Justification

[Brother Adam]

I only have a couple of minutes online here in Columbus, OH to write, but as I read Cure's and Brians explainations I am reminded that this is often the problem with some interpretation. The person is so focused on the words and bringing verses to their conclusions that they forget their is a larger context, and should be taken as a whole first.

Just a couple of "off the cuff" comments.

God Bless,
Adam

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]One point I see is that you tend, not always though, but tend to use scripture in one verse incriments, that is not usualy a good thing to do as context dictates meaning.[/quote]


Point taken, I only posted short passages because I did not want my post to be too long and I wanted to get to the bottom line in presenting my perspective. I am willing to go back and look at the context of any passages that I gave. Not only that but I plan on showing the understanding of the passages I gave by the early Church which was lead by the holy Spirit.

[quote]Please read Acts 2:38 and the preceeding verses. Peter responds to a group of jewish people who ask him a question on behalf of the House of Isreal, God's chosen people. [/quote]

I agree that Peter was talking to Jews this is clear in the passage. What I don’t agree with, from the context of the passage, is that salvation is done differently for Jews than Gentiles.

[quote]Any Gentile has no right to claim this statement that Peter made.[/quote]

Then why did Peter (who was filled with the Holy Spirit) say the following; “For the promise is made to you and to your children [b]and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call[/b].” (Acts 2:39)

“whomever the Lord our God will call” includes everyone who will be saved. In fact, Paul says that there is no difference in Christ between Gentile and Jew.

[quote]For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, wether Jews of Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13) [/quote]

So just because Peter is speaking to Jews does not change the fundamental reality of what needed to be done to be saved. And this is what the Jews where asking when they were “cut to the heart”. In fact when Peter did start to baptize Gentiles it parallels Acts 2 in many ways.


[quote]This man God raised (on) the third day and granted that he be visible, not to all the people, but to us, the witnesses chosen by God in advance, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name."  While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.  The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, [b] "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. [/b]Then they invited him to stay for a few days.  (Acts 10:40-49)[/quote]


And then when Peter explained the situation;

[quote]As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said,[b] ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’[/b] If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"  When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying,[b] 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.' [/b] (Acts 11: 15-18)[/quote]


I have a question; you seem to be saying that there are two baptisms. One of the Holy Spirit and one that uses water that is only a witness of being saved. If this is your position, then why does Epesians say, “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4) if there are two baptisms that Christians use?


I still need to respond to your amniotic fluid theory. But this is long enough.

Edited September 28, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Briguy]

Still on earlier post: Cure said: "This is because the arc truly saved them and not only in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense."

Your comments show the typical thought in regards to the Arc but I believe you have to take it one step back. Why was Noah picked to build the ArK or "Joe Jones" (obviously not a hebrew name). Noah as picked because he already was a believer. His belief was counted him righteous in God's sight and so he was chosen to build the Ark which preserved what God wanted preserved. He and his family were safe because they were God's children. The Ark was simply the item God used to preserve their human existence they were already bound for glory at that point. The Ark was the physical symbol and Baptism is a physical symbol. The spiritual world and physical world are linked but yet seperate from eachother. Baptism had much more significance in the 1st century then it does now. I can expand more onthat later.

Mark 16:16 should not be used as proof of anything because many don't except it as part of the Bible. Even if it should be included we touched on it before, perhaps in the tiongues thread. Baptism is mentioned with signs that we do not see in this dispensation, such as new tongues, poisen drinking, snake bites, instant healings at the will of the person. Sign gifts were very early in the church to authenticate the early gospel because there was no NT in the scriptures. Also batism was different then, it was like signing on the doted line. It was the proof to the world you were following Jesus and joining "the way". Mark 16:16 could read He who believes and then signs on the doted line is saved. Baptism opened a person up to persecution and showed affiliation with Jesus and His followers.

More to come on lasted post.
In Christ,
Brian

[Briguy]

Hi Cure,
Acts 2 (KJV)

34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
[41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
[42] And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
[43] And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

Verse 39 renders differently in the KJV. It is simply saying that their Baptism unto repentance would cover the people of Isreal downward through the generations. It is not needed for every person of Jewish decent to have a baptism of repentance now in 2004. Peter would not at this point have been speaking of Gentiles because he gets the “gentile” message from God a little later and if you remember he is reluctant about the gentiles being included, again, and that in time, is after this speech here. Context here is everything and the context is Peter speaking to, for, and about, his Jewish brethren and their descendants. See how in v. 40 he says “save yourself” and from what? This “untoward generation”. That generation had made themselves an enemy of God and needed to repent and that is what this whole set of verses is about.

