Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
William

We Believe the Bible and You Do Not

Recommended Posts

Keith Mathison

 

Not too long ago, in an effort to get a better grasp of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, I was reading the chapters on the sacraments in Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, and I ran across this statement: “The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed in the doctrine of Baptism is fully and adequately defined by saying that the former believes God’s Word regarding Baptism, the latter not” (vol. 3, p. 269).

 

Let that one sink in for just a moment. Here we have one of the most respected Lutheran systematic theologians of the last century saying that the difference between his church and the Reformed over baptism can be summed up as follows: “Lutherans believe the Bible, and the Reformed don’t.” It’s just that simple, right?

 

When I first read this, I was a bit taken aback. How could a theologian as brilliant as Pieper so casually ignore the role of interpretation on this point? Why could he not see that this is not a matter of disbelieving the Bible, but of disagreeing with the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible?

 

I recalled, however, that this kind of statement in regard to the sacraments goes back to the sixteenth-century debates between the Lutherans and the Reformed. In his debates with the Lutheran Joachim Westphal, John Calvin was almost driven to distraction by Westphal’s repeated claim that Jesus’ words “This is my body” allowed of no interpretation. One either believed them or one disbelieved them. In the historical context of the Lutheran-Reformed debates, then, Pieper’s statement is not terribly unusual.

 

If you are Reformed or Baptist, what is your immediate reaction to Pieper’s statement? Do you accept his claim that the only difference between you and the Lutherans on the subject of baptism is that Lutherans believe the Bible and you don’t? Or do you think that his statement is a poor excuse for an argument? Do you think it is a fair statement, or do you think it is somewhat self-serving?

 

Lest I be accused of picking on my Lutheran brothers, ask yourself this question now: “How many times have I seen my theological heroes use essentially the same kind of argument in different theological disputes?”

 

I don’t know about you, but as I reflect on it, I can recall numerous times when I’ve seen this “argument” in action in my own theological circles. When I was a dispensationalist, the common thought was that the difference between premillennialists and everyone else was fully and adequately defined by saying that premillennialists believed God’s Word regarding the millennium while amillennialists and postmillennialists did not. We believed what God said in Revelation 20. Amillennialists and postmillennialists did not believe what God said. Case closed.

 

When I was a Baptist, I regularly heard it said that Baptists believed God’s Word concerning believer’s baptism while others did not. As a Presbyterian, I’ve heard it said that Presbyterians believe God’s Word concerning the promises to the children of believers while the Baptists do not.

 

I’ve heard this line of argument used in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: “The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don’t.” When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.

 

Re-read the Lutheran quote in the first paragraph. Do you (assuming you are not Lutheran) find it persuasive when it is said of you that the only reason you do not accept the Lutheran understanding of baptism is because you do not believe God’s Word? Probably not. But we find that same kind of statement very assuring (and persuasive) when it is said in support of a doctrine or interpretation that we happen to agree with.

 

The problem with Pieper’s statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God’s Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God’s Word.

 

The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God’s Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: “We believe the Bible and you don’t.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is a slippery word that can be used to hide all manner of unbelief; by it some contend that Christ is not God and others by it contend that the resurrection of our Lord is a metaphor. Beware of interpretations that step by step take one away from the plain sense of the holy scripture. One must always allow the plain sense to govern in matters of doctrine and even when one grants the other senses of holy scripture the simple and plain meaning of the text comes first. So when one reads the words of the Lord to Nicodemus as "really meaning" that one must be born of amniotic fluid and then at a later time of the Spirit alarm bells must ring because what the Lord said is "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" and no sign of amniotic fluid is present. The passage is not a metaphor nor is it to be taken as the humorously foolish interpretation that Nicodemus put on it "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" but let the words mean what they say and the teaching of the ancient churches leaps out of the page - one must be born of water and the Spirit (baptised and born from above) to enter the kingdom of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet the theif on the cross died without water baptism...

 

Yes, he did die without being baptised yet he had the word of the Lord Jesus Christ that he would be with the Lord in paradise that selfsame day. The promises of God are reliable. I believe that the thief was born from above by the Spirit and that had he had the opportunity he would have been baptised. God does not condemn for a failure of a duty that one cannot perform and the thief absolutely could not perform the duty of being baptised so I am inclined to think that the thief's expressed trust in the Lord was enough because the Lord said it was so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but let the words mean what they say and the teaching of the ancient churches leaps out of the page - one must be born of water and the Spirit (baptised and born from above) to enter the kingdom of God.

