Baptism's meaning

[Guest jaws-3]

I belong to the Assemblies of God. Baptism is an Ordenance of the Church. We baptize as a show of joining the church. We teach baptism as public display that a believer makes nobody can doubt that he believes. Of course, it's optional since it is by His Grace we are saved and joining the church and other good works do not overcome our sins. We also go forth to all nations preaching the Gospel and Baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit as our Lord instructed in Matthew 28. We use immersion since that is the way Christ was baptized. Babies are not baptized. Children or new Christians come for baptism after having decided to follow as that is how it happened in Acts. Hope that answers a bit.

[cmotherofpirl]

Instead of closing this thread, I am going to delete all posts that are not from a christian so we can get back to the original topic.

This thread is not for any new age beliefs, but for those people who believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, not some mythical fantasy.

Edited October 19, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi Jaws-3,

Thank you for your response. It's nice to hear from the AoG perspective, as I have a couple friends who attended an Assemblies of God college.

Forgive me as I'm going to jump off the topic a bit to address some of your comments.

[b]Baptism and Sin[/b]

[quote name='jaws-3' date='Oct 18 2004, 09:28 PM']"good works [you include Baptism] do not overcome our sins." [/quote]
In fact, the Holy Bible seems to indicate the opposite in the Acts of the Apostles:
[quote]Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (KJV)

Acts 22:16 "Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name." (NAB)[/quote]

[b]Baptism and being "Saved"[/b]

[quote name='jaws-3' date='Oct 18 2004, 09:28 PM']"Of course, it's [baptism is] optional since it is by His Grace we are saved and joining the church."[/quote]
Well, just to clarify, the Catholic Church teaches that God's grace works through the sacrament of Baptism as an entry way to life with Our Lord. Looking at the New Testament:
[quote]1 Peter 3:18-22 - "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  The like figure [b]whereunto even baptism doth also now save us[/b] (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."  (KJV)[/quote]
This shows the prefiguring of baptism in the Old Testament, and shows that we are saved by God's grace through the sacrament of baptism, instituted by Our Lord.

[b]Immersion Only[/b]

In my personal opinion, the "Immersion Only" position could be viewed as "legalist", according to AoG principles. See [url="http://ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_13_legalism.cfm"]here (link)[/url] for a general discussion of the AoG view of Legalism. The following link is a pretty good summary of the Catholic position of "Immersion Only":

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp[/url]

If one were to accept the "Immersion Only" restriction (following the example of Our Lord), wouldn't some be tempted to make other restrictions? For example, Our Lord was baptized in a river, not a baptismal tank. Couldn't one use similar logic to restrict "valid" baptisms to the waters of a river? Maybe even just the Jordan River?

[b]Other Thoughts[/b]

From the perspective of baptism being a purely symbolic work, one wonders why Our Lord would bother emphasizing this after His Resurrection.

As I understand it, the Assemblies of God teaches that the real meaning of water baptism (which they distinguish from "Baptism in the Holy Spirit") is a public sign to other believers. It really doesn't have anything to do with a believer's relationship with God. This seems to be spelled out on the AG.org website [url="http://ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm#6"](link)[/url].

Maybe the difference between AoG beliefs and Catholic beliefs lies in part in the fact that the Catholic understanding of water baptism includes the infusion of grace received from the Holy Spirit. In short, there is "One Baptism" in the Catholic faith (confer Ephesians 4:5).

Though the AoG seems to believe in a single water baptism, the AoG also seems to teach that "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" can happen repeatedly. On the AoG website, a souls fill of grace is compared to the charge in a battery--[url="http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_03_refilling.cfm"]see this AoG link[/url]). I guess the difference from Catholic teachings is that Baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime, indelible mark that will forever be written to our souls. The "refilling" of grace happens through other sacraments instituted by Our Lord: the Eucharist, Confession, Extreme Unction, etc. They are also sources of God's grace.

In summary, I've read the passages related to Baptism in the New Testament in a few different translations and am having trouble reconciling the Bible's language with the position that baptism is a mere sign that cannot save or overcome sin.

