Donations for the month of August


We have received a total of $180 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Monday, September 8, 2003
Posts: 2469
Forum Stats
778 Members
30 Forums
5867 Topics
47129 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13316
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3882
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2469
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1899
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
Tom 14
chestnutmare 11
Pilgrim 10
Robin 5
Uriah 1
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Agree or Disagree?
by chestnutmare
Yesterday at 05:20 AM
External Christianity is not enough
by chestnutmare
Friday, August 15, 2014 8:37 AM
Calvin's Prayers from Hosea
by chestnutmare
Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:56 AM
Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication
by Pilgrim
Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:43 PM
"...All saved" 1Timothy 2:4
by Robin
Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:51 AM
Interesting Interview on Terrorism
by Tom
Monday, August 11, 2014 4:23 PM
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#18313 - Friday, October 15, 2004 10:56 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything. [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


pilgrim,

Those pricked in their heart were not regenerate. They were terrified sinners. They were still seeking after works, "what shall we do?" Peter did not tell them to do anything because salvation is not of works. Instead, he says, "Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins."KJV Peter did not say "repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized". Man's role in salvation is always passive, receiving regeneration, faith, and the forgiveness of sins through the means God has chosen: Word and Sacraments not through inner strivings or enlightenment.


Edited by speratus (Friday, October 15, 2004 11:17 PM)

Top
#18314 - Friday, October 15, 2004 11:13 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything.
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13316
Loc: NH, USA
speratus,

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree with your view that those who were "pricked in their hearts" were not regenerate. I offered biblical evidence to support my view and you have, as seems to be your manner, ignored them completely. I am beginning to wonder if you even know what "exegesis" really means; e.g., you stated once that a sermon by Martin Luther is exegesis. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

But, just for the sake of argument..... let's assume that those who were pricked in their hearts and asked what they should do (noting that I vehemently disagree that they were 1) not regenerated and 2) they were seeking to be saved by works). The fact still remains that these same people believed first and then were baptized. Unless you are wanting to posit that belief precedes regeneration, aka: semi-Pelagianism, it would appear you have a serious problem trying to prove that regeneration occurred at their baptism.

Quote:
Man's role in salvation is always passive, receiving regeneration and faith through the means God has chosen: Word and Sacraments.

This is totally false. Man is passive in regeneration, but the result of regeneration very much includes and must include activity on a man's part, e.g., repentance and faith in Christ, aka: conversion. You aren't going to find many here, if any at all, who are sympathetic to such hyper-Calvinistic statements as that. But, we've already covered this error in another thread, didn't we? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> No man CAN come to Christ UNLESS the Father draw him. And all who are drawn, DO COME.... i.e., there is movement which man makes as a result of being given the ability to do so.

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18315 - Friday, October 15, 2004 11:35 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything. [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


pilgrim,

Peter did not say, "Repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized." The repentance and the baptism occurred together for the remission of sins.

After man is regenerated and given faith, he cooperates in the works of the spirit. But such cooperation does not save him. Salvation is not of works less any man should boast.

Top
#18316 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:44 AM Re: help me clear my thoughts [Re: Pilgrim]
janean Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thursday, March 4, 2004
Posts: 236
Loc: Illinois
Pilgrim-

Would it be safe to say that baptism is a part of our sanctification only? Am I understanding correctly that the person who believes in regenerational baptism says there is more than just sanctification here and that the Holy Spirit doesn't fully dwell in us until the baptism?

Top
#18317 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:31 AM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything.
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Quote:
speratus said:
Quote:
Dealing with what the statements you provided mean in context is something to be done by someone other then myself


Exactly, God alone works baptismal regeneration when it pleases Him without any cooperation from man.


Huh? I was referring to the two quotes from the creeds that you posted. I know that the framers of neither of them believed in baptismal regeneration, but I'm not the best person to be explaining what they really did mean in those statements. That's what I was saying.

Quote:
Quote:
we'd still be lacking the Scriptural warrant to believe in what the possibility would allow.


We have God's promises (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22;16; Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26, 27; Eph. 5:25, 26; Col. 2:12; Titus 3: 5; and 1 Peter 3:21). What more do you want?


