Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132316 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! You wrote: "For anyone able to read the Bible in its plain sense, rather than through their preconceptions, it is obvious that Titus 3:5's 'bath of regeneration' is referring to the baptismal tank of regeneration." My problem with this approach is that 'baptism' is not even mentioned in this verse. Are we to assume that any reference to 'washing' must refer to baptism? It is more likely, in my view, that 'washing' here refers to the cleansing of the flesh that takes place through regeneration. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:21 explicitly states that this is something water baptism does not do. Secondly, every reference to 'baptism' does not necessarily refer to 'water' baptism. There are other baptisms mentioned in Scripture. Of the three verses you cite (Gal. 3:27, 1 Cor. 12:13, and Col. 2:12), a strong case can be made that the first two do not refer to water baptism at all. Finally, there is one example of the sinner's prayer in the Bible. Luke 18:13 says, "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’" :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132341 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism doesn't save us by 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' but only with 'an appeal to God'. Baptism and belief save, not baptism. It I baptise a unwilling unbeliever in some water the only effect will be 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' 'Baptismal regeneration' tends to be used as a perjorative as it doesn't emphasis that faith is needed too. Come on, I don't accept Luke 18:13, is the born-again sinner's prayer. Do you? Best Regards |
||||||
3 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132343 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! I have never understood the negative press that the sinner's prayer gets. :-) What does Scripture say? Rom. 10:13 - "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How do we call upon Him if not through prayer? The prayer is not what saves a person. It is God's grace that saves a person. The prayer is simply are act of confession and repentance. Surely, you aren't going to argue that it is inappropriate to pray for God's forgiveness? As far as baptism is concerned, I've been in this debate many times. I'll simply leave my position at this: Acts 16:30 - "He then brought them out and asked, ‘‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, ‘‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”" Therefore, I do not view baptism as essential for salvation. It is certainly something that we are commanded to do after coming to faith in Christ, but it does not play any role in our actual salvation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | kalos | 132402 | ||
Tim: I am reposting two Notes concerning a similar prayer found in a tract that has been around for decades. Some time ago someone posted an objection to the prayer at the end of God's Simple Plan of Salvation (www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps.html). His complaints were similar to those against the "sinner's prayer." Here is the objection by "rancher" and the reply by "kalos" (me). Repost: ID# 1837 by "rancher" I did visit www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps.html as you suggested, and the "simple plan" sounded good and scripturally accurate until I got to the prayer. I can find no example of anyone, after Jesus' resurrection, calling on the name of the Lord by praying such a prayer. Surely, if such a prayer is part of God's simple plan of salvation we would see some examples of it. There must be something more to "calling on the name of the Lord".... ______________________ ID# 1839 by kalos I'm not sure what your objection is to the prayer at the end of God's Simple Plan of Salvation (GSPOS). Is it not Scriptural? Is there some bad doctrine in it? You have to understand the prayer in GSPOS is merely an example, a model, of how to pray when you ask God for salvation. (If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Its use is certainly not mandatory for salvation.) I'm not sure you need to see word for word examples of it in the Bible. Every word of the prayer is based upon sound Bible doctrine. It seems to me that you are taking something relatively simple and straightforward (calling on the name of the Lord) and trying to turn it into some deep theological mystery. Basically to call upon the name of the Lord is another way of saying to pray to the Lord. . . . There is nothing more to "calling on the name of the Lord" than praying and admitting one is a sinner; that one believes Jesus was his substitute when He died on the Cross. That His death burial and resurrection according to the Scriptures IS the essence of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). The prayer closes with the praying person receiving Christ as his Savior and thanking God for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of salvation and everlasting life. To question whether the prayer is Scriptural or to expect some long-drawn out mystery in answer to your question seems to be going beyond the Scripture and unnecessarily complicating that which is not complicated. |
||||||
5 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132414 | ||
In this doctrine you go against the historical witness of the first centuries of Christian interpretation: the Church Fathers. You should seriously consider asking how they were so spot on in their Christological and Trinitarian theology, and yet not even understand how to get saved 'the baptist way.' Your biblical interpretation needs to be weighed up in the light of the history of theology. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
6 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132416 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! You should know us protestants better than that by know my friend! :-) We don't weigh our interpretations in the light the history of theology, but in light of the words of Scripture. :-) If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture. For us, history is informative, not authoritative. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132449 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
8 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132451 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! You shared your testimony, so I'll share mine my friend! I was raised in a non-Christian home. My parents had no interest in the Bible at all. At six years old, I accepted Christ at a local Vacation Bible School. I began to study the Bible on my own. I had no teacher, no preconceived ideas, and no 'agenda'. Over the years, I studied, studied, and studied some more. By the time I was 14, my 'theology' was quite well formed and I began to feel called into ministry. When I finally made it to college, I began to study Greek, philosophy, and theology. What I learned confirmed what I had discovered on my home (with the Spirit's guidance of course). The only thing that changed was that I know knew the theological terms for what I believed. ;-) I am glad that you are at peace my friend. But, peace doesn't necessarily mean 'correct'. :-) I am also at peace, does that mean that you would automatically agree with me? :-) I am also not a Catholic basher my friend. I have many friends who are Catholic. As a pastor, I have worked alongside many Catholic priests in local ministries. Nor, have I ever written a 'Catholic' bashing booklet! ;-) You state the difficulties that you have with the protestant positions. But, we can same the same thing about many Catholic positions my friend. When it is all said and done though, sweeping statements don't prove anything. If you would care to discuss individual points, I would be happy to do so. However, you should also be aware that I am not Baptist, nor am I a Calvinist! :-) As far as the Church Fathers go, I don't consider them inspired. They are teachers just like any other, unlike the inspired writers of Scripture. I have done enough reading in them to know that there are many excellent resources available in their writtings. However, there is also much material of lesser value. :-) You asked: "None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness?" Of course it is a possibility. However, it is just as possible with the Catholic teachings as it is with protestant teachings. :-) The question can only be answered through Scripture. Anyway, if you would like to discuss specific Scriptures, just post a question on them and I, and others, would be happy to politely discuss specific issues with you without engaging in broad sweeping statements. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||