But then again, this is all a bit off topic...

God bless!

Edited October 19, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 18 2004, 08:54 PM'] Instead of closing this thread, I am going to delete all posts that are not from a christian so we can get back to the original topic.

[/quote]
Hey, I'm not non-Christian.....

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 17 2004, 04:46 PM'] ICTHUS is right in that children are born with original sin, however, they do not commit actual sin until the age of reason. This is the teaching of scripture, Tradition, and most importantly the very "Pillar and Foundation of Truth" which ICTHUS has come to reject for the authority of himself and given a great deal of wieght to the traditions of men such as John Calvin. [/quote]
I do not reject the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. I reject the idea that it is,

a. infallible
b. Inherent in the Church of Rome, which has been corrupted and some of whose teaching is no longer according to the Word of God, but according to the traditions of men.

As for the Reformers being 'traditions of men' - talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! The Reformers rescued the Church from the traditions of men and reformed her to the Word of God.

Edited October 19, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote]So the "Election" is referring to predestination, correct?  According to your quote, the act of Baptism and the grace of Baptism may be separated in time. [/quote] Yes.

[quote]But some acts don't result in grace.  So at least some of the baptisms are not efficacious.  So I wonder, would you say that the reverse is true: may the grace of baptism be received without the act of baptism?[/quote] By 'acts' I assume you mean 'baptisms'? If so, yes. As we read, from the same chapter I referenced above:

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]


Proofs listed are:

13. Luke 7:30, Exodus 4:24-26
14. Romans 4:11, Acts 10 (Cornelius) (The verse numbers are messed up, so I'll quote it A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. 31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

15. Acts 8:13-23

[quote]I am still having trouble understanding how a believer would place importance on performing an act if they believed it to be purely symbolic.[/quote] The Reformed do not understand it as merely symbolic, so this charge is irrelevant to us - rather, we have a different understanding of its efficacy then Rome does.

[quote]I am just now thinking about a metaphor: the human body.  The sacrament's externals (water to cleanse) is the skeleton.  The received grace is the flesh (skin, muscles, organs, etc).  The skeleton gives the body structure.  The flesh moves the body.  If you separate the two, what happens to each?  Continuing the parallel, a detachment of the act from the received grace (even if by a short time), it would seem to me to be about the same as if I were to see a skeleton lying next to a blob of flesh.  I could say I've got the whole body, but what a mess!  LOL!  OK, so I'm getting a bit silly...sorry![/quote] You imported the a metaphor which, as I see it, has no relevance to sacramentology. Can you demonstrate, from Scripture, that the effects (i.e. the thing signified) of a sacrament must needs be immediately temporally tied in with the sign?

[quote]Again, I'm not terribly worried about the preference of one form over another.  I'm just confused as to why someone would worry about a particular form vs. another if he or she believed the act to be purely symbolic.  Why couldn't someone claim a new form that has what he or she believes to be better symbolism?  For example, what if someone chose to be baptised with wine (hopefully sprinkling, not immersion!) instead of water?  Who is to say (assuming he/she is not Catholic) whether such a novel form would be valid?[/quote] First of all, the situation you are describing is ridiculous, and would not happen inany Reformed church. Ever. Secondly, and once again, I remind you that the Reformed do not consider baptism merely symbolic. We are Calvinists, not Zwinglians.

[quote]Certainly.  I may be repeating myself a bit; but if one believes that the grace of baptism is totally detached from the act (i.e. it's symbolic), then the validity vs. invalidity is really meaningless.  If it's a symbol, there is no consequence or benefit to the act being done in any prescribed way.[/quote] No. We don't believe that the grace of baptism (i.e. its efficacy) is tied into the moment wherein it is administered. As we read.

