What is baptismal regeneration?

[Holyroller125]

What is baptismal regeneration?

Would you define baptismal regeneration as believing that salvation happens at the point of water baptism instead of confession?

Most believe conversion happens at the moment of belief and confession (Rom. 10:9-10, 13). Do Methodist believe conversion happens at the point of confession? Even thought baptism is a sacrament, water baptism is not the means and/or manner that a person is saved?

Can you find Scriptures to support baptismal regeneration (e.g., baptism is required for salvation)?

Or, can you find as many Scriptures to support that conversion occurs at the moment of faith without water baptism and without legalism. Salvation by faith only?


Thank You for all your help and insightfulness!

 

[revanneosl]

The United Methodist theology of the sacrament of baptism is set forth in the document By Water and the Spirit. It really quite wonderfully states the complex relationship between the regeneration which God ordinarily accomplishes in baptism, and the inward experiences of repentance, faith and conversion, which make that regeneration active, growing and effective throughout our lives.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

I look at baptism as an outward expression of one's acceptance of Christ as their savior. For my children however it's an act of prevenient grace (though I admit that one was a little difficult to wrap my head around at first - makes sense to me now).

 

[Maid Marie]

I am struggling to understand this myself. Nazarenes affirm the Nicene Creed. I have no problem with this. Yet the phrase "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" is not something I've ever seen acknowleged in church. We as a denomination have been so driven to get people to accept Jesus as their savior that baptism is an afterthought...if thought about at all. My own pastor said he was saved at 8 but not baptized until 21, and then it was on a whim. I can think of only one Nazarene pastor [or born and bred Nazarene layperson] who even believes there is a connection between baptism and regeneration. To me there seems to be a disconnect between the two beliefs that we supposedly have. Yet, no one I've asked can explain why we affirm one belief and yet believe something differernt.

 

[lucaspa]

What is baptismal regeneration?

I've never seen the term used in Methodism.

Would you define baptismal regeneration as believing that salvation happens at the point of water baptism instead of confession?

For Methodists, salvation is a process. An ongoing process that never stops and which can go backwards. IOW, Methodism beleives it is possible for a person to turn his/her back on salvation and go the other way.

Do Methodist believe conversion happens at the point of confession? Even thought baptism is a sacrament, water baptism is not the means and/or manner that a person is saved?

No, baptism is not the means or manner that a person is saved. For many of us (those baptized as babies), it is the start of the salvation process.

"But after being born again, the very Being of God opens up to us, and we begin a journey into holiness (sanctification) that changes everything about our relationship to God and our neighbors.

Baptism by water and the Spirit is the sign, and for many (though not all!) the usual channel of this great gift of God. “By Water and the Spirit” reminds us that:

Baptism is the means of entry into new life in Christ (John 3:5; Titus 3:5), but new birth may not always coincide with the moment of the administration of water or the laying on of hands. Our awareness and acceptance of our redemption by Christ and new life in him may vary throughout our lives. But, in whatever way the reality of the new birth is experienced, it carries out the promises God made to us in our baptism… " Is the concept “saved, born-again” unique to evangelicals or Baptists? Does it apply to Methodists?

 

[lucaspa]

I am struggling to understand this myself. Nazarenes affirm the Nicene Creed. I have no problem with this. Yet the phrase "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" is not something I've ever seen acknowleged in church.

That's an excellent point! I've never thought about it before but I agree that you have found an apparent inconsistency between the Nicene Creed and Wesley's parish. It might help to look at the essay I linked in the previous post. It explains why your pastor could be "saved" before he was baptized.

Yet, no one I've asked can explain why we affirm one belief and yet believe something differernt.

If I can venture a guess, and it is only a guess, the Nicene Creed is "grandfathered" in. IOW, Chistians generally adhere to the Nicene Creed and Wesley did too. However, reflection upon scripture and theology resulted in the new belief, at odds with the old. The Nicene Creed is kept, however, because it covers the major beliefs and this is minor.

