I think the following statements from the Westminster Confession of Faith, constituting the historical Presbyterian view of baptism, might prove interesting to this discussion:
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.
II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
Especially relevant to this discussion is the statement of Chapter XXVIII, paragraph 5:
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
If there's a way to find a middle ground between what I'm saying and what Marks are saying, I think that's it.
I don't know about "great sin," but I agree with the rest.
As for me, the only issue I have is with the word "regenerated" (out of the bolded text). Which is pretty good when speaking in regards to a Calvinist Heretic! ;)
Listen you 'wet water immersifiers'..the malefactor on the 'cross' next to Jesus. Jesus counted him as 'saved'.
Why, how.?? Was a bucket of water thrown over him to 'baptise' him.? Should this go to the 'silly forum'??!!
The malefactor on the cross was BEFORE Jesus completed his sacrifice, which is what made the difference in baptism afterward.
But if you'd rather stoop to name calling than seriously consider the Scriptures, then have another beer.
I think the following statements from the Westminster Confession of Faith, constituting the historical Presbyterian view of baptism, might prove interesting to this discussion:
Especially relevant to this discussion is the statement of Chapter XXVIII, paragraph 5:
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
Once again, it becomes clear that the difference of opinion depends on one's definition of "saved" and/or "regenerated." It might almost warrant a new thread.
As for me, the only issue I have is with the word "regenerated" (out of the bolded text). Which is pretty good when speaking in regards to a Calvinist Heretic! ;)
I think it likely Mark’s “issue” with the word regenerated in the WCF statement is tied to some notions about "baptismal regeneration" -- a doctrine held by RCs and some others.
To get a clear indication on this forum from an ostensibly informed Romanist concerning the RC position on the connectedness of baptism and regeneration, I ask Mark the following questions:
1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism?
2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism?
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?)
I found the following two-part piece on circumcision and baptism from a redemptive-historical perspective by Meredith Kline notably (at some points almost amazingly) illuminating concerning the biblical history and nature of baptism. Kline maintains that baptism was and is an “ordeal sign” of “judgment.”
I think Mark has already answered 2 several times, and never alleged 3.
Raf, thanks...but I am working on an answer to this off-line...and, unfortunately, for a competant (doctrinal forum-style) answer, it can't be a one-liner, so it is taking me a little bit.
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?)
Question 3 is intended primarily to concern baptized infants. It also is intended to concern adults, but is certainly not intended to concern adults who, through self-conscious deceit or insincerity, might obtain or accept baptism.
I think it likely Mark’s “issue” with the word regenerated in the WCF statement is tied to some notions about "baptismal regeneration" -- a doctrine held by RCs and some others.
To get a clear indication on this forum from an ostensibly informed Romanist concerning the RC position on the connectedness of baptism and regeneration, I ask Mark the following questions:
1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism?
2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism?
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?)
Well, Cynic, this is quite the tall order for this early on Black Friday, but I will give it a shot:
For my explanation to make sense, one must put off TWI definitions of words and fundamentalist definitions of words. Where I recall that there is a disconnect, I will try to provide a definition. But dialectics will screw up the meaning of what I am saying!!!! Unfortunately, a byproduct of the Protestant heresies is a change in the dialectics within many protestant circles that results in fundamental changes in the meaning behind the words.
With the above caveat, here goes:
First of all, baptism is a sacrament. A sacrament is a practice instituted by Christ for the salvation and strengthening of His Church, the body of believers, to save, nourish and strengthen her. They are specific methods through which the Holy Spirit (the paraclete) acts for believers.
The ultimate minister of the sacraments is Christ. He delegated this ministerial function to the apostles and, through apostolic succession, this responsibility has been delegated to the Church. There are ordinary ministers of a sacrament and, in some cases, there are extraordinary ministers. With the exception of the sacrament of matrimony, the ordinary ministers are ordained clergy. Matrimony is unique, because, in this sacrament, the Christian spouses are the ministers, pledging an everlasting covenant with each other.