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] [b]but also to be unto him a sign [u]and seal[/u] [/b]of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[[/B]7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

The teaching of (i) that baptism [b]"be unto him ([i]that is baptised[/i]) a sign [b]and seal [/b]of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[/B]7]" , taken in conjunction with (vi)'s insistence that "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" should paint a clear picture of the Reformed doctrine of baptism. It is not Baptismal Regeneration, but it is not Zwinglian (i.e. merely symbolic) either. God may administer the grace tied into baptism at the moment of baptism, later in life, or not at all, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Please - anyone who wishes to understand anything the churches which are faithful to the Reformation teach, go [url="http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html"]here[/url] to read the Creeds and Confessions that we affirm.

Edited October 19, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='jaws-3' date='Oct 18 2004, 08:28 PM'] I belong to the Assemblies of God. Baptism is an Ordenance of the Church. We baptize as a show of joining the church. We teach baptism as public display that a believer makes nobody can doubt that he believes. Of course, it's optional since it is by His Grace we are saved and joining the church and other good works do not overcome our sins. We also go forth to all nations preaching the Gospel and Baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit as our Lord instructed in Matthew 28. We use immersion since that is the way Christ was baptized. Babies are not baptized. Children or new Christians come for baptism after having decided to follow as that is how it happened in Acts. Hope that answers a bit. [/quote]
Jaws, are the AoG anabaptists? I.E. do you believe in rebaptising those who have been baptised as infants?

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi Icthus,

Thanks for your response. Here's a bit more...

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM']V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15][/quote]

In Catholic theology, there are two means to receive the grace of Baptism outside the sacramental form (water baptism). These are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X"](link)[/url]. So in a sense, a Catholic could agree that some who have not received the waters of baptism may be saved.

I don't know whether your last condition is referring to OSAS. Obviously Catholics don't believe in OSAS; and we work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" for a reason. All valid baptisms are efficacious, regardless of the final state of the soul at the end of its earthly life.

Quoting Jude 1:3-5:

[quote]Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.  For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that (the) Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe[/quote]

God saved His people...then He condemned the same. I suspect that this is referring to the Israelites being saved in Exodus (through the pre-figured baptism of the Red Sea) and condemned in Numbers 14. The letter warns that this could happen to the readers (i.e. no eternal security), even if they are currently sharing in the divine life through God's grace.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM']You imported the a metaphor which, as I see it, has no relevance to sacramentology.[/quote]
Well, I provided a metaphor that I thought illustrated the relationship quite well. Today, I found a similar quote that spoke instead of "body and soul." Here it is:

[quote]Nevertheless I am baptized; but if I am baptized, it is promised me that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body. For that is the reason why these two things are done in Baptism namely, that the body, which can apprehend nothing but the water, is sprinkled, and, in addition, the word is spoken for the soul to apprehend. [b]Now, since both, the water and the Word, are one Baptism, therefore body and soul must be saved and live forever: the soul through the Word which it believes, but the body because it is united with the soul and [u]also apprehends Baptism as it is able to apprehend it[/u][/b]. We have, therefore, no greater jewel in body and soul, for by it we are made holy and are saved, which no other kind of life, no work upon earth, can attain.[/quote]

That's Martin Luther [url="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13.html"](link)[/url], uniting the physical and spiritual events of Baptism. It seems to me a theological novelty to try to separate the two by time.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM']Can you demonstrate, from Scripture, that the effects (i.e. the thing signified) of a sacrament must needs be immediately temporally tied in with the sign?[/quote]

As I mentioned, Catholic teachings do allow for two extraordinary situations in which baptismal grace is dispensed by God without the use of a sacrament.

It appears that many protestants go even further than merely saying that the sign and divine grace can be separated. They put forward the position that God does not confer grace through symbols at all--the externalities are divorced from the grace in all cases. I don't know where Calvinists stand, but here's Luther (see link as above) discussing this position (bolds are mine):

[quote]For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, [b]because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit[/b]. But let it be ever so much an external thing here stand God's Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism. But what God institutes and commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw.[/quote]

And further:

[quote]Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor His power and might on it. [b]Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water[/b], and in whatever other terms we can praise it, -- all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: [i]Aocedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum[/i]. [b]That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign[/b].[/quote]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM']First of all, the situation you are describing [Baptism using wine] is ridiculous, and would not happen inany Reformed church. Ever. Secondly, and once again, I remind you that the Reformed do not consider baptism merely symbolic. We are Calvinists, not Zwinglians. [/quote]