 

[VolRaider]

John Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration, but like Lucaspa said he also felt that salvation could be lost, which is a belief that separates Methodists from Reformed Protestants. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans believe in b.reg., but they also believe that man's free will can cause him to fall. I believe the difference between those churches and the Methodists is it is a requirment to be saved in the former and only strongly suggested in Wesleyan churches.
I'll shoot this question over to the Anglican forum. I grew up in TEC and, when younger, was under the impression that it was required to be saved. However, I never actually heard my priest (or my parents) say that.

 

[Maid Marie]

If I can venture a guess, and it is only a guess, the Nicene Creed is "grandfathered" in. IOW, Chistians generally adhere to the Nicene Creed and Wesley did too. However, reflection upon scripture and theology resulted in the new belief, at odds with the old. The Nicene Creed is kept, however, because it covers the major beliefs and this is minor.

I've thought it about it some since you posted and while I go around and around about it in my head, the only thing I can think of is along the lines of what you say here. The creed as a whole is good but we overlook this minor part.

But then after seeing three kids be baptized tonight at a local ECUSA's Easter Vigil, I can't help but think there's just got to be more to Baptism than what my low church background tells me. So, I will be pondering this some more...Kind of like a dog with a bone.

 

[mark46]

See the excepts below from By the Water and teh Spirit cited earlier. There are two issues, one involves baptism and the other salvation.

Jesus was really clear in his command to be baptized for the remission of sins, as we confess in the Creed. I think it unusual for a believer not to be grafted into the Body as soon as possible. One can deal with the times when Jesus will accept us as friends even we have not been baptized. I leaves that for the legalists among us. I think there are situations when we cannot be baptized as Jesus has commanded. I understand that there are those who do not believe in sacraments, but I believe that most Methodists believe that baptism is an outward sign of inner Grace.

Salvation is a process not an event. Salvation includes justification, santification and glorification. Infant baptism has been practised since the beginning. We become more conformed to God each day of our lives. Some would say that we are coinverted again every day.

And yes, we can turn back God's free gift of salvation. We are saved by God's Grace, His free gift. There are no strings at all. But we can refuse it, and we can give it back.

Finally, there are those who think it wrong for infants to be baptized since they cannot make a profession of faith. Perhaps those folks believe that babies and children are not saved and go to hell. I prefer infant baptism and relying on God's Grace and Mercy.



By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism

Baptism for Wesley, therefore, was a part of the lifelong process of salvation. He saw spiritual rebirth as a twofold experience in the normal process of Christian development—to be received through baptism in infancy and through commitment to Christ later in life. Salvation included both God's initiating activity of grace and a willing human response.

...
Baptism as Forgiveness of Sin. In baptism God offers and we accept the forgiveness of our sin (Acts 2:38). With the pardoning of sin which has separated us from God, we are justified—freed from the guilt and penalty of sin and restored to right relationship with God. This reconciliation is made possible through the atonement of Christ and made real in our lives by the work of the Holy Spirit. We respond by confessing and repenting of our sin, and affirming our faith that Jesus Christ has accomplished all that is necessary for our salvation. Faith is the necessary condition for justification; in baptism, that faith is professed. God's forgiveness makes possible the renewal of our spiritual lives and our becoming new beings in Christ.

 

[Mr Dave]

Ooh, you bring up a few topics

I don't think Methodists would say that Baptism is the means by which someone is saved. Methodists fully accept the prinicples of the Protestant Reformation (Salvation by grace alone being one of these), but don't diminish the importance of baptism. As for the Nicene Creed (we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins), I was always led to believe that this was that you need be baptised only once, and as such the Methodist Church will never rebaptise people. If you have been baptised, you may not be baptised again, as this would suggest that the first one didn't really do the job of remission. This is the same for the RCC, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, Moravians, and some other Reformed Churches (not Baptists though), who all recognise each other's baptisms as valid, and if you were to change church would not be expected or allowed to go through that church's baptism.

It is for this reason that we also have Confirmation, where if you were baptised as a child, you have an opportunity to publically declare your faith, in a service similar to the Baptismal liturgy, but without going through the sacrament of baptism.