Still more later today or tomorrow on other things you said.

Thanks for the thought provoking questions as you are making me think very deeply.

In Christ, the Lord of All,
Brian

[DojoGrant]

As to the "born of water" meaning "physically born," you do realize, Brian, that you'd have to hold to the view that only infants who are "born" could be saved. Therefore, you believe that infants that die in the womb do not see Heaven.

So long as you realize you implicitly hold to this view!

By the way, this is GraceSaves from BB.

[Briguy]

Grant, my friend, How are you? Its been a long time. I even get to see what you look like! Your a little scruffier (is that a word) then I would have thought. You always posted very refined and mature. Scruffy is not a bad thng by any means it shows you are just you.

Anyway, you got me on a technicality! I really believe Jesus is teaching principle or perhaps concept may be a better word. We could probably kill a lot of eachothers arguments by not recognizing what is concept and what is taken word for word for word. For instance you believe Acts 2:38 speaks to the church today and it clearly says repentance before Baptism. This as it stands eliminates infant baptism, but you don't follow your own rule in this case. Of course Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with us as I have shown (ha ha - had to add that in) Good to hear from you Grant!! Take care,

Your friend in Christ,
Brian

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]Your comments show the typical thought in regards to the Arc but I believe you have to take it one step back.[/quote]

I think we need to agree to disagree on this passage because you are really just restating your original position. The interpretation you give directly contradicts the text and is not in the context of the passage in my opinion but more importantly it contradicts the teaching of the Church that Christ established.

[quote] Mark 16:16 should not be used as proof of anything because many don't except it as part of the Bible.[/quote]

You are opening up Pandora’s box with this one. But it is a fundamental difference between you and me. You claim that Mark 16:16 is no good because some claim that it is not part of the bible. How do you know? How do you know that Jesus intended there to be a New Testament and how do you know what books belong in the Canon of scripture? This is off topic and I don’t expect you to respond to it here but I would like to talk with you about this subject in the future.



[quote]Baptism is mentioned with signs that we do not see in this dispensation, such as new tongues, poisen drinking, snake bites, instant healings at the will of the person. Sign gifts were very early in the church to authenticate the early gospel because there was no NT in the scriptures. Also batism was different then, it was like signing on the doted line.[/quote]

Where is this in the Bible, or in apostolic Tradition?

[quote]Mark 16:16 could read He who believes and then signs on the doted line is saved.[/quote]

How so?

[quote]Baptism opened a person up to persecution and showed affiliation with Jesus and His followers. [/quote]

But where does the Bible say that baptism is only a proof for others? I have given a lot of passages that suggest that it is a lot more than this. And if you are right then why does the Ethiopian in Acts 8 hurry and get baptized when he could have waited until a time were there would be more people to see. It’s hard to be persecuted for being baptized when the only person there to see it is Philip. Another example of this is Acts 16:33. Why get baptized at night in their home when most people are sleeping? Doing this is not much of a public witness.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 28 2004, 09:35 AM'] Hi Cure,
Acts 2 (KJV)

Verse 39 renders differently in the KJV. It is simply saying that their Baptism unto repentance would cover the people of Isreal downward through the generations. It is not needed for every person of Jewish decent to have a baptism of repentance now in 2004. Peter would not at this point have been speaking of Gentiles because he gets the “gentile” message from God a little later and if you remember he is reluctant about the gentiles being included, again, and that in time, is after this speech here. Context here is everything and the context is Peter speaking to, for, and about, his Jewish brethren and their descendants. See how in v. 40 he says “save yourself” and from what? This “untoward generation”. That generation had made themselves an enemy of God and needed to repent and that is what this whole set of verses is about.


In Christ, the Lord of All,
Brian [/quote]
My interpretation seems just as likely as yours. The Bible is not always clear on its meaning. What do you do when there are two equally possible interpretations for a fundamental and should I say “basic teaching” (Heb 6:1-2) which Paul includes baptism in this catigory?