Of course it's ridiculous. But then, un-believers find Truth to be foolishness--worshipping a Triune God, worshipping a God-Man who died upon a cross (1 Cor 1:18--[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians1.htm#v18"]link[/url]). Anyway, I realize that Reformers aren't going to start baptizing with wine. I simply mentioned a novel form that would retain a symbolic meaning that our baptism was tied to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary. I was responding to your mention of particular forms that were defensible based on their symbolism, and simply adding my own. But you avoided the only question that I asked:

[quote]Who is to say (assuming he/she is not Catholic) whether such a novel form would be valid?[/quote]

The answer, I suppose, is: nobody could judge either way, because there is no authority to judge it. And if there are authorities to judge it, your own list of "valid" forms could be rejected as invalid.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM']No. We don't believe that the grace of baptism (i.e. its efficacy) is tied into the moment wherein it is administered.[/quote]

In light of Luther's quotes above, I wonder about your use of "We" and "the Reformers" to refer to a unified position. I'm wondering if a "Reformed" position exists for this question. Are the waters of Baptism "divine," as Luther states?

Also, you keep mentioning the temporal aspect: "grace is not tied to the moment..." Are you saying that grace can be tied to the act; but it's just that the grace might be delayed in time?

This is the fundamental question: is God's grace working through the water ("divine water", if you like)?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:54 PM']

Quoting Jude 1:3-5:



God saved His people...then He condemned the same.  I suspect that this is referring to the Israelites being saved in Exodus (through the pre-figured baptism of the Red Sea) and condemned in Numbers 14.  The letter warns that this could happen to the readers (i.e. no eternal security), even if they are currently sharing in the divine life through God's grace.


Well, I provided a metaphor that I thought illustrated the relationship quite well.  Today, I found a similar quote that spoke instead of "body and soul."  Here it is:



That's Martin Luther [url="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13.html"](link)[/url], uniting the physical and spiritual events of Baptism.  It seems to me a theological novelty to try to separate the two by time.



As I mentioned, Catholic teachings do allow for two extraordinary situations in which baptismal grace is dispensed by God without the use of a sacrament. 

It appears that many protestants go even further than merely saying that the sign and divine grace can be separated.  They put forward the position that God does not confer grace through symbols at all--the externalities are divorced from the grace in all cases.  I don't know where Calvinists stand, but here's Luther (see link as above) discussing this position (bolds are mine):



And further:





Of course it's ridiculous.  But then, un-believers find Truth to be foolishness--worshipping a Triune God, worshipping a God-Man who died upon a cross (1 Cor 1:18--[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians1.htm#v18"]link[/url]).  Anyway, I realize that Reformers aren't going to start baptizing with wine.  I simply mentioned a novel form that would retain a symbolic meaning that our baptism was tied to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary.  I was responding to your mention of particular forms that were defensible based on their symbolism, and simply adding my own.  But you avoided the only question that I asked:



The answer, I suppose, is: nobody could judge either way, because there is no authority to judge it.  And if there are authorities to judge it, your own list of "valid" forms could be rejected as invalid.



In light of Luther's quotes above, I wonder about your use of "We" and "the Reformers" to refer to a unified position.  I'm wondering if a "Reformed" position exists for this question.  Are the waters of Baptism "divine," as Luther states?

Also, you keep mentioning the temporal aspect: "grace is not tied to the moment..."  Are you saying that grace can be tied to the act; but it's just that the grace might be delayed in time? 

This is the fundamental question: is God's grace working through the water ("divine water", if you like)?[/quote]
[quote]In Catholic theology, there are two means to receive the grace of Baptism outside the sacramental form (water baptism).  These are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X"](link)[/url].  So in a sense, a Catholic could agree that some who have not received the waters of  baptism may be saved.[/quote] Hmm, I see the similarity here.