The Methodist Church loosely talks of regeneration, in linking baptism to being raised to new life/the new birth.

Some lines from the baptismal liturgy;

In this sacrament...
God claims and cleanses us, rescues us from sin, and raises us to new life.

Pour out your Holy Spirit
that those baptised in this water
may die to sin,
be raised with Christ,
and be born to new life in the family of your Church.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

in the confirmation liturgy

N and N
God has constantly been at work in your life
and, at your Baptism into Christ,
offered you the gifts of his grace....

and from the Methodist Catechism

15. What is the New Birth?

New birth, regeneration and conversion are all terms used to describe the process by which we are brought by God from the state of sin into the new life in Jesus Christ, in which we grow through the working of the Holy Spirit in us.

Methodists would probably also use the experience and witness of Wesley to know about when conversion happens and would say that it can happen after baptism, as Wesley was baptised as child, will have been confirmed as an adolescent but wasn't converted till later in life, even after becoming an Anglican Priest The Methodist Church in Britain | Assurance of God's love

11. What is Conversion?

It is the change which God works in us as we respond to his grace in repentance and faith.

 

[Maid Marie]

Thanks all for your replies. I wil have to ponder this some more. One thing though that I did figure out today is why Nazarenes aren't bothered by this part of the creed. That is because I doubt that most of them are familiar enough with it to care. Unlike TEC, the CotN is mostly a non-liturgical denomination in which the Nicene creed is not repeated everyday. At most, the apostles' creed will be recited if one is to be recited.

 

[mark46]

I might suggest that it is our understanding and "new ideas" that are deficient, rather than Wesley's understanding of Scripture and the Creed.

Eastern Orthodox have a tradition of treating the sacraments as mysteries, rather than trying to explain them in every detail I though that this was the UMC tradition also.

The Nicene Creed is not a general desciption of our faith. It is much more.

.
If I can venture a guess, and it is only a guess, the Nicene Creed is "grandfathered" in. IOW, Chistians generally adhere to the Nicene Creed and Wesley did too. However, reflection upon scripture and theology resulted in the new belief, at odds with the old. The Nicene Creed is kept, however, because it covers the major beliefs and this is minor.

 

[theistic evol]

I understand that there are those who do not believe in sacraments, but I believe that most Methodists believe that baptism is an outward sign of inner Grace.

When I took my membership class (all those years ago!) I was told Methodism had just 2 sacraments: baptism and communion. And indeed both were "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace". I do remember the formula after all these years.

Finally, there are those who think it wrong for infants to be baptized since they cannot make a profession of faith.

I was taught that the adults in the congregation were making the profession for the infant. We were taking upon ourselves the responsibility to teach the child as it grew so that he/she could eventually make the profession for him/herself.

 

[theistic evol]

I might suggest that it is our understanding and "new ideas" that are deficient, rather than Wesley's understanding of Scripture and the Creed.

The Nicene Creed is not a general desciption of our faith. It is much more.

I've been reading thru the thread and I'm confused. Mark, it looks like you and Lucaspa are saying the same things.

You said: "I think there are situations when we cannot be baptized as Jesus has commanded." Do you believe our sins are forgiven if, for some reason, we are never baptized?

Every week in the Methodist Church I attend we have a Confessional Prayer where we confess our sins (often ones we have committed since last Sunday ) and ask for forgiveness. Why would we have to do that if "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."?

It looks to me like the discussion hinges on what that phrase means. Does it mean:
1. One baptism remits all our sins forever? Or does it mean
2. There is only one baptism for the remission of sins and we do not undergo a new baptism every week for forgiveness?

Much of the Nicene Creed is structured as it is to exclude various heresies, particularly about the nature of Christ. I wonder if there was a movement in early Christianity that had mutiple baptisms?

"Baptism as Forgiveness of Sin

. In baptism God offers and we accept the forgiveness of our sin (Acts 2:38). With the pardoning of sin which has separated us from God, we are justified—freed from the guilt and penalty of sin and restored to right relationship with God. This reconciliation is made possible through the atonement of Christ and made real in our lives by the work of the Holy Spirit. We respond by confessing and repenting of our sin,"

But don't we do this continually thruout our life? I'm confused again.