 

To clarify, are you suggesting that any saint before John the Baptist did not receive salvation? If we take the phrase, "water and spirit" as a figure of speech, water and spirit are two words employed to get the point across, but only one idea is intended. One of the words, "Spirit," expresses the point, but the other word, "water," intensifies "Spirit" to the superlative degree.

 

Consider E.W. Bullinger:

 

It is God's Holy Spirit that is the instrument of both the cleansing and the birth of the divine nature in us. "Water" intensifies and magnifies "Spirit" by means of the many figurative ways God's Holy Spirit is shown working: as a means of God's light- and life-giving Word, of spiritual power, and of cleansing.

 

Jesus says in John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." This statement clarifies matters: The water, the Word, and the Holy Spirit must be considered together—as one element—that precipitate the new birth, all being given from above. Considering them as one makes Jesus' declaration stronger.

 

Further, I have requested from time to time, for those following John's baptism to please explain his baptism, especially considering John the Baptist's words which indicate having no idea as to why he was even baptizing Jesus.

 

Please do not respond here if you wish to discuss John's baptism, perhaps another thread? In this thread, I believe the OP addresses an assertion, "We believe the Bible and you don’t" - how should we respond to such assertion?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptism is a sacrament of the new covenant so it cannot be made to apply to those who lived under the old covenant. So answering your question, William, I am not suggesting that anybody under the old covenant needed to be baptised to enter the kingdom of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baptism is a sacrament of the new covenant so it cannot be made to apply to those who lived under the old covenant. So answering your question, William, I am not suggesting that anybody under the old covenant needed to be baptised to enter the kingdom of God.

 

Ever acknowledge similarities and differences between the Catholic practice of baptismal regeneration and the Baptist practice of credo-baptism?

 

Again, this is dealing with the assertion "We believe the Bible and you don’t" - how should we respond to such assertion?

 

God bless,

William

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ought to respond to the claim according to its merit. It is true? Then affirm it. Its it in error? Then show where it is in error. The Lutheran theologian says "We [Lutherans] believe that bible and you [Reformed] do not" since he is discussing baptism it is evident that he intends that on the matter of baptism as an efficacious sacrament of the new covenant that not only signifies an inner grace but also conveys that grace Lutherans believe the bible while he asserts that the Reformed do not believe the bible presumably because in Reformed theology baptism is a sign and seal of an inner grace but does not in and of itself convey that grace and hence does not actually wash away sins and cause the one baptised to be born from above by the Spirit. I am not a Lutheran myself so I will not attempt to defend his claims beyond their congruence with Catholic teaching on the matter of the sacrament of Baptism. Catholics teach these things about Baptism:

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

 

252. What names are given to the first sacrament of initiation?

1213-1216

1276-1277

This sacrament is primarily called
Baptism
because of the central rite with which it is celebrated. To baptize means to “immerse” in water. The one who is baptized is immersed into the death of Christ and rises with him as a “new creature” (
2 Corinthians
5:17). This sacrament is also called the “bath of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (
Titus
3:5); and it is called “enlightenment” because the baptized becomes “a son of light” (
Ephesians
5:8).

253. How is Baptism prefigured in the Old Covenant?

1217-1222

In the Old Covenant Baptism was pre-figured in various ways:
water,
seen as source of life and of death; in
the Ark of Noah
, which saved by means of water; in
the passing through the Red Sea,
which liberated Israel from Egyptian slavery; in
the crossing of the Jordan River,
that brought Israel into the promised land which is the image of eternal life.

254. Who brought to fulfillment those prefigurations?

1223-1224

All the Old Covenant prefigurations find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. At the beginning of his public life Jesus had himself baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. On the cross, blood and water, signs of Baptism and the Eucharist, flowed from his pierced side. After his Resurrection he gave to his apostles this mission: “Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (
Matthew
28:19).

255. Starting when and to whom has the Church administered Baptism?

1226-1228

From the day of Pentecost, the Church has administered Baptism to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.

256. In what does the essential rite of Baptism consist?

1229-1245

1278

The essential rite of this sacrament consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water over his or her head while invoking the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

257. Who can receive Baptism?

1246-1252

Every person not yet baptized is able to receive Baptism.

258. Why does the Church baptize infants?

1250

The Church baptizes infants because they are born with original sin. They need to be freed from the power of the Evil One and brought into that realm of freedom which belongs to the children of God.