[quote]I don't know whether your last condition is referring to OSAS.  Obviously Catholics don't believe in OSAS; and we work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" for a reason.  All valid baptisms are efficacious, regardless of the final state of the soul at the end of its earthly life.[/quote] First of all, I find the term POTS (Perseverance of the Saints) or especially POTE ( " " " Elect) to be more representative of the Reformed doctrine. Second, I'm not sure what you meant by 'your last condition'. But yes, this is a major difficulty between Reformed and Roman Catholic soteriology which is inevitably tied in with our sacramentology. Roman Catholics allow for those who are truly saved to fall away from grace completely, whilst, as we read in the WCF,

(Chapter XVII Of the Perseverance of the Saints)

I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, [b]can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace[/b], but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

Proofs listed are: Phil 1:6, 2 Pet 1:10, John 10:28-29, 1 John 3:9, 1 Peter 1:5-9

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

If you want to read the proof texts, check out the document itself at [url="http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html"]http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with...ofs/indexf.html[/url]

[quote]Quoting Jude 1:3-5:

God saved His people...then He condemned the same.  I suspect that this is referring to the Israelites being saved in Exodus (through the pre-figured baptism of the Red Sea) and condemned in Numbers 14.  The letter warns that this could happen to the readers (i.e. no eternal security), even if they are currently sharing in the divine life through God's grace.[/quote] This text offers no resistance to Eternal Security.

....[color=blue]For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation[/color] What's this? They were designated long ago for condemnation? Hmm, sounds like the Reformed doctrine of Election to me. ...... [color=blue]I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that (the) Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe[/color] This in no way offers resistance to eternal security. For, as we read in John 6:60-66

[color=blue]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "[color=red]Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."[/color] For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him[/color].

Notice that Jesus says "there are some of you who [b]do not believe[/b]" If Rome is correct, Judas only commited a sin after he betrayed Jesus. Yet here is Jesus saying, in effect, that those who left [i]never believed in the first place[/i]

Similarly,

1 John 2:19

[color=blue]They went out from us, [b]but they did not really belong to us[/b]. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; [b]but their going showed that none of them belonged to us[/b]. [/color]

St. John makes it abundantly clear that those who go out from the Church, and who die in a state of unrepentant sin, unbelief, etc, were never among the invisible Church in the first place.

[quote]Nevertheless I am baptized; but if I am baptized, it is promised me that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body. For that is the reason why these two things are done in Baptism namely, that the body, which can apprehend nothing but the water, is sprinkled, and, in addition, the word is spoken for the soul to apprehend. Now, since both, the water and the Word, are one Baptism, therefore body and soul must be saved and live forever: the soul through the Word which it believes, but the body because it is united with the soul and also apprehends Baptism as it is able to apprehend it. We have, therefore, no greater jewel in body and soul, for by it we are made holy and are saved, which no other kind of life, no work upon earth, can attain.[/quote] I don't know. Calvinists aren't Lutherans...I dont know what I think about that quote. This is actually one of the things that I'm wondering about at the moment - whether I believe in baptismal regeneration or not - the main divisive issue between Calvinism and Lutheranism. I'm open to correction.

[quote]As I mentioned, Catholic teachings do allow for two extraordinary situations in which baptismal grace is dispensed by God without the use of a sacrament.

It appears that many protestants go even further than merely saying that the sign and divine grace can be separated. They put forward the position that God does not confer grace through symbols at all--the externalities are divorced from the grace in all cases. I don't know where Calvinists stand, but here's Luther (see link as above) discussing this position (bolds are mine):[/quote]

Luther is absolutely right. Those who say that baptism confers nothing are wrong. Where Calvinists and Lutherans differ is whether or not regeneration must necessarily occur [i]at baptism[/i]. Also, Calvinists allow for the possibility that God may not regenerate a person who has been baptised, according to the counsel and good pleasure of His own Will.