Could you please go back and read these two posts:

http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1

http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1

With all due respect, you are making this discussion sumpremely frustrating by completely ignoring what has been said. None of these verses speak anything of baptismal regeneration. If you believe otherwise, please prove this to us exegetically. Just stating the same old, and many times refuted argument all over again does nothing.

Quote:
Quote:
To be clear, the supposed possibility would only be meaningful if my preconcieved theological construct required that I believe in baptismal regeneration.


Good point! How can someone be regenerated in baptism, when they reject the possibility that baptism could be efficicious? Similarly, how can someone be regenerated through preaching, when they do not believe in the possibility that preaching could be efficacious?


I'm sorry, what I said must not have been clear. I was saying that even if those verses allowed a possibility for baptismal regeneration (which they don't), this would still mean nothing, unless my predetermined, extrabiblical theological tradition was telling me to believe in it. What I'm saying is, please prove to us baptismal regeneration is Scriptural, and not just a part of your tradition that needs to be shed.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you able to show to us that your belief is not based upon this, but rather Scripture?


I have already given you ample evidence from scripture which you have chosen to ignore in order to persue doctrines based on man's reason not scripture.


Please read what I've said above! Please deal with William's and Pilgrim's statements, which show that these verses you list display nothing that would link regeneration to baptism. I'm still waiting for the Scriptural, exegetical support.


Edited by Henry (Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:40 AM)
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#18318 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:02 AM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything. [Re: Henry]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Henry,

Quote:
With all due respect, you are making this discussion sumpremely frustrating by completely ignoring what has been said.


I did respond to pilgrim's exposition of Acts 2:38,39 and I proved that his exposition was wrong and that the passage actually taught baptismal regeneration by faith alone.

I seem to have overlooked averagefellar's post but I will respond as soon as possible.

Quote:
Please deal with William's and Pilgrim's statements, which show that these verses you list display nothing that would link regeneration to baptism. I'm still waiting for the Scriptural, exegetical support.


The passages are so simple that they require no explanation. However, interpretations are needed to make them say something other than what they clearly say.

Top
#18319 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:49 PM Re: help me clear my thoughts [Re: janean]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13316
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
janean said:
Pilgrim-

Would it be safe to say that baptism is a part of our sanctification only? Am I understanding correctly that the person who believes in regenerational baptism says there is more than just sanctification here and that the Holy Spirit doesn't fully dwell in us until the baptism?

Janean,

Views vary from one degree to another concerning the nature and efficacy of baptism. On the two extremes are those who believe that baptism and justification are inseparable and thus baptism is inextricably necessary for salvation. On the other extreme are those who believe that baptism isn't necessary at all, for any reason. And there are LOTS of different views in between. It is my view that baptism is something which a believer should do if at all possible and is an evidence of one's obedience to God. But regeneration and/or justification are NOT to be mated with baptism. In the case of adults, yes... I believe it is to be seen as an integral part of sanctification. The issue of infants is a totally different matter, but likewise, the baptism of infants has nothing to do with regeneration and/or justification.

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18320 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:56 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything.
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13316
Loc: NH, USA
speratus,

I'll say it one more time, "Baptism is NOT necessary nor instrumental in one's justification!" There simply isn't a shred of biblical warrant for anyone to believe this.

Quote:
After man is regenerated and given faith, he cooperates in the works of the spirit. But such cooperation does not save him. Salvation is not of works less any man should boast.

This statement is far too vague and it would appear you are trying to circumvent the more specific statement I made and which is one of the core beliefs of the Reformed churches. Regeneration is the secret, sovereign and sole act of the Holy Spirit in which a sinner is a recipient and of which is not comprehended at its occurence. Conversion is that response of a sinner who has been regenerated wherein he/she repents of sin and believes upon Christ unto justification.

Put simply, a sinner in:

Regeneration - passive
Conversion - active

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#18321 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:56 PM Baptists and the 1789 Confession
timmopussycat Offline
Plebeian

Registered: Thursday, June 12, 2003
Posts: 15
Some Baptists hold to the 1689 confession, today some don't.
Those that do are probably mostly found in England.