Sacraments are said to be "ex opere operato," or, by the very fact of the action being performed. What does that mean, in a practical sense? It means that the validity of the sacrament being performed is not contingent upon the holiness of the lawful minister. A couple of practical examples: let us assume a validly ordained priest is having an affair with the parish secretary and that this priest is unrepentant. The priest is obviously in a state of grave sin; however, because of the principle of "ex opere operato," that does not affect the validity of the baptisms he has performed, it does not affect the Masses he has celebrated, etc. If one of the spouses in a marriage committed murder the night before, it does not neccesarily affect the validity of the covenantal marriage vows taken (obviously, if the spouse in question may not of been of mental capacity to take those vows and, thus, the vows may be invalid for that reason, but that is a different issue).
Each of the seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, reconcilliation, unction (annointing of the sick), marriage, and Holy Orders, were instituted by Christ and each confers grace in of itself.
Why bring all of this up? Because a lot of people do not understand what a sacrament is and what a sacrament is not.
Second point: what is regeneration?
Simply stated, regeneration is our justification before God and our redemption by the power of Christ's sacrifice. When an individual is regenerated, all sins, both original and personal, are washed away.
The new birth is the consequence of regeneration. In the new birth, an individual is made a member of Christ's Body. One receives an "indelible mark" ('sealed with the Holy Spirit,' 'born again of incorruptible seed') when one receives the new birth.
Please note this caveat: regeneration does not remove fleshy tendancies from an individual. A person does not become a brainwashed, mind-numbed automaton at the point of regeneration. God's grace strengthens an individual and heals an individual who has strayed, but that individual always has the free will to act within the will of God or against the will of God.
With those two definitions, baptism is, in fact, the sacrament of regeneration. I have seen no indication in scripture or in early historical Christian documents where regeneration and baptism are not associated. (I have seen where baptism is mentioned without immediate mention of regeneration, I have seen where regeneration is mentioned without immediate mention of baptism, but I have not seen a reference where it explicitly states that regeneration occurs apart from baptism -- and since orthodox Christian practice has been to baptize for circa 2,000 years, I would think that the burden of proof of difference is on the one who says that orthodox doctrine is incorrect)
The ordinary minister of baptism is any ordained clergy; however, anybody with the correct intent can perform a valid baptism.
Baptism must be accomplished with the trinitarian formula illustrated in Matthew 28:19.
The person being baptized must indicate a willingness to be baptized; in the event of a person unable to do so (e.g., through mental incapacity or through lack of maturity), the parents/ guardians may provide consent (cf Acts 16:15, 16:34, 1 Cor 1:16 -- indicates that whole households/ families were baptized when the parents believed).
So, with the above, in specific answer to the questions:
1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism? Yes.
2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism? As I stated above, I see no indication where regeneration is possible outside of baptism. Having said this, the Church has always held that God can save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament (The classic example is that of a catechumen). So the direct answer is no, but...regeneration is not the same as salvation.
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?) Yes, but...
1) It's not voodoo. The person being baptized must wish to be baptized (with the caveat that a parent/guardian can express consent for children/incapacitated under his charge). So in other words, you can't walk up to a person passed out with liquor, poor water on his head three times and say "I baptize you in the name of..." (Well, you could, but he'd just have a wet head)
2) It doesn't strip a person of free will. In other words, a person could be baptized and still make the decision to lead a sinful life and, if he doesn't repent of that sinful life, will come to a bad end (cf 2 Pet 2:21, Gal 5:19-21, I Jn 1:8, I Jn 1:10, etc.). God is abundant in mercy, but He won't force a person to act in a certain way. And actions still have consequences, as indicated throughout the NT. But he provides us a way out (cf I Jn 1:9, 2:1-3).
Sorry for the length of the answer, but I wanted to make sure to provide a comprehensive answer.
...I see no indication where regeneration is possible outside of baptism . . . the Church has always held that God can save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament . . . regeneration is not the same as salvation . . . a person could be baptized and still make the decision to lead a sinful life and, if he doesn't repent of that sinful life, will come to a bad end....
Mark,
Thanks for the response.
So, the position of the Romanist church is that baptism is a both a necessary and a sufficient condition for regeneration, but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.
So, the position of the Romanist church is that baptism is a both a necessary and a sufficient condition for regeneration, but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
14
18
21
Popular Days
Nov 16
19
Nov 17
16
Nov 20
15
Nov 25
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
Allan 14 posts
Mark Clarke 18 posts
markomalley 21 posts
Popular Days
Nov 16 2005
19 posts
Nov 17 2005
16 posts
Nov 20 2005
15 posts
Nov 25 2005
11 posts
CM
i thought Allan made a good point about baptism
meaning "immersed"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
From this particular Unitarian miscreant, ... I love that Calvinus commercial! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That's Papist Scum to you, sir!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
PSUMT!!!!