259. What is required of one who is to be baptized?

1253-1255

Everyone who is to be baptized is required to make a profession of faith. This is done personally in the case of an adult or by the parents and by the Church in the case of infants. Also the godfather or the godmother and the whole ecclesial community share the responsibility for baptismal preparation (catechumenate) as well as for the development and safeguarding of the faith and grace given at baptism.

260. Who can baptize?

1256

1284

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and the priest. In the Latin Church the deacon also can baptize. In case of necessity any person can baptize provided he has the intention of doing what the Church does. This is done by pouring water on the head of the candidate while saying the Trinitarian formula for Baptism: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

1257

Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

1258-1261

1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (
Baptism of blood
). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (
Baptism of desire
). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

263. What are the effects of Baptism?

1262-1274

1279-1280

Baptism takes away original sin, all personal sins and all punishment due to sin. It makes the baptized person a participant in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace, the grace of justification which incorporates one into Christ and into his Church. It gives one a share in the priesthood of Christ and provides the basis for communion with all Christians. It bestows the theological virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. A baptized person belongs forever to Christ. He is marked with the indelible seal of Christ (
character
).

264. What is the meaning of the Christian name received at Baptism?

2156-2159

2167

The name is important because God knows each of us by name, that is, in our uniqueness as persons. In Baptism a Christian receives his or her own name in the Church. It should preferably be the name of a saint who might offer the baptized a model of sanctity and an assurance of his or her intercession before God.

Edited by peppermint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...."

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread..."

 

Either you believe it's bread, or you don't believe the Bible. It says Jesus took BREAD! Right?

 

The people who pride themselves in taking the Bible literally don't take the Bible any more literally than I do, they just use the literal argument as an excuse to take the least literal parts literally.

 

When Jesus said this bread is his body, you can't take that any more literally than believing Jesus was holding bread that represented his body. The alternative that Jesus was holding his body and it only looked like bread is no more literal, but a lot less reasonable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...."

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread..."

 

Either you believe it's bread, or you don't believe the Bible. It says Jesus took BREAD! Right?

 

The people who pride themselves in taking the Bible literally don't take the Bible any more literally than I do, they just use the literal argument as an excuse to take the least literal parts literally.

 

When Jesus said this bread his his body, you can't take that any more literally than believing Jesus was holding bread that represented his body. The alternative that Jesus was holding his body and it only looked like bread is no more literal, but a lot less reasonable.

 

I believe that at the last supper it is bread until the Lord says "this is my body" at that time it is his body. In the liturgy it is bread until the Spirit of God changes it as the words of consecration are said "this is my body ... this is the blood of the new testament shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" at that time the Spirit of God works the change that the words speak and like the word spoken at creation that made all things this word, spoken in the liturgy, also makes something new, namely, a creation (the bread) is changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is a digression from the topic of baptism and it is baptism that this thread is about if I am not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reformed Theology acknowledges a monergistic reality of salvation. The initial step towards salvation begins by God alone, and not by material means, whether by man (flesh gives birth to flesh) or by cleansing the flesh by water alone. The water corresponds to a sign and seal from which salvation is not found, but rather the reality it corresponds, emphasizing monergism. The point of origination is not by any earthly means or by man's works but by God alone.

 

Soli Deo Gloria

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not by material means? I do not think that is a scriptural position especially in light of what saint Paul teaches about baptism in Romans chapter six.

Know ye not, that
so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death
?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death
:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life
. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him
. (Romans 6:3-9 KJV)

Baptism really does do the things that saint Paul says it does. One really does die to sin and one really is raised to walk in newness of life. And all of this is wholly by the grace of God.

Edited by peppermint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (Romans 6:3-9 KJV)

 

Are you suggesting semi-pelagianism soteriology is represented in these passages? If we were to cross "raised from the dead" out and replace it with "healed from a sick or wounded condition" I'd see the similarity. Likewise, Catholic baptism equates the priest to a medicine man administering some special water to a sick or wounded man.

 

Again, water and spirit are a phrase and figure of speech used throughout Scripture, the emphasis is not placed on water alone nor does the water conjure up the Spirit.

 

Reformed Theology tends to eradicate superstition. Question, do you throw eye of newt in the water?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Catholic teaching the emphasis is not on water alone; it is water and the Word (a name for Christ and also for the Truth spoken by God) that constitute the sacrament and it is the Spirit who makes it efficacious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Catholic teaching the emphasis is not on water alone; it is water and the Word (a name for Christ and also for the Truth spoken by God) that constitute the sacrament and it is the Spirit who makes it efficacious.