 

[revanneosl]

I've been reading thru the thread and I'm confused. Mark, it looks like you and Lucaspa are saying the same things.

You said: "I think there are situations when we cannot be baptized as Jesus has commanded." Do you believe our sins are forgiven if, for some reason, we are never baptized?

Every week in the Methodist Church I attend we have a Confessional Prayer where we confess our sins (often ones we have committed since last Sunday ) and ask for forgiveness. Why would we have to do that if "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."?

It looks to me like the discussion hinges on what that phrase means. Does it mean:
1. One baptism remits all our sins forever? Or does it mean
2. There is only one baptism for the remission of sins and we do not undergo a new baptism every week for forgiveness?

Much of the Nicene Creed is structured as it is to exclude various heresies, particularly about the nature of Christ. I wonder if there was a movement in early Christianity that had mutiple baptisms?



But don't we do this continually thruout our life? I'm confused again.

Why yes there was, or rather "there were" because there was more than one of them. However, they all pretty much amounted to the same thing.

Everybody got their jammies on and a last drink of water? All right then, let's begin

Once upon a time, a long time ago, sort of off and on from time to time, somebody in authority in the Roman Empire would get all het up about those rotten Christians. They didn't sacrifice to the gods of the Roman Empire, which made the gods angry, and so the gods rained down punishments: crop failures, storms, pestilence, losses on the battlefield, that sort of thing.

These authorities would reason to themselves thusly: "If the gods are mad because they aren't getting their due, then we need to see to it that everybody makes the gods happy and then all of this ugliness will come to a screeching halt. So that's what they did.

Every so often, in various cities and provinces - and a couple of times throughout the whole of the Empire, the authorities would see to it. Sometimes they would just round up the Christian leaders and make them surrender the holy books and objects used in worship (communion chalices, incense burners & such). If they didn't comply, sometimes they'd be publicly whipped, sometimes they'd have their property confiscated, sometimes they'd be jailed & sometimes they'd be executed.

Sometimes, instead of going to the trouble to round up the Christian leaders, the authorities would have at it from the opposite direction. They'd declare a day, or a week, or a month, during which everybody in the city (or province or Empire) must perform sacrifice to the gods. Then you got a cool little receipt proving that you were a good, patriotic Roman. Then they compared the list of people who'd gotten receipts to the list of people from the last census & knew who to go after. Also, you needed your receipt to buy or sell anything, or to bring a case in court, or to pay your taxes, or basically to do anything.

So - of course - a lot of Christians just went ahead and did what the Romans asked. Some burned incense to the gods. Some sacrificed animals. Some turned over the holy books and objects used in worship (ask me about St. Lawrence sometime - it's a great story!) and some just bought forged receipts.

Once the famine, pestilence, battle, bad weather was over, then the Roman authorities got over themselves and went back to business as usual. The Christians, however, had a problem on their hands. What to do, what to do, what ever to do with the Christians who had given in in the face of the persecution. This was no small problem. Conservative estimates indicate that around 80- 85% of Christians gave into the temptation to "go along to get along" to one degree or another.

What the Church decided to do was to let them repent a bit, and then forgive them. By "repent" I mean they had to go to church, stand outside on the porch begging the forgiveness of those who had stood firm, then go in, listen to the scripture & the sermon, then leave before communion. There was also probably some personal wailing & gnashing of teeth, perhaps a bit of sackcloth and ashes, etc.

Some people had to do a couple years of this. Some people had to do lots of years, and some people had to do it for the rest of their lives, finally receiving Communion on their deathbed.

This solution to the problem was, of course, not good enough for the more hard-nosed among us. First a bunch of folks called Novationists, and later a similar bunch of folks called Donatists insisted that once you'd "sinned away" the grace of your baptism, That. Was. It.