[quote]Anyway, I realize that Reformers aren't going to start baptizing with wine. I simply mentioned a novel form that would retain a symbolic meaning that our baptism was tied to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary. I was responding to your mention of particular forms that were defensible based on their symbolism, and simply adding my own. But you avoided the only question that I asked:

[quote]Who is to say (assuming he/she is not Catholic) whether such a novel form would be valid? [/quote]

The answer, I suppose, is: nobody could judge either way, because there is no authority to judge it. And if there are authorities to judge it, your own list of "valid" forms could be rejected as invalid.[/quote] No - we have the plain testimony of the Scriptures to judge for us. Baptism is clearly commanded [i]with water[/i].

[quote]In light of Luther's quotes above, I wonder about your use of "We" and "the Reformers" to refer to a unified position. I'm wondering if a "Reformed" position exists for this question. Are the waters of Baptism "divine," as Luther states?[/quote] As said above, this is one issue where Calvinists and Lutherans differ. As far as soteriology goes we are virtually identical.

[quote]Also, you keep mentioning the temporal aspect: "grace is not tied to the moment..." Are you saying that grace can be tied to the act; but it's just that the grace might be delayed in time? [/quote] Yes - or, according to God's will, it may not come at all. The baptised person may be one of the unfortunate unelect.

[quote]This is the fundamental question: is God's grace working through the water ("divine water", if you like)? [/quote] Yes, but it is not tied into the moment wherein it is administered.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]As said above, this is one issue where Calvinists and Lutherans differ. As far as soteriology goes we are virtually identical. [/quote]

This is misleading. Lutherans do not teach OSAS, regardless of what Luther had to say on the subject.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Oct 21 2004, 04:44 PM']
This is misleading. Lutherans do not teach OSAS, regardless of what Luther had to say on the subject. [/quote]
POTS

[Quietfire]

[b]by Icthus[/b]
[quote]I do not reject the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. I reject the idea that it is,

a. infallible
b. Inherent in the Church of Rome, which has been corrupted and some of whose teaching is no longer according to the Word of God, but according to the traditions of men.[/quote]


Dare I ask that you elaborate on this specifically? I hear these quotes alot and have even seen some examples (before they are proven wrong) yet they still exist.

Peace.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Oct 22 2004, 01:53 PM'] [b]by Icthus[/b]



Dare I ask that you elaborate on this specifically? I hear these quotes alot and have even seen some examples (before they are proven wrong) yet they still exist.

Peace. [/quote]
It's sad that you don't even recognize where your own beliefs contradict the Bible...

Let's start with the Immaculate Conception. Without jumping through all kinds of exegetical hoops, how can you prove this doesn't contradict the Bible, notably Rom 3:23. The Scriptures make quite a ruckus about Christ's sinlessness, but never Mary's.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]POTS[/quote]

Same thing

[quote]It's sad that you don't even recognize where your own beliefs contradict the Bible...

Let's start with the Immaculate Conception. Without jumping through all kinds of exegetical hoops, how can you prove this doesn't contradict the Bible, notably Rom 3:23. The Scriptures make quite a ruckus about Christ's sinlessness, but never Mary's. [/quote]

Oh, but remember, "all" doesn't actually mean "all".

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi Icthus,

I'm just now getting a moment to respond.

You wrote:
[quote]"I'm not sure what you meant by 'your last condition'. But yes, this is a major difficulty between Reformed and Roman Catholic soteriology which is inevitably tied in with our sacramentology."[/quote]

I was referring to this statement:
[quote]"V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, [b]that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[/b][15]"[/quote]

You write:
[quote]"Roman Catholics allow for those who are truly saved to fall away from grace completely, whilst, as we read in the WCF..."[/quote]
Here's the problem: no one is "truly saved" (past tense) until they have reached eternal life with God. In that sense, I would agree that one cannot be "truly saved" and fall away from grace completely (destined for hell). To a Catholic, this doesn't really make sense...and reasonably, it shouldn't make much sense to non-Catholics. In the Catholic view, the grace of Baptism opens the door for us to live in a "newness of life" (Romans 6:4), though it doesn't guarantee that we will be "truly saved."

