Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 206577 | ||
Hi, Bowler... Faith alone, is right... but always append the further qualifiers: in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. Nowadays, folks need the explicit solas. So much ignorance and heterodoxy out there. Of course, there's nothing new under the sun: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206589 | ||
Doc I fully agree with everything cited in the Canon of the Council of Orange except the end here - quoted from - http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness. As I am quite certain the end is not what you were referring me to, please do not take this as some form of argumentation on my part. I am merely wishing to make known my distaste for the end of the Canon of the Council of Orange as it contradicts the concept that it is indeed by Christ alone, by grace alone, and through faith alone that the graces of God are conferred as it most clearly states that baptism is a sacrement conferring the "grace" which will enable to one to afterwards "keep" the faith. After all that was said beforehand in the 25 points and the first paragraph of the conclusion it becomes a most interesting statement about how the aforementioned 25 points are possible as made to be possible by the qualifying requirement to aprehend such things in the very last paragraph! blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 206639 | ||
Dear bowler, Before speaking to your post, I have to take an aside for a moment and explain a theological term. Since the earliest days of the church, primarily beginning in the teaching of the apostles, there is doctrine that we call grace. Often we define it as unmerited favor. Certainly that is an aspect of what it means, but it is only one aspect. (The profundity of truth is such that it rarely admits of a single, simple definition.) Thayer's Greek Definitions defines grace much more completely as "the merciful kindness by which God, exerting His holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues." Now keep that definition in mind and let me introduce another phrase common to Christian thinking: means of grace. By this phrase we speak of the God ordained (expressly decreed) mechanisms by which He dispenses His grace. For example, Paul tells us that faith is by hearing, but hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). God has ordained this particular way through which saving faith is gifted to the elect. The means of grace include, but are not limited to, Bible study, prayer, meditation, the preaching of the Word, worship with other believers, and fellowship with other believers. As Baptists, our roots reflect a generally, strong Reformed influence. We are also much influenced by one Reformer in particular, Huldrych Zwingli. Consequently, we take great care to distance ourselves from the teaching of the Romanists. Baptists of all stripes reject the notion that baptism imparts grace salvific nature. Therefore, we often speak of baptism as "a symbol." It certainly is that, for it pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:4-6). All Baptists would assert that if a lost person is immersed in baptism, all that happens is that they get wet. The ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ (baptism and communion) are for the sole use of the redeemed, and are entirely unfit for ignorant or ungodly people. Yes, these things are pictures. However, they are also God ordained means of grace. Through them we publicly identify with Christ, declaring the gospel, as people changed by the gospel and being changed by the gospel. Remember that God takes a very dim view of having any of His pictures "messed up." Think about Moses striking the rock, divorce, and the warning of taking communion unworthily. In conclusion, although the Baptist divines would have chosen different terms than those used by the elders of the church in the sixth century, they would have, nonetheless, been willing to accept the ideas as expressed in your quote from the Canons of Orange. Christian orthodoxy finds different expression depending on its historical context. However, by the immediately involved and informed influence of the Holy Spirit, orthodoxy remains orthodoxy. I apologize for glossing over these things without more extensive deliberation. However, it is past my bedtime. Perhaps we'll have future occasion to discuss these important doctrines of the church. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206640 | ||
Doc No my good man of God, you glossed over nothing at all, you were quite clear. I agree completely about the "grace" and "means of grace" that you have outlined here, I take no other. I would like, if you please to take the time, when you can to elaborate for me at some length, with the strength which God supplies, about how the Baptist Divines would have "nonetheless been willing to express your quote from the Canons of Orange"? This would be most informative. What I am struggling with is that very Roman Catholic idea that after receiving "According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul." And "so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him." Whereby one having recieved the "sacrament of baptism", "all baptized persons have the ability etc.". - As if the ability comes from the grace conferred by baptism? Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
5 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 206733 | ||
Dear bowler, Do you understand that the word "catholic" means universal? It does not mean Romanism or the organization run out of the Vatican. Also, understand that our ability to do God's will is a matter of continual grace. It is an antinomy, but we strive for obedience because God grants us the ability and desire to be obedient. We have been granted the ability and desire to be obedient, therefore we strive for obedience. This does not mean that everyone baptized in the visible church are members of the invisible, universal church. This creed is speaking of those who are actually regenerate. The old divines would have -- and did -- choose different words. No doubt that their explanation would have stated things in such a way as to minimize confusion. But then, they were telling the world who they were some 1,100 years after the Council of Orange. See the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith: http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206741 | ||