Furthermore, they insisted that any converts to the faith who had been baptized by a Bishop (only Bishops did the baptizing in those days) who was on the more forgiving side were not, in fact, truly baptized. So - if they got hold of them, they baptized them again.

The more forgiveness-minded wing of the church, on the other hand, recognized the validity of the baptisms performed by their more hard-nosed bretheren, and so did not rebaptize converts who had been baptized in the other branch, and then later found their way to the forgiveness party.

In the general clean-up of doctrine that was the 4th Century, this was one of the little things that got cleaned up.

And that, Virginia, is why we say "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

 

[Maid Marie]

Very interesting!

 

[mark46]

1) I don't think Lucaspa and I disagree on any doctrine discussed here. I was somewhat surprised with his statement implying the the Creed was an approximation of the faith and that our new ideas and understandings have superseded the Creed.

2) We are saved by the Grace of God. We are forgiven through the Grace of God. No act of man (including water baptism) can constrain God to do anything, not even forgive our sins. Pelagianism was a serious heresy. God is indeed sovereign.

So, yes be can be forgiven of our sins by God even if we are not baptized. Jesus decides who will be his friends and who will have eternal life. he does not ahve to follow man's rules.

There are two issues here.

First, the lack of baptism should be an extremely unusual situation within Christain countries. Baptism is a sacrament isntituted by Jesus. He has commanded us to be baptized and to baptize others. Sure there can be situations (perhaps mental illness, perhaps a person who is becoming a Christain and dies, perhaps a baby who dies before being baptized). But IMHO to not be baptized because I decided to wait is a serious trangression of what God has providfed for us.

Th second issue is that the one baptism is not about eternal life. Baptism is an initiation rite, a sacrament of obedience. It is the beginning of the salvation process. It is about marking someone as a member of God's family. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, although this in itself is a complicated issue. Eternal life is about prevenient Grace and our acceptance of the free gift of eternal life. We are justified, we have eternal life, by Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. As I daid before, Jesus can choose to accpet who he will. Certainly we hope and expect that he will accept children who have yet to believe.
============

The last issue that you raise is the need to confess our continuing sin. This was not well understood at all by early Christians. Perhaps this is what Lucaspa was referring to with regard to the Creed. Baptism does not remove our inherited human nature, and our ancestral heritage of being sinful creatures. Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior does not remove our tendency to sin. We spend our lives struggling with sin. We are converted each day. Each day we become more Christ-like. This is one of Wesley's great gifts to the Western Church, an understanding of sanctification as a lifelong process. The Orthodox call this "theosis".

I've been reading thru the thread and I'm confused. Mark, it looks like you and Lucaspa are saying the same things.

You said: "I think there are situations when we cannot be baptized as Jesus has commanded." Do you believe our sins are forgiven if, for some reason, we are never baptized?

Every week in the Methodist Church I attend we have a Confessional Prayer where we confess our sins (often ones we have committed since last Sunday ) and ask for forgiveness. Why would we have to do that if "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."?

It looks to me like the discussion hinges on what that phrase means. Does it mean:
1. One baptism remits all our sins forever? Or does it mean
2. There is only one baptism for the remission of sins and we do not undergo a new baptism every week for forgiveness?

Much of the Nicene Creed is structured as it is to exclude various heresies, particularly about the nature of Christ. I wonder if there was a movement in early Christianity that had mutiple baptisms?



But don't we do this continually thruout our life? I'm confused again.

 

[Maid Marie]

The second issue is that the one baptism is not about eternal life. Baptism is an initiation rite, a sacrament of obedience. It is the beginning of the salvation process. It is about marking someone as a member of God's family. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, although this in itself is a complicated issue.

The part I bolded is for me what is finally making the most sense to me. Others have tried to explain this to me before I know but it was too much of a switch in understanding for me to wrap my mind around to get it.

The part in green is not a Nazarene understanding of the concept of original sin or baptism, but I don't need to worry about it since it is not in the Nicene or Apostles' Creed. So I won't feel like I am being inconsistent.

The part about it being an initiation rite and making a child a part of God's family is how I sell the concept to a denomination that allows for it in polity but in practice generally prefers the anabaptist view.