For your statement to make sense for a Catholic, I would expect something like the following:
[quote]"Catholics allow for those who are truly (i.e. validly) baptized to fall away from grace completely."[/quote]
One of the key effects of baptism is to return us to the state that Adam and Eve were in before the Fall, to return to a friendship with God--a life of grace. Recall that Adam and Eve were not created as fallen creatures, but with grace sufficient for a relationship with God. And then they fell, causing consequences for all of humanity. They had a real life of grace; but this did not preclude a loss of this life of grace.

[quote]"They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]"[/quote]
There is a simple practical problem with this statement: no one knows "whom God has accepted in His Beloved." Do you know? If so, I'd like to find out who told you! Anyway, what is the consequence of this statement if no one knows who has truly been accepted by God? As a mere laymen, this kind of logic (i.e. arguing about being eternally saved) just doesn't resonate as meaningful for me.

Regarding my quote from Jude, you wrote:
[quote]This text offers no resistance to Eternal Security.[/quote]
The warning that I quoted means nothing if those to whom Jude is warning possess "eternal security." And if they have no chance for heaven (eternally destined for hell), one wonders why they would be warned when God predestined them to eternal condemnation. This passage only makes sense if our response (or lack of response) to God's grace has consequences. Again, only acrobatics gets around this straight-forward passage.

Regarding the Gospel of John, you write:
[quote]"Notice that Jesus says "there are some of you who do not believe" If Rome is correct, Judas only commited a sin after he betrayed Jesus. Yet here is Jesus saying, in effect, that those who left never believed in the first place"[/quote]
Our Lord knows each of our hearts. Sin does not begin with an act, it ends with an act. It begins in our heart. And Judas's sin began long before the act of his betrayal--it began in his heart.

This "delay" is relevant to the discussion of grace and baptism. I think that while a visible response to the grace of Baptism may be delayed, the actual life of grace cannot be equated to the soul's response (i.e. the fruits). The life of grace begins with the sacrament. To detach the temporal beginning of the life of grace from the act of baptism is just a way to deny the meaning and efficaciousness of the sacrament itself. Such a position vs. a position of "baptism is symbolic" is only separated by a few fancy SAT words.

Again, this quote from John begs the question: why bother talking about "Eternal Security" unless you've got a copy of the book Saint Peter's using at the Pearly Gates? Did Calvin somehow stumble upon the Book of Life (Rev. 13:8)?

For entertainment purposes, you can explain how someone could get "blotted out" of the book of life (Rev. 3:5), if you hold to the Calvinist theory of predestination. So the book changes? Sounds like free will...LOL

[quote]"St. John makes it abundantly clear that those who go out from the Church, and who die in a state of unrepentant sin, unbelief, etc, were never among the invisible Church in the first place."[/quote]
Again, let me know when you find who's in and who's out. Then, the idea of predestination will begin to mean something to me.

Regarding water vs. wine:
[quote]"No - we have the plain testimony of the Scriptures to judge for us. Baptism is clearly commanded with water."[/quote]
Well, I hate to say it, but wine is approximately 85% water. And if you are going to reject wine, would you reject water with too much dissolved mineral content? What purity of water is acceptable to the Calvinist? Ninety percent? Ninety-nine percent? 99.44 percent? Anyway, without any authority, I really don't know how you could judge such a novel practice as valid or invalid, because wine is overwhelmingly made up of water (H20).

While I think we can agree that this is a silly proposal, the lack of protestant authority has allowed for a great number of novel innovations that would make a "wine baptism" look tame. For example, have you ever had the desire to prove your faith by [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0881336637/qid=1098559703/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9330945-9818258?v=glance&s=books"]handling snakes and drinking poison (link)[/url](Mark 16:18)? In cases like these, the unity of protestants disappears. In the end, no protestant can truly speak for anyone else but himself.

Regarding the grace of Baptism, you write:
[quote]"Yes - or, according to God's will, it may not come at all. The baptised person may be one of the unfortunate unelect."[/quote]
To the Catholic, God's grace works unconditionally. All who receive valid baptism receive grace, regardless of the individual's reponse.

It would seem that a Calvinist would see no visible response by an individual to God's grace, and then judge that God denied the grace of the sacrament. I think that's a big difference for Catholics/Calvinists.

God bless!