 

Don't forget the one performing it.

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't forget the one performing it.

 

God bless,

William

 

Anybody may perform a baptism; all that is needed is the intention to baptise and naturally it would not be baptism if it was not intended to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anybody may perform a baptism; all that is needed is the intention to baptise and naturally it would not be baptism if it was not intended to be so.

 

Are you suggesting Catholics recognize Protestant baptisms, pepper? How so, does the validity of the Protestant priesthood stand recognized by the Catholic church for its intent? How are the baptisms of Protestants recognized?

 

God bless,

William

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is My body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)

By believing that the bread actually becomes Christ's body, and the wine becoming Christ's blood every time you take communion, are you not re-crucifying Him? Christ has one body to give, "a body You have prepared for Me." (Hebrews 10:5) And He gave His body, pouring out His blood once.

10 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

14 "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14)

And we partake of The Lord's supper as a "remembrance" of His great sacrifice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we partake of The Lord's supper as a "remembrance" of His great sacrifice.

 

Paul speaks of Communion without the least bit sense of the actual body and blood of Christ being involved. On the contrary, he says it is bread we are eating in remembrance. If we take Paul literally, it is bread we are eating. However, Catholics don't claim to be literalists. They openly follow Church authority and tradition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paul speaks of Communion without the least bit sense of the actual body and blood of Christ being involved. On the contrary, he says it is bread we are eating in remembrance. If we take Paul literally, it is bread we are eating. However, Catholics don't claim to be literalists. They openly follow Church authority and tradition.

 

I can't help but wonder how you've reached the conclusion that saint Paul speaks as if the bread and the wine were not the body and blood of Christ when he says (in 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 KJV) that eating and drinking are partaking in the body and blood of Christ. And when he says (in 1 Corinthains 11:17-34 KJV) that "this is my body" and "this chalice is the new testament in my blood" and observes that to partake unworthily is to be guilty of the body and the blood of Christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately peppermint, you have taken verses out of context to support your point. This is very dangerous. In this chapter, Paul is discussing several things related to Christian living: the worthy manner in which Christians are to conduct themselves at the Lord's table, and in terms of Christian liberty in daily living. Chapter 10 has nothing to do with the bread and wine becoming His body & blood, otherwise you would also have to conclude that Jesus becomes a literal rock, because at the beginning of the same chapter Paul states "...and that rock was Christ." This would be a totally absurd conclusion and would completely detract from Paul's main theme of discussion in this chapter. I would encourage you to read the entire chapter, as all lovers of God's Word should handle it with fear and trembling, not taking its verses out of context. In this chapter, when Paul speaks of partaking of Christ, he clearly means spiritually, not literally, (as stated in verses 3 and 4 three times). All Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, therefore they are partakers of Christ, spiritually. As such, Christians must not partake unworthily either in the sacrament of the Lord's table, or in daily living, for this is to commit idolatry, which is essentially, to commit adultery.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately peppermint, you have taken verses out of context to support your point. This is very dangerous. In this chapter, Paul is discussing several things related to Christian living: the worthy manner in which Christians are to conduct themselves at the Lord's table, and in terms of Christian liberty in daily living. Chapter 10 has nothing to do with the bread and wine becoming His body & blood, otherwise you would also have to conclude that Jesus becomes a literal rock, because at the beginning of the same chapter Paul states "...and that rock was Christ." This would be a totally absurd conclusion and would completely detract from Paul's main theme of discussion in this chapter. I would encourage you to read the entire chapter, as all lovers of God's Word should handle it with fear and trembling, not taking its verses out of context. In this chapter, when Paul speaks of partaking of Christ, he clearly means spiritually, not literally, (as stated in verses 3 and 4 three times). All Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, therefore they are partakers of Christ, spiritually. As such, Christians must not partake unworthily either in the sacrament of the Lord's table, or in daily living, for this is to commit idolatry, which is essentially, to commit adultery.