Top
#18322 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:03 PM Re: Wicked Baptists
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1020
Loc: USA
Speratus:

It seems apparent to me that you can not exegete or you are not understanding what the word means. Here is a quick definition.

Quote:
EXEGE'SIS, n. [Gr. to explain, to lead.]
1. Exposition; explanation; interpretation.
2. A discourse intended to explain or illustrate a subject.

This is the definition of a sermon.

Quote:
SER'MON, n.
1. A discourse delivered in public by a licensed clergymen for the purpose of religious instruction, and usually grounded on some text or passage of Scripture. Sermons are extemporary addresses or written discourses.

Now a sermon may contain an exegesis of a scripture but it isn't an exegesis per se.

So again I ask you give me an exegesis of a scripture (Pilgrim gave an example of this) or scriptures that shows that Baptists are dealing wickedly with their children by not baptizing them but allowing them to hear the gospel. If you can't then I must again say your claim is spurious.
_________________________
Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo

Top
#18323 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:35 PM That's all from me, folks.
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Quote:
speratus said:
I did respond to pilgrim's exposition of Acts 2:38,39 and I proved that his exposition was wrong and that the passage actually taught baptismal regeneration by faith alone.

All I read was a restatement of your belief. That's not called proving. I wouldn't have an easy time even calling that argument, let alone an argument based on a solid exegesis of scripture. As Pilgrim stated in response to your "proof,"

Quote:
I offered biblical evidence to support my view and you have, as seems to be your manner, ignored them completely. I am beginning to wonder if you even know what "exegesis" really means; e.g., you stated once that a sermon by Martin Luther is exegesis.



Quote:
Speratus said:
I seem to have overlooked averagefellar's post but I will respond as soon as possible.

Please do reread it.

Quote:
The passages are so simple that they require no explanation. However, interpretations are needed to make them say something other than what they clearly say.

See above. Simply restating your position in the face of opposition does not make it right. I am still waiting for the Biblical exegesis to prove your position.

To which I will add, I completely understand if you are not trained in exegesis, or are learned in thological debate. That's fine, but if this is the case, please make an effort to learn from those who are. I encourage you to search the writings of Luther, and find where and how he puts forth this belief. Then read what some have posted here, or what I'm sure many others have put forth in written works on this matter. See what they say. And think for yourself, in the light of Scripture.

Push every argument back until it is standing up against the wall of Scripture (if they make it that far!), and see if they will stand or fall in the thick of the battle. Analyse your own beliefs, and see what is based upon the Word, and what is upon the opinions of fallible man. "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2Ti 2:15)

Open your mind to the Scriptures, base your life and doctine upon the Good Book, and reject anything that falls short or runs counter to its teaching.

But until you begin to do this, I can't really continue this discussion, because it is becoming profitless and pointless. Right now it feels like intereacting with Erasmus, when Martin Luther said he was an eel- too slippery for anyone but Christ to lay a hold of.

I pray you will continue to grow in the Truth of the Word of God.
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#18324 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:43 PM Re: Wicked Baptists
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1020
Loc: USA
No as a reformed baptist I do not believe in baptismal regeneration Neither as you define it, nor as the LCMS defines it.
Quote:
Baptismal Regeneration
Q. You teach, as did Martin Luther, that man is justified by grace alone, through faith alone. Yet I also read your position on baptism and it seems to me that you also teach baptismal regeneration. You clearly state that a person (infant) comes into the blessings of grace (salvation) through their baptism. How can this be if the scripture teaches that faith is the means of apprehending salvation? I may simply be misunderstanding what you are saying in the section on baptism, I hope I am. If not, then I must insist that there would then be no difference between the LCMS and the Roman Church on its view of justification and salvation. Please help me understand where I am misunderstanding you.

A. Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die. Those who have been baptized, but who no longer believe, will not be saved. (By the same token, those who truly believe and yet have not had opportunity to be baptized [like, for example, the thief on the cross] will be saved.)
LCMS Baptismal Regeneration

Nor WELS or the ELS But hold to that what has been taught long ago that regeneration is the effectual application of Christ's redemption applied to us by the Holy Spirit. Doctrine of Regeneration Bill Ascol

See also:
Blessings of Grace section 4 J.L Dagg
Regeneration and Conversion by James P. Boyce
Regeneration-outline by Derek Gentle
_________________________
Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo

Top
#18325 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:28 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything.
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1020
Loc: USA
Quote:
I did respond to pilgrim's exposition of Acts 2:38,39 and I proved that his exposition was wrong and that the passage actually taught baptismal regeneration by faith alone.


For the love of Mike! No Speratus what you said you did and what actually happened are two different things. Pilgrim exegeted the passage here Pilgrim's exegesis of Acts 2:14, 37-41 Your response was here in which you didn't deal at all with baptism nor regeneration that supposely come from it. You discussed whether or not the men who responed were regenerated which Pilgrim answered here. You proved nothing you answered nothing and you still haven't shown to us an exegesis of any of the scriptures you flash before our eyes. In fact your response here:
Quote:
The passages are so simple that they require no explanation. However, interpretations are needed to make them say something other than what they clearly say.
speaks more to your lack of ability then anything else you have ever said! Speratus let me say that your credibility as a Lutheran is giving the denomination a black eye! I have seen better exegesis at the LCMS website than what you've offered here.

But I am still willing to give you a chance here are the verses you have shown to us and claim they support your thesis regarding baptismal regeneration exegete one please.
Mark 16:16
Acts 2:38
Acts 22:16
Romans 6:3,4
Galatians 6:26,27
Ephesians 5:25,26
Colossians 2:12
Titus 3:5
1 Peter 3:21

I await your exegesis.
_________________________
Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo

Top
#18326 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:13 PM Re: No.
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
averagefellar said:
Could you provide exegesis that shows that passage is an order of events?

Quote:

Act 2:38 Then1161 Peter4074 said5346 unto4314 them,846 Repent,3340 and2532 be baptized907 every one1538 of you5216 in1909 the3588 name3686 of Jesus2424 Christ5547 for1519 the remission859 of sins,266 and2532 ye shall receive2983 the3588 gift1431 of the3588 Holy40 Ghost.4151 (KJV+)

G2532
kai
Thayer Definition:
1) and, also, even, indeed, but
Part of Speech: conjunction
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force


Kai is accumulative. Could you offer exegesis showing Peter was setting forth a prescriptive formula?


God bless,

william


Prescriptive, in the sense that baptism is the sole means of grace? No. I agree that "and" is cumulative. The unregenerate sinner can not receive remission of sins without repentance and one of the means of grace (Word and Sacrament).

Top
#18327 - Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:32 PM Re: I'm not tying regeneration to anything. [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Pilgrim said:
speratus,

I'll say it one more time, "Baptism is NOT necessary nor instrumental in one's justification!" There simply isn't a shred of biblical warrant for anyone to believe this.

Quote:
After man is regenerated and given faith, he cooperates in the works of the spirit. But such cooperation does not save him. Salvation is not of works less any man should boast.

This statement is far too vague and it would appear you are trying to circumvent the more specific statement I made and which is one of the core beliefs of the Reformed churches. Regeneration is the secret, sovereign and sole act of the Holy Spirit in which a sinner is a recipient and of which is not comprehended at its occurence. Conversion is that response of a sinner who has been regenerated wherein he/she repents of sin and believes upon Christ unto justification.

Put simply, a sinner in:

Regeneration - passive
Conversion - active

In His Grace,


Faith alone justifies which the Holy Ghost alone works without any cooperation by man. This is truly a regeneration. But the Holy Ghost does not work faith without means (Word and Sacrament).

The regenerate should not be concerned about the moment of their regeneration but take comfort in the promise of scripture, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 21 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
dawie, Matt, Uriah, SavedByGraceFT, pcslg
778 Registered Users
Shout Box

August
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 411683
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 332568
Westminster Larger Catechism 301100
The importance of going to church 246574
Roman Catholicism and salvation 228917
Double predestination 215222
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 204116
Gospel truth 176508
Creation 160662
Continuity in Old and NT 127133