Originally Posted by Peytonator
via_dolorosa: I feel I hardly need to reply after Pilgrim’s post, but let me add a few more things…

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
Which is why I made the point that "faith alone" is something Luther made up and isn't found in Scripture except to refute that concept. Luther's addition of the word "alone" in the vernacular translation was precisely the defiant vandelism of Scripture that gave cause for the need to obtain an imprimatur from the bishop before copying the Bible. It's hard to see Luther as the least bit credible when he attempted to remove any Scripture that confounded his theology. With that said, however, Luther would heartily contend with your notion that baptism is unnecessary: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Are you hoping that I somehow feel compelled to agree with Luther in these issues because I am a Protestant?

Not really. I find it equally amusing when people quote early Church fathers to me as if all of their teachings became teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm well aware of Augustine's views on predestination and invincible ignorance. It's because the fathers were human and therefore inclined to disagree that shines greater credibility on the gospel they handed down.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
I believe it to be a mistake to use the Bible as lawyers use the law, trying to exude from it what assists their point of view. Now here we have Peter saying clearly that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Lest there be any misunderstanding, Paul also says, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts 22:16). Not wanting to believe what the text is clearly saying, it seems you are scraping for something to contradict it with. The challenge of any Christian is to allow the Bible to shape our beliefs and resist the temptation to bend it to fit our predetermined conclusions.

…

Baptise in Acts always follows salvation. From Acts 2, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.” The jailer and Eunuch were already regenerated/born again/saved/ forgiven/justified before their baptism … read the passage in context. Here again I think you miss the larger point. Whether it be the Philipian jailer and his family, the Ethiopian Enuch, or the new disciples Paul encounted in Ephesus, all were water baptized as an initiation into the Church. The burden of proof really lies on you to demonstrate that this step could be bypassed and such a practice of opting out of baptism was accepted and taught.

Merely accusing me of producing trifling objections does not prove anything. Please answer the objection. Why was he still in the bond of iniquity? Obviously, Acts 22:16 and Peter’s words mean something far different from what you think they mean. Let me add,

(1) Two different commands are given: rise and be baptised, AND wash away your sins.

(2) As Heb. 10:19–22 shows, the believer's sins are “washed away” through faith in “the blood of Jesus,” with the result that the believer is “sprinkled clean” and “washed with pure water.”

(3) I could give you a Baptists answer to Acts 2:38 and the like, but let me be honest and say that I have, well, very unconventional views of baptism at the moment. But considering that you open a can of worms... I think the disciples were going through a transitionary period between John’s (water) and Christ’s (Spirit and fire) baptism. As Acts 19:3 says, “And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into JOHN’S baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On HEARING THIS, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Notice that: (i) John’s baptism was only a water baptism of preparatory repentance to make way for Christ. (ii) Christ’s Baptism is Spiritual. “I have baptized you with water, BUT he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. “ “As many of you as were baptized INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.” What occured between this in Acts was transitionary. Practically the entire NT that follows Acts presents baptism as spiritual, not physical. Should you say to me, “am I baptised?” I would say, absolutely – by Christ Himself, with the Spirit! I feel compelled to take this whole view, because "baptism SAVES," BUT, "not as a removal of dirt from the body," i.e. spiritually. Quite frankly I've grown up a Baptist all my life, but can't justify the phrase "outward sign of an inward work." Baptism is the inward work.
Yet, my views are formative, and I would rather not debate this at the moment.

A couple of points. The Apostles were told to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so making the point that John's baptism was insufficient doesn't detract from baptism itself. Also, as I said, since water baptism was so prevalent not only in the New Testament but in the early church in generational proximity to the Apostolic age, the burden of proof lies on you to lay out a compelling case that refutes the relationship between water baptism and entry into the Church as unnecessary.


Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
I'm sure it befuddles many Protestants when the paralized man was lowered to Jesus through the roof and Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven."

Not at all. On the contrary, he was justified by faith, the moment he believed.
[/quote]

Please don't shoot from the hip. My point is obvious that the man received forgiveness he didn't solicit but very much needed. Though the weeping prostitute in Luke 7 seemed very much remorseful, she also didn't solicit forgiveness before Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." (7:48) The mental ascent that evangelicals require before God responds seems to be absent. God shows mercy even before we are aware of how desperately we need it.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
While it cannot be stressed enough that those who hear the gospel have a duty to embrace it to be saved, it must also be said that God's saving grace works inside and outside of our mental faculties. Jesus told His disciples, "you are clean because of the word I have spoken to you," a pronouncement of absolution again that was not solicited. Protestant and Evangelical theology hinges all of salvation on a person's mental assent to the gospel, but it's a great comfort to that our minds, subject to weakness, is not the only vehicle to salvation. How is a child saved? How is an ungospelled person saved? How about the profoundly retarded or autistic? Of this you can be sure, God will save whom he will outside of the tidy little formulas that people have made for Him.

Of all the things you’ve said, this is to me the most outrageous. You constantly quote texts such as Acts 2:38, and yet practically overlook such Scriptures as “REPENT therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” Can an unbelieving unregenerate brain dead man repent? No; he will perish. Can an ungospelled man be saved? No; yet they are both without excuse (Rom 1).
And yet you quote one of many scriptural references that affirms the free agency of man to "choose life, that ye might live." Your objection, though outspoken, doesn't even seem to touch upon what I saying except to parry the notion that an ungospelled man can be saved. Can you flesh this out a little better for me?



Last edited by via_dolorosa; Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:24 PM.
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.