Lord will be saved, but their salvation requires the pursuit of being born again in the baptismal font, because Christ teaches the neccessity of baptism, and baptism is obviously the second birth, in that in baptism, what St. Paul describes as the “old man” is put to death, as St. Paul teaches is necessary, and the “new man” emerges from the font.

It is also clear that the text in question is compatible with our interpretation (which as a matter of historical record is also the only documented Patristic interpretation of the text in question), which is why I assert that your insistence this text contradicts baptismal regeneration is both a non-sequitur and a reduction fallacy. Now, I don’t believe that the text in question is compatible with the credobaptist position, however, the risk of a reduction fallacy becomes great when one says that a text must not mean X but rather can only mean Y, when a very large number of people believe it means X, and indeed, St. Irenaeus of Lyons argued that the Bible can be interpreted in different and incorrect ways, and likened this to rearranging the pieces of a mosaic that depicted a King, so that the mosaic would depict a dog or a fox. For this reason, I normally refrain from accusing Calvinism of being unscriptural, even though I no longer subscribe to it (although I am sympathetic towards it and like many Calvinist churches), because it is clear to me that for the most part, the text supports a Calvinist interpretation, and so if I were to assert that the scriptural text itself was contrary to all of Calvinism and all subsequent developments of Reformed and Presbyterian theology, this would constitute a serious reduction fallacy and consequently, a logical non-sequitur. In the case of the Credobaptist position, I am less hesitant to categorize it as contrary to scripture, but am reticent to make such an argument publically, lest it appear to Credobaptists that I am engaging in a reduction fallacy and concomitant non-sequitur by virtue of dismissing outright the logical integrity of their scriptural interpretation.

To put it another way, it is not logical to assert that there is only one possible interpretation of the Holy Bible, but one can assert that a given interpretation is superior to other interpretations. I myself regard continuity with the writings of the Apostolic and Nicene Fathers and also the shared faith of the traditional liturgical churches to be a good way to do that.

So, in summary, the argument you made opens with an ad simplicitatem fallacy combined with an ad hominem fallacy and continues with a non-sequitur, and then employs scriptural eisegesis and a reduction fallacy, and can thus be rejected as invalid both in terms of logic and hermeneutical consistency. Additionally, it suffers from being delivered in a manner that is deeply disrespectful towards the faith of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, Methodists, Assyrians, Moravians, and Roman Catholics, and all other churches, denominations, communions and denominational groupings that accept, in whole or in part, either the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and/or the baptism of infants.

+

By the way, I want to make it clear that my argument here is specifically a rejection of your criticism of my faith and your argument to the extent that only the position you adhere to is the simple and obvious teaching of the Bible, which in my view is very obviously not the case, and furthermore the manner in which you delivered the argument was patronizing and condescending and would have caused offense to many members of ChristianForums. The reason furthermore I am specifically seeking to refute your argument is one based in loving charity, because I believe you are unaware as to how your argument came across, and obviously you would not want to cause offense, which is a risk when making such an argument, and attacking someone’s faith in such a severe manner, and also with such eisegetical and fallacious arguments.

Thus, in seeking to refute your argument, I am not seeking to undermine the faith of all Baptist members of the forum. Indeed, one of my direct ancestors was the first baptist minister in America, and I get along very well with a number of traditional Baptists who are well educated with regards to Scripture, for example, my pious colleague @Der Alte , who is a Baptist minister I greatly respect despite disagreeing with him on this issue, but in his case I regard it as an extremely minor disagreement, since the fact that we disagree over baptism has never caused animosity. Likewise I regard the Southern Baptist divine* Dr. Albert Mohler as the foremost teacher of moral theology in Western Christianity since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in 2007, following a severe heart attack after Christmas in 2006. I did have the pleasure of seeing Dr. Kennedy preach in person, and he was immensely talented at homiletics, and the liturgical music at his church was exquisite. Dr. Albert Mohler I have not encountered in person, but I should love to see him preach at some point, and I greatly respect his work, particularly in opposition to abortion and sexual immorality.