[quote]Thanks for the thought provoking questions as you are making me think very deeply.[/quote]


It goes both ways, I am learning a lot from our interaction although it would be better if you would just become Catholic so that we could spend more time bringing Christ's truth to secular pagans. (Joking)

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 28 2004, 01:47 PM'] Grant, my friend, How are you? Its been a long time. I even get to see what you look like! Your a little scruffier (is that a word) then I would have thought. You always posted very refined and mature. Scruffy is not a bad thng by any means it shows you are just you.

Anyway, you got me on a technicality! I really believe Jesus is teaching principle or perhaps concept may be a better word. We could probably kill a lot of eachothers arguments by not recognizing what is concept and what is taken word for word for word. For instance you believe Acts 2:38 speaks to the church today and it clearly says repentance before Baptism. This as it stands eliminates infant baptism, but you don't follow your own rule in this case. Of course Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with us as I have shown (ha ha - had to add that in) Good to hear from you Grant!! Take care,

Your friend in Christ,
Brian [/quote]
Brian,

You insist that Jesus has a specific meaning, and uses the word "born" twice, to imply two different "births." The image only works if one is actually "born" the first way if there is to be a parallel "second birth" that is spiritual.

You must argue that Jesus doesn't really mean anything specific here if when he says "born of water" He doesn't really mean "born of water." If that is the case, then I can just as easily say He doesn't mean "born of the Spirit."

It's both, or its neither.

God bless, brother,

Grant

[Dave]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 27 2004, 08:50 AM'] Please read Acts 2:38 and the preceeding verses. Peter responds to a group of jewish people who ask him a question on behalf of the House of Isreal, God's chosen people. Any Gentile has no right to claim this statement that Peter made. He looked at the jewish people as a whole and said "Repent" and "be Baptized". The baptism here to show outwardly the repentance was real. Think back to what the people of Ninevah(sp?) did. The repentance but they also wore sackcloth and ashes. Anyway, you cannot deny that it is jews asking the question and Peter directly answering them. Actually the repent part goofs up your infant Baptism theology so my explanation in some ways helps your overall argument (just being honest here)



More to come,
Brian [/quote]
For you, baptism symbolizes that a person has already been born again. If baptism is merely a sign, which signifies a previous repentance and does nothing to the soul, then infant baptism is pointless. But Scripture reveals that baptism does regenerate the soul and so should not be withheld from infants.

Let me clarify that an adult is not to be baptized without having first repented. The normal process for an adult would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized. Since Peter was speaking to adults in the passage quoted above, he said, "repent and be baptized." Infants, on the other hand, can't sin, so they have no need for repentance.

[quote]I am very glad you posted 4 verses of John 3. Verse 7 is the whole key to those verses. To make water here anything but water is to attach meaning to a word to achieve a desired means. The word here for water in Greek is H2o, just plain old water. The water here is simply a way for John to show the two parts of life. Spiritual and physical. Water is simply the water that comes out when a baby is born. I have seen this 3 times and believe me it is a lot of water. They would not have had a fancy medical name back then, in fact we still say a woman's "water broke".
verse 7 says it all and explains it point blank, flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit. To say the water is baptism or as some say, the word of God, both throw meanings where they do not belong. It is a simple set of scriptures, no hidden meaning here.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but water in that passage doesn't equal amniotic fluid. For one, the context of the passage clearly points toward baptism, and there is no evidence that the Greek word for water (hudor) represents amniotic fluid. If John had wished to show a dichotomy between water and the Spirit, he would have said, "born of water and of the Spirit," thus indicating two births. When John speaks of being born of water and the Spirit, he mentions them as being a part of the same spiritual rebirth that takes place at baptism (as Paul affirms in Titus 3:5). All of the early Christian writers understood John to be speaking in this way, and they unanimously agreed that John 3:5 referred to baptism.

Irenaeus was one of them. He said, "'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:141. I was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 17 2004, 01:23 PM'] I feel so dumb.

What is Justification?

What is Sanctification?

I forgot the definitions and in what order these go in. [/quote]
Justification is our Baptism, Sanctification is our journey in grace, and Salvation is heaven: when God says"well done good and faithful servent, welcome to My house."

[Briguy]

Hi Cure, Dave, and Grant, Hope you find yourselves well today. First, as I read my previous posts I see so many spelling and grammar errors it drives me nuts but I try to do this so fast I keep making mistakes, like "except" instead of "accept" I'm not the brightest bulb in the box but I know the difference between the two words. Anyway, thanks again for the charity of your posts. Cure, that was great last line in your post.