 

[Holyroller125]

John Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration, but like Lucaspa said he also felt that salvation could be lost, which is a belief that separates Methodists from Reformed Protestants. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans believe in b.reg., but they also believe that man's free will can cause him to fall. I believe the difference between those churches and the Methodists is it is a requirment to be saved in the former and only strongly suggested in Wesleyan churches.
I'll shoot this question over to the Anglican forum. I grew up in TEC and, when younger, was under the impression that it was required to be saved. However, I never actually heard my priest (or my parents) say that.

Ooh, you bring up a few topics

I don't think Methodists would say that Baptism is the means by which someone is saved. Methodists fully accept the prinicples of the Protestant Reformation (Salvation by grace alone being one of these), but don't diminish the importance of baptism. As for the Nicene Creed (we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins), I was always led to believe that this was that you need be baptised only once, and as such the Methodist Church will never rebaptise people. If you have been baptised, you may not be baptised again, as this would suggest that the first one didn't really do the job of remission. This is the same for the RCC, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, Moravians, and some other Reformed Churches (not Baptists though), who all recognise each other's baptisms as valid, and if you were to change church would not be expected or allowed to go through that church's baptism.

It is for this reason that we also have Confirmation, where if you were baptised as a child, you have an opportunity to publically declare your faith, in a service similar to the Baptismal liturgy, but without going through the sacrament of baptism.

The Methodist Church loosely talks of regeneration, in linking baptism to being raised to new life/the new birth.

Some lines from the baptismal liturgy;




in the confirmation liturgy



and from the Methodist Catechism




Methodists would probably also use the experience and witness of Wesley to know about when conversion happens and would say that it can happen after baptism, as Wesley was baptised as child, will have been confirmed as an adolescent but wasn't converted till later in life, even after becoming an Anglican Priest The Methodist Church in Britain | Assurance of God's love

More of this question relates to at one point is someone saved, justified, and experiences conversion? Up until John Wesley’s conversion at Aldersgate, he was very hard on himself, afraid of his own soul, and had fear of dying while believing as a straight Anglican priest in baptismal regeneration, which means salvation and justification happens at the moment of water baptism. John Wesley was also caught up into the distinctive disciplines of his tradition called the Anglicans.

However, Wesley doubted his own saving faith, and he inquired towards a Moravian believer whose name was Peter Bohler. Peter Bohler had a convincing presentation of instantaneous conversion by faith alone. Richard P. Heitzenrater articulates Wesley’s declaration, “On April 23, he [John Wesley] was finally convinced by five Moravians, including Bohler, ‘that faith converts at once,’ and that such instantaneous conversion was not only scripturally grounded but presently possible (Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 78).” Wesley even recorded in March, “I was on Sunday the 5th clearly convinced of unbelief, of the want of that faith whereby alone we are saved (Snyder, The Radical Wesley, p. 25).” As a result, he began seeking the true understanding and experience of salvation. He REREAD the Greek New Testament and discovered that instantaneous conversions did indeed take place in the New Testament church (Snyder, The Radical Wesley, p.25-26).

I also agree with John Wesley’s observations of the Greek New Testament because of the following evidence. I also was like Wesley influenced by Methodists from their humbled proclamation. One Methodist member challenged me with the simple message, “For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. As a result, I was motivated to perform a fresh exegetical study of Romans 10:8b-13 in my last year in seminary. In Romans 10:8b, Paul introduced the message that was preached. The message was in their hearts and in their mouth, and the message was the “word of faith” which the apostles preached (Rom. 10:8a). The immediate context was a sermon. Paul introduced to his audience in Romans 10:1 that his prayer was for Israel that they would be saved,[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][1][/font] but this text does not mean that the whole chapter is a prayer. Romans 10:9-13 was not just a prayer. I found that the gospel is simply that Jesus rose from the dead and that Jesus is Lord. In Romans 10 verse 10, belief results in justification, and the confession confirms one’s salvation. Paul also gave an explanation for all his remarks when he wrote and quoted the concise syllogism from Joel 2:32 as Romans 10:13, for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. According to Wallace, I observed that the present tense verbs for believe and confess are instantaneous presents (a.k.a., also known as punctiliar or aoristic present).[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][2][/font] Also according to Wallace, “The present tense may be used to indicate that an action is completed at the moment of speaking.”[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][3][/font] In other words, calling upon the name of the Lord can get a conversion at the moment of faith. Therefore, conversion occurs instantaneously in the present from a past aorist event for a future promise of salvation.