Doc Yes I do understand that the term "catholic" means universal, as in the "universal church" and that that is how it was being used in the Canons of Orange. However, the Canons of Orange were drafted by members of the Catholic Church in 529 with Caesaurius Arles, presding as head of the synod, and sent to Pope Boniface II for final approval. Which is why I did not hesitate to idenditify the end paragraph, which intimated that regeneration comes about by way of baptism, as being derived from "Roman Catholicism", as the Council of Orange sent the Canons to Pope Boniface II in 530 for final approval. The whole thing stemmed from St. Augustine's answer to Pelagianism. Augustine was Catholic, the members of the Council of Orange were all Catholic. Both Augustine and the church at the time taught baptismal regeneration as the process by which any came to be those "who are actually regenerate". Some of the oldest divines believed various things, both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration "as the process by which that effectual grace of regeneration is conferred". But in the interests of not aruguing with you I will desist from setting forth a lengthy discourse with quotes to prove that and will leave off in qualifying my statement that that is what they taught and believed. I like your London Baptist Confession of Faith, thank you very much for all your very good links. And I have no doubt that other of the great divines did not teach baptismal regeneration as you so rightly say. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
7 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 206761 | ||
Dear bowler, It is clear that you're getting most of your information on Baptismal regeneration from uninformed credo-baptist. I'm a credo-baptist myself. When one actually takes the time to read what they themselves wrote -- not read something said by others about what they wrote! -- it is clear that they do not believe that baptism has a salvific component. (As I stated in my earlier posts in this thread.) You won't find the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration in the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) or in the Westminster Confession (Calvinism). It takes a lot of time and effort -- intellectual sweat, so to speak -- to study church history. However, since there so many others with all kinds of aberrant agendas, it is the only way. God was gracious to place us in a time where we have at our fingertips what those bunch of dead guys actually wrote, "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Ephesians 4:14 ESV) At one time the entire visible church might have been called "Roman Catholic." That certainly was the situation when the Council of Orange -- a council formed from all the churches in the world -- decided upon its canon. The Roman Catholic church, though much flawed, did not cease to be Christ's church until they officially anathematized the gospel in the Canons of the Council of Trent (Galatians 1:6-9). The Pelagian Controversy was extremely important, and remains important to us today. There are all kinds of synergistic soteriolgy being taught from pulpits everywhere. In Him, Doc |
||||||
8 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206821 | ||
Doc In the name and for the sake of Jesus, now I am going to have to qualify my statements to you. I pray to do so with grace. I am going to say this with the greatest respect for you and for the great divines okay? I got my information from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and from Martin Luther's Commentary on Romans and not from uniformed credo-baptists at all. I was very careful to make sure that what I was saying was fact and not from secondary sources of the original authors. Quote, Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 21 http: double front slash www.iclnet.org single front slash pub single front slash resources single front slash text single front slash ipb front slash e single front slash epl front slash 09 single front slash cvin4 front slash 21.txt Excerpts from John Calvin's Institutes - What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. John Calvin was giving an answer to some saying that there are promises which are not obtained by baptism, but that after baptism greasy oil were applied to confer that grace of the Holy Spirit as the attainment of that grace. John Calvin argues that these same heretics are saying that baptism does not confer the grace which enables the believer to grow in Christ because they wrongly believe that one can be baptized and then receive a second grace with oil and a prayer without having first obtained faith. He differentiates elsewhere between faith, and grace and states that grace is obtained through baptism and says scripture upholds this principle. He clearly states that what is to be given at baptism is an aid of future grace. He also clearly believed that baptism was for remission of sins, and he did not refute that those whom he was speaking of did also as he says, Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only. Go to this link for John Calvin's Institutes on his defense for Paedobaptism - http: double front slash www.apuritansmind.com single front slash Baptism single front slash CalvinInfantBaptism.htm number sign 1. Direct qoute - http: double front slash www.tbaptist.com single front slash aab single front slash lutherbaptism.htm Luther and Baptismal Regeneration from Luther's Commentary on Romans In his commentary on Romans, Luther wrote concerning Romans 6:3, as follows We are not found in a state of perfection as soon as we have been baptized into Jesus Christ and His death. Having been baptized into His death, we merely strive to obtain the blessings of this death and to reach our goal of glory. Just so, when we are baptized into everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, we do not at once fully possess its full wealth of blessings. We have merely taken the first steps to seek after eternal life. Baptism has been instituted that it should lead us to the blessings of this death and through such death to eternal life. Therefore it is necessary that we should be baptized into Jesus Christ and His death. Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, By Martin Luther, translated by J. Theodore Mueller, page 85. According to Martin Luther baptism has the power to confer blessings Luther's Small Catechism Direct quote - http: double front slash www.sundayschoollessons.com single front slash baptism.htm See Next Post, bowler |
||||||