Papist Scum and Unitarian Miscreants Together!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Listen you 'wet water immersifiers'..the malefactor on the 'cross' next to Jesus. Jesus counted him as 'saved'.
Why, how.?? Was a bucket of water thrown over him to 'baptise' him.? Should this go to the 'silly forum'??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Allan,
Have a beer. And some respect for those who think and believe differently. These are good folks who have come to a different conclusion. Lighten up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I think the following statements from the Westminster Confession of Faith, constituting the historical Presbyterian view of baptism, might prove interesting to this discussion:
Especially relevant to this discussion is the statement of Chapter XXVIII, paragraph 5:
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf,
LOL!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If there's a way to find a middle ground between what I'm saying and what Marks are saying, I think that's it.
I don't know about "great sin," but I agree with the rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As for me, the only issue I have is with the word "regenerated" (out of the bolded text). Which is pretty good when speaking in regards to a Calvinist Heretic! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(this Unitarian miscreant orders more Calvinus beer to go all around, as apparently more merriment is needed)
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
I figure your enjoyment of the Calvinus site wasn’t diminished any when you saw Calvin get waylaid by a beer bottle to the head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The malefactor on the cross was BEFORE Jesus completed his sacrifice, which is what made the difference in baptism afterward.
But if you'd rather stoop to name calling than seriously consider the Scriptures, then have another beer.
Once again, it becomes clear that the difference of opinion depends on one's definition of "saved" and/or "regenerated." It might almost warrant a new thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now, now Cynic, don't be like that. Besides, he probably didn't feel a thing. :wacko:
..... Have another beer.
Mark Clarke,
What the heck. This thread is pretty much baptised in beer anyway.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I think it likely Mark’s “issue” with the word regenerated in the WCF statement is tied to some notions about "baptismal regeneration" -- a doctrine held by RCs and some others.
To get a clear indication on this forum from an ostensibly informed Romanist concerning the RC position on the connectedness of baptism and regeneration, I ask Mark the following questions:
1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism?
2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism?
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I found the following two-part piece on circumcision and baptism from a redemptive-historical perspective by Meredith Kline notably (at some points almost amazingly) illuminating concerning the biblical history and nature of baptism. Kline maintains that baptism was and is an “ordeal sign” of “judgment.”
Oath and Ordeal Signs, Part 1
Oath and Ordeal Signs, Second Article
*****
The following page at www.monergism.com has links to a number of articles on baptism:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...ic/babtism.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Cynic,
I think Mark has already answered 2 several times, and never alleged 3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf, thanks...but I am working on an answer to this off-line...and, unfortunately, for a competant (doctrinal forum-style) answer, it can't be a one-liner, so it is taking me a little bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Question 3 is intended primarily to concern baptized infants. It also is intended to concern adults, but is certainly not intended to concern adults who, through self-conscious deceit or insincerity, might obtain or accept baptism.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Oh, forget about adults in regards to question 3. My qualification about the absence of deceit and insincerity weakens the force of the question.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, Cynic, this is quite the tall order for this early on Black Friday, but I will give it a shot:
For my explanation to make sense, one must put off TWI definitions of words and fundamentalist definitions of words. Where I recall that there is a disconnect, I will try to provide a definition. But dialectics will screw up the meaning of what I am saying!!!! Unfortunately, a byproduct of the Protestant heresies is a change in the dialectics within many protestant circles that results in fundamental changes in the meaning behind the words.
With the above caveat, here goes:
First of all, baptism is a sacrament. A sacrament is a practice instituted by Christ for the salvation and strengthening of His Church, the body of believers, to save, nourish and strengthen her. They are specific methods through which the Holy Spirit (the paraclete) acts for believers.
The ultimate minister of the sacraments is Christ. He delegated this ministerial function to the apostles and, through apostolic succession, this responsibility has been delegated to the Church. There are ordinary ministers of a sacrament and, in some cases, there are extraordinary ministers. With the exception of the sacrament of matrimony, the ordinary ministers are ordained clergy. Matrimony is unique, because, in this sacrament, the Christian spouses are the ministers, pledging an everlasting covenant with each other.