On May 24, 1738, John Wesley had his conversion after hearing the Epistle to the Romans. He was influenced by Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone at the moment of belief, even without water baptism. This led John Wesley to preach just the faith statement from Romans 10:9-10 in his Sermon, The Righteousness by Faith:

The moment “thou believest in thine heart” in him whom God “hath raised from the dead,” and “confesses with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” as thy Lord and thy God, thou shalt be saved…

John Wesley began preaching that conversion and salvation happens at the moment of faith when one confesses with their mouth the faith statement. I understand this evidence means that salvation is universally accepted to all the moment one believes and makes the statement calling upon the name of the Lord.

This was the original meaning of Evangelical. It was the Evangelical meaning of conversion that gave this term its influential meaning by Evangelicals from Germany and in the early American colonies. The term Evangelical is mis-used by North American Christians. North American Christians ONLY refer to Evangelical when they are talking about the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. However, the original meaning of Evangelical came from the nature of conversion. An Evangelical conversion is an instantaneous conversion (e.g., from John Wesley’s illumination) that occurs the moment one believes in their heart that God raised Christ from the dead and confesses with their mouth Jesus is Lord. This is also why John Wesley along with others convey the basic Biblical message and promise of Romans 10:13:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As this relates to John Wesley’s view of water baptism, Wesley’s sacramental theology seems Anglican precisely at this point. But John Wesley’s sacramentalism and other aspects of his theology and practice became a modified Anglican position because of his strongly influenced Evangelical conversion and conviction. John Wesley began to preach and teach that conversion is that faith that does come instantaneously in a moment. For Wesley, the sacraments like water baptism were “means of grace.” But the sacraments were only instruments; they are means, not an end (Snyder, The Radical Wesley, 102; Stoeffler, “Tradition and Renewal in the Ecclesiology of John Wesley,” 310, 312; Sermon, “The Means of Grace,” Works, V, 187). Also, “As the primitive church lost its earlier purity, the means [of sacraments, i.e., water baptism] became mistaken for end” (Snyder, The Radical Wesley, 102). Wesley believed in sacraments, and that divine agency does work and is regenerating through water baptism. However, a lot of John Wesley’s preaching on conversion was heavily influenced by the Epistle to the Romans, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and by his own Evangelical conversion. Numerous times John Wesley referred to Romans 10:9-10, 12-13 during his sermons when influencing people to experience conversion.

John Wesley struggled with legalism, was hard on himself, was all about the disciplines of his tradition, the ritual procedures, and how to practice. Later, Wesley got delivered from the necessity and received the revelation that we are saved by grace through faith alone. Then, Wesley had an instantaneous conversion. Finally, that is all the reason why people from in the Methodist heritage proclaim:
Romans 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved for conversion at the moment of faith without legalism, without specific procedures, and without the effect of the ritual of water baptism.

Blessings,
Holyroller125

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][1][/font] Rom. 10:1.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][2][/font] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 517.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][3][/font] Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 517.

 

[Holyroller125]

1) I don't think Lucaspa and I disagree on any doctrine discussed here. I was somewhat surprised with his statement implying the the Creed was an approximation of the faith and that our new ideas and understandings have superseded the Creed.

2) We are saved by the Grace of God. We are forgiven through the Grace of God. No act of man (including water baptism) can constrain God to do anything, not even forgive our sins. Pelagianism was a serious heresy. God is indeed sovereign.

So, yes be can be forgiven of our sins by God even if we are not baptized. Jesus decides who will be his friends and who will have eternal life. he does not ahve to follow man's rules.