 

I do think that the rock was Christ but I do not see that as a counter argument against the bread being Christ's body and the wine being Christ's blood. The issue in this kind of discussion is what one sees as a metaphor and what one perceives to be a type and its antitype or what one understands to be a theophany and what is not. Surely the rock is a theophany just as the tongues of flame and the sound of a mighty wind are a theophany. But with the holy supper the bread is no metaphor nor is the wine both are realities described by the words of Christ; "this is my body" and "this wine is my blood of the new testament". But this thread is about baptism and not the holy supper of the Lord. I can understand why some are anxious to change the topic to one with which they feel more comfortable but it is disrespectful to the first port in the thread to diverge from its question until that question is settled. So returning to the topic "is it right to say that Lutherans believe the holy scriptures when they teach on Baptism and that the Reformed do not"? Not only does Romans chapter six teach that baptism really brings about death and rising to newness of life for the one who is baptised. And John chapter three and many other passages teach that baptism cleanses one of sins and saves one's soul. In these matters it's the Lutherans who take the holy scriptures at face value without resorting to subtle interpretations to force the words of holy scripture to conform to a system of doctrine which is alien to them.

Edited by peppermint
typo correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But this thread is about baptism and not the holy supper of the Lord. I can understand why some are anxious to change the topic to one with which they feel more comfortable but it is disrespectful to the first port in the thread to diverge from its question until that question is settled. So returning to the topic "is it right to say that Lutherans believe the holy scriptures when they teach on Baptism and that the Reformed do not"? Not only does Romans chapter six teach that baptism really brings about death and rising to newness of life for the one who is baptised. And John chapter three and many other passages teach that baptism cleanses one of sins and saves one's soul. In these matters it the Lutherans who take the holy scriptures at face value without resorting to subtle interpretations to force the words of holy scripture to conform to a system of doctrine which is alien to them.

 

The topic is not about baptism or communion but actually how we deal with the mentioned assertion, "We believe the Bible and you don’t".

 

Since the thread has strayed from the OP, I asked a question but think you missed my edit:

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (Romans 6:3-9 KJV)

 

Are you suggesting semi-pelagianism soteriology is represented in these passages? I think crossing out "raised from the dead" and replacing it with "healed from a sick or wounded condition" represents the Catholic reality. Likewise, Catholic baptism equates the priest to a medicine man administering some very special water indeed to a sick or wounded man.

 

I'm curious about your soteriology and how it aligns with Romans chapter 6.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The topic is not about baptism or communion but actually how we deal with the mentioned assertion, "We believe the Bible and you don’t".

 

Since the thread has strayed from the OP, I asked a question but think you missed my edit:

 

 

 

Are you suggesting semi-pelagianism soteriology is represented in these passages? I think crossing out "raised from the dead" and replacing it with "healed from a sick or wounded condition" represents the Catholic reality. Likewise, Catholic baptism equates the priest to a medicine man administering some very special water indeed to a sick or wounded man.

 

I'm curious about your soteriology and how it aligns with Romans chapter 6.

 

God bless,

William

 

I think I saw that question and gave an answer in one of my posts but I am happy to answer again. No, I do not think that any Semipelagian soteriology is present in the passage when it is read at face value and I do think that the passage read at face value unquestionably teaches that baptism does bring about death to sin and rising to newness of life. You are, of course, mistaken when you speak of what Catholics teach on the basis of this passage from Romans chapter six. I have already posted a section from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this thread and it makes it abundantly clear that the Church teaches that in Baptism one is cleansed from original sin and all actual sins and that this is entirely of grace. I've also posted a thread in the Catholicism sub-forum explaining what the Catholic Church teaches about baptism. Click here to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I saw that question and gave an answer in one of my posts but I am happy to answer again. No, I do not think that any Semipelagian soteriology is present in the passage when it is read at face value and I do think that the passage read at face value unquestionably teaches that baptism does bring about death to sin and rising to newness of life. You are, of course, mistaken when you speak of what Catholics teach on the basis of this passage from Romans chapter six. I have already posted a section from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this thread and it makes it abundantly clear that the Church teaches that in Baptism one is cleansed from original sin and all actual sins and that this is entirely of grace. I've also posted a thread in the Catholicism sub-forum explaining what the Catholic Church teaches about baptism. Click here to see it.

 

I haven't read the other threads, but in due time I will, I only asked a question based on the assertion you made regarding Romans 6.

 

So it is your assertion that the passage teaches water baptism corresponds to regeneration? I'm asking. Does regeneration follow after water baptism here? I am confused how something so simple becomes so complex in Catholic soteriology. I posted a sermon on this topic of baptism, and now I am curious as to how you understand the Nicene Creed's statement, "I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins".

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×