Sacraments are said to be "ex opere operato," or, by the very fact of the action being performed. What does that mean, in a practical sense? It means that the validity of the sacrament being performed is not contingent upon the holiness of the lawful minister. A couple of practical examples: let us assume a validly ordained priest is having an affair with the parish secretary and that this priest is unrepentant. The priest is obviously in a state of grave sin; however, because of the principle of "ex opere operato," that does not affect the validity of the baptisms he has performed, it does not affect the Masses he has celebrated, etc. If one of the spouses in a marriage committed murder the night before, it does not neccesarily affect the validity of the covenantal marriage vows taken (obviously, if the spouse in question may not of been of mental capacity to take those vows and, thus, the vows may be invalid for that reason, but that is a different issue).
Each of the seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, reconcilliation, unction (annointing of the sick), marriage, and Holy Orders, were instituted by Christ and each confers grace in of itself.
Why bring all of this up? Because a lot of people do not understand what a sacrament is and what a sacrament is not.
Second point: what is regeneration?
Simply stated, regeneration is our justification before God and our redemption by the power of Christ's sacrifice. When an individual is regenerated, all sins, both original and personal, are washed away.
The new birth is the consequence of regeneration. In the new birth, an individual is made a member of Christ's Body. One receives an "indelible mark" ('sealed with the Holy Spirit,' 'born again of incorruptible seed') when one receives the new birth.
Please note this caveat: regeneration does not remove fleshy tendancies from an individual. A person does not become a brainwashed, mind-numbed automaton at the point of regeneration. God's grace strengthens an individual and heals an individual who has strayed, but that individual always has the free will to act within the will of God or against the will of God.
With those two definitions, baptism is, in fact, the sacrament of regeneration. I have seen no indication in scripture or in early historical Christian documents where regeneration and baptism are not associated. (I have seen where baptism is mentioned without immediate mention of regeneration, I have seen where regeneration is mentioned without immediate mention of baptism, but I have not seen a reference where it explicitly states that regeneration occurs apart from baptism -- and since orthodox Christian practice has been to baptize for circa 2,000 years, I would think that the burden of proof of difference is on the one who says that orthodox doctrine is incorrect)
The ordinary minister of baptism is any ordained clergy; however, anybody with the correct intent can perform a valid baptism.
Baptism must be accomplished with the trinitarian formula illustrated in Matthew 28:19.
The person being baptized must indicate a willingness to be baptized; in the event of a person unable to do so (e.g., through mental incapacity or through lack of maturity), the parents/ guardians may provide consent (cf Acts 16:15, 16:34, 1 Cor 1:16 -- indicates that whole households/ families were baptized when the parents believed).
So, with the above, in specific answer to the questions:
1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism? Yes.
2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism? As I stated above, I see no indication where regeneration is possible outside of baptism. Having said this, the Church has always held that God can save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament (The classic example is that of a catechumen). So the direct answer is no, but...regeneration is not the same as salvation.
3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?) Yes, but...
1) It's not voodoo. The person being baptized must wish to be baptized (with the caveat that a parent/guardian can express consent for children/incapacitated under his charge). So in other words, you can't walk up to a person passed out with liquor, poor water on his head three times and say "I baptize you in the name of..." (Well, you could, but he'd just have a wet head)
2) It doesn't strip a person of free will. In other words, a person could be baptized and still make the decision to lead a sinful life and, if he doesn't repent of that sinful life, will come to a bad end (cf 2 Pet 2:21, Gal 5:19-21, I Jn 1:8, I Jn 1:10, etc.). God is abundant in mercy, but He won't force a person to act in a certain way. And actions still have consequences, as indicated throughout the NT. But he provides us a way out (cf I Jn 1:9, 2:1-3).
Sorry for the length of the answer, but I wanted to make sure to provide a comprehensive answer.
And, by the way, that is "Papist scum" to you.
Oh, and I'll be happy to take another brewski!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Mark,
Thanks for the response.
So, the position of the Romanist church is that baptism is a both a necessary and a sufficient condition for regeneration, but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
No Cynic, I suggest you read my words again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.