There are two issues here.

First, the lack of baptism should be an extremely unusual situation within Christain countries. Baptism is a sacrament isntituted by Jesus. He has commanded us to be baptized and to baptize others. Sure there can be situations (perhaps mental illness, perhaps a person who is becoming a Christain and dies, perhaps a baby who dies before being baptized). But IMHO to not be baptized because I decided to wait is a serious trangression of what God has providfed for us.

Th second issue is that the one baptism is not about eternal life. Baptism is an initiation rite, a sacrament of obedience. It is the beginning of the salvation process. It is about marking someone as a member of God's family. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, although this in itself is a complicated issue. Eternal life is about prevenient Grace and our acceptance of the free gift of eternal life. We are justified, we have eternal life, by Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. As I daid before, Jesus can choose to accpet who he will. Certainly we hope and expect that he will accept children who have yet to believe.
============

The last issue that you raise is the need to confess our continuing sin. This was not well understood at all by early Christians. Perhaps this is what Lucaspa was referring to with regard to the Creed. Baptism does not remove our inherited human nature, and our ancestral heritage of being sinful creatures. Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior does not remove our tendency to sin. We spend our lives struggling with sin. We are converted each day. Each day we become more Christ-like. This is one of Wesley's great gifts to the Western Church, an understanding of sanctification as a lifelong process. The Orthodox call this "theosis".

I used to be a (Oneness Pentecostal) ordained pastor. The OP tradition was very narrow and strict in their theological conformity. Everyone had to saved by getting water baptized by immersion in Jesus’ name, receive the Holy Ghost with “evidencal” tongues, and conform to many rules. This is what some traditions call baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration teaches that baptism is the “only” juncture when God imparts saving grace, and water baptism results in the forgiveness of sins (e.g., remission of sins, justification).[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][1][/FONT] Baptism is the “only” [emphasis mine] means that affects the washing of regeneration.[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][2][/FONT] For Oneness Pentecostals, water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidencal tongues was the experience of salvation (e.g., for justification). According to OP, church leadership called it the “water and spirit” doctrine. Baptismal regeneration means salvation happens at the point of water baptism, or baptismal regenerationists “believe you have to be baptized to be saved” [e.g., baptism “results in” salvation].[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][3][/FONT] Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals believe that salvation occurs by a person observing three specific steps of water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit with the “initial evidence” of speaking in tongues.[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][4][/FONT] This means conversion is not completed at the moment of belief and calling upon the name of the Lord.

I used to believe as an Apostolic Pentecostal a very rigid form of salvation that teaches that one has to repent (e.g., convince God), get water baptized in Jesus Name by immersion, baptismal regeneration (salvation was an award because you were baptized, not really a means of grace of God’s divine agency at work), one had to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Now because of the Methodist witness, John Wesley’s influential example, and also my fresh reading of the Greek New Testament and my English translation, I now believe like that Methodist that we are saved by grace through faith without legalism. I observed throughout Scripture that there is no promise of salvation for conforming to rituals, legalism, specific procedures, water baptism, speaking in tongues, and even the false standards of holiness. On the other hand, I did observe in Scripture that an instantaneous conversion occurs when one calls upon the name of the Lord with the future promise of salvation.

May the Lord Richly Bless You All,
Holyroller125

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][1][/FONT] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd Edition; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 1100.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][2][/FONT] Erickson, Christian Theology, 1100.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][3][/FONT] Thomas A. Fudge, Christianity without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism (Parkland, Flo.: Universal, 2003), 127

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][4][/FONT] According to Robert A. Sabin (Correspondence, 28 October 1999), “It was after I left the UPCI that… the message of the cross became more clear to me, that is, the message that Jesus accomplished on the cross my salvation, mu justification, and that I did not save myself by my observing the three steps of Acts 2:38.” The same experience became true to myself that I did not fully grasp the meaning of the message of the cross, salvation by grace through faith without legalism, until after I also left the UPCI (and whole Apostolic Movement); Fudge, Christianity without the Cross, 125.