OK, Cure, I went back to my original point on the Ark because it is the only sense I can make of the passage in question. Noah was picked to go in the Ark because he was already saved, he was not saved in the Ark. He was saved because he had Faith and that is why he was picked. Abraham was saved by his belief before he rose the knife to Isaac. He was not saved because he rose the knife. Hope that makes some sense.

Baptism was more important in the early church. Without church buildings and membership lists, etc... it was a way of showing you really believed what you claimed. I can say I support George Bush but I can't prove it unless I vote, regardless if anyone sees me do it or not. That is the bigger point and it is supported by NT theology as a whole not a verse here and there.

Cure, when there are two meanings? I pray and look deeper until one meaning stands alone. To me that is why we are told to search the scriptures daily. If I had a final authority besides the Bible I would tend to go to the authority and not the Bible and that would be against the Bible. I do look at commontaries and ask others at times as well, especially because I don't know Greek, Hebrew, aramaic, etc...

Grant, good point, let me ponder a response for a bi.

Dave, do you not believe that infants are born into "Sin"? If you do then wouldn't repentance be needed regardless of actions? just a question, I am not stating a position on this yet.

Read KJV of John 3:
4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The way your writer quoted the verse alters the meaning. It reads of and of. Of water and of spirit, two seprate types of birth. One flesh and one spirit, as said in v. 7 Baptism would have been mentioned here if it was intended, why would Jesus make us guess as to what he meant, well he didn't he came out and said it but it conflicts with your theology and so you push Baptism onto the "water". This is not a deep illustration by Jesus, it is extremely basic and should be left as it is.

More later,

In Christian charity,
Brian

[DominaNostra]

Brian, assuming you are using an older version of KJV, it is translated from the Latin Vulgate. The verse you are referring to reads as follows (from the Vulgate):

St. John iii.5: respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei.

The sight translation for this is as follows: he responded, Jesus, amen, amen, I say, to you, unless (or except/if not), quis--various translations, in this case "a man" (also, could be "one"), he is born again (or re-born), from (or of), water, and, the Ghost (or Spirit), not, he is able, to enter, into, the kingdom (sometimes "reign"), of God.

That is a way of performing a sight translation; this is when each word's meaning is stated. After doing this, the sentence is put into understandable English. The Douay Rheims does a good job of this:
St. John iii.5: Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is a faithful translation of that verse. Now, the question is whether or not "ex aqua et Spiritu" should be translated "of water and of the Spirit" or "of water and the Holy Ghost" (or even, "of water and the Spirit" without the second of). Now, you claimed "The way your writer quoted the verse alters the meaning." This is false. [i]Your[/i] writer alters the meaning. Your writer puts another "ex" in front of Spiritu. Your translator is the one who changes what the verse actually says. You will recognize from original Latin that ex is found only once, not twice. To add the second ex and to make this the "correct" translation is false and adominable when quite the opposite is true.

[Cure of Ars]

Hello Briguy

[quote]Cure, when there are two meanings? I pray and look deeper until one meaning stands alone. To me that is why we are told to search the scriptures daily. If I had a final authority besides the Bible I would tend to go to the authority and not the Bible and that would be against the Bible. [/quote]


I disagree, the bible explicitly says to go to the Church when there are disagreements when people stray from the truth.

[quote]What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray? And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray. In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost. "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.  If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:12-18)[/quote]

The bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

And if you look at what the early church did when there was division about doctrine they had an authoritative council. (Acts 15)

[quote]Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thes 2:15)[/quote]

But I have never really seen a passage that says that the Bible is the only authority. But again I guess this is off topic. Sorry


I have been doing some research and I found something interesting on Baptism. Now don’t get me wrong Luther and Calvin were not Catholics. But when it comes to baptism they interpreted the scriptures closer to the Catholic understanding than to yours. At the very least they believed that baptism was more than a symbol. I would think that this would carry some weight.


Following quotes are from John Calvin’s [u]Institutes[/u]:

[quote]
We must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life.  Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins (4.15.3).  [/quote]

[quote]Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ’s blood.[/quote]

[quote]Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He had discoursed
of free justification, but as some wicked men thence inferred that they were
to live as they listed, because their acceptance with God was not procured
by the merit of works, he adds, that all who are clothed with the
righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and
that we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism. Hence he exhorts
believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (4.15.12).[/quote]

[quote]The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us
not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so
united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings. For he
consecrated and sanctified baptism in his own body, that he might have it in
common with us as the firmest bond of union and fellowship which he deigned
to form with us; and hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the
fact that we put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:27]. Thus we see the
fulfilment of our baptism in Christ, whom for this reason we call the proper
object of baptism. Hence it is not strange that the apostles are said to
have baptized in the name of Christ, though they were enjoined to baptize in
the name of the Father and Spirit also [Acts 8:16; 19:5; Mt. 28:19]. For all
the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet he
who baptizes into Christ cannot but at the same time invoke the name of the
Father and the Spirit. For we are cleansed by his blood, just because our
gracious Father, of his incomparable mercy, willing to receive us into
favor, appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation with himself.
Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection only, when sanctified
by his Spirit we are imbued with a new and spiritual nature. Wherefore we
obtain, and in a manner distinctly perceive, in the Father the cause, in the
Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect of our purification and
regeneration. Thus first John baptized, and thus afterwards the apostles by
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, understanding by the
term repentance, regeneration, and by the remission of sins, ablution
(4.15.6).[/quote]


Calvin makes the same points in commentary on Eph. 5. Here he notes that baptism works as instrument in Christ’s hands:

[quote]But there is no absurdity in saying that God uses the sign as an
instrument . . .  Some are offended at this, thinking that it takes from
the Holy Spirit what is peculiar to Him. But they are mistaken . .
. Nothing is attributed to the sign than to be an inferior instrument,
useless in itself, except so far as it derives its power from elsewhere.[/quote]
[quote]Again Saint Paul means not that baptism, that is to say the water hath the power to change us in such wise, that we should be clothed with out Lord Jesus Christ: for by that means God should be robbed of the praise that is due to himself alone. But he shows here the means whereby we may be certified that we are members of our Lord
Jesus Christ's body . . . Therefore let us learn, that it is only God that knits us to our Lord Jesus Christ, of his own mere goodness, and that he doth it by the secret power of his Holy Spirit, and yet notwithstanding ceases not to work by baptism as by an inferior instrument . . .[/quote]

Commenting on Tit. 3:5, he writes,

[quote]Besides, baptism - being the entrance into the Church and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ - is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to show in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus: “God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.”  Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by
believers as a settled principle, that [b]God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” [/b]The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.[/quote]

All quotes were from this site

[url="http://www.auburnavenue.org/Articles/DO%20I%20BELIEVE%20IN%20BAPTISMAL%20REGENERATION.htm"]http://www.auburnavenue.org/Articles/DO%20...EGENERATION.htm[/url]


In regards to Luther I will Just give one from his [u]The Large Catechism[/u];

[quote][b]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.[/b]

In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that[b] we must be baptized or we cannot be saved[/b], lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. [/quote]

[url="http://www.bebaptized.org/Luther.htm"]http://www.bebaptized.org/Luther.htm[/url]


It is really crazy that we have at least three different understanding of Baptism by four Christians and this is on something Paul calls a “basic teaching”. Kinda crazy

Your brother in Christ

Edited September 30, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Dave]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 29 2004, 09:23 AM'] Dave, do you not believe that infants are born into "Sin"? If you do then wouldn't repentance be needed regardless of actions? just a question, I am not stating a position on this yet.

Read KJV of John 3:
4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The way your writer quoted the verse alters the meaning. It reads of and of. Of water and of spirit, two seprate types of birth. One flesh and one spirit, as said in v. 7 Baptism would have been mentioned here if it was intended, why would Jesus make us guess as to what he meant, well he didn't he came out and said it but it conflicts with your theology and so you push Baptism onto the "water". This is not a deep illustration by Jesus, it is extremely basic and should be left as it is.

[/quote]
Domina already addressed the latter half of the section of your post directed at me, so there's no need for me to add anything to it.

As for infants being born into sin, they're born into original sin, yes. But that's not their own fault; it's the fault of Adam and Eve. Repentance is for personal sin. For adults, they have to repent of personal sin before they get baptized, and baptism removes it all -- personal AND original. We repent of sin because we're sorry for having offended God. Babies, however, have just original sin. Original sin offends God, but we can't help the fact that we have it. We CAN, however, help the fact that we commit personal sins.