Subject: In search of the truth |
Bible Note: Hi, Vintage... You asked, "...is it [my post] in truth, what all of the Religions (Christendom) believe?" (sic) No, there is no concensus among what you call "Religions." (I assume you mean Christian theological perspectives -- discounting the off-the-wall stuff of fringe groups like Russellists, Mormons, Campbellites, Sabbatarians, Universalists, Anabaptists, etc. There's a lot of odd stuff out there, as numerous as they are aberrant.) You asked, "Are there scriptures for backing up these claims?" Yes. I will post them for you, subsequent to this reply. I try to always and only espouse that which arises out of a sound exegesis of Scripture. That's fundamental to sola Scriptura. You asked, "Or is it in effect the doctrine of Reformed Theology?" Overlooking the logical fallacy, I post as consistently as possible with my profile. It would be dishonest to do otherwise -- even if I felt so compelled. I don't speak from so broad a category as Reformed Theology. I speak from a Historic Baptist perspective -- would you like me to speak to the point from some other perspective? I can do that if you like, though, I'm familiar with mainstream orthodoxy. The Baptist perspective is not just another flavor of Reformed theology, it has very explicit distinctives. That's why we try hard to articulate them, rather than to stand behind some sort of generic, unspecific, vague, unarticulated doctrines. We try to be well instructed scholars of the kingdom, expositing the inventory of truth that belongs to our Lord (Matthew 13:52). The principles of a grammatico-historical exegesis are not solely the possession of Reformed theology. They are pre-Christian. In the Christian era these principles were particularly espoused by the Antiochian School from the first few centuries after Christ -- remember, the church in Antioch was founded by the apostles, as recorded in Acts? Of course, as Christians we glean these principles also directly from the Christ and the apostles, because we see them exegeting in the New Testament. You asked, using different language, about the distinction between regeneration and baptism. Regeneration is objective (Acts 13:48) and baptism is subjective. In other words, regeneration is a work of God done to us, baptism is a practice of those so regenerated. Baptism is not something we do to get saved, it is something saved people do by command of the Lord Jesus Christ. You asked, "If I am understanding you correctly, you have interchanged the word (regeneration) for the word (salvation)" (sic) Salvation is a broader term that refers to the full blessing of our redemption. Regeneration refers to the single subjective work of the Holy Spirit whereby dead men are made living. You can see a more full explanation by searching for the phrase ordo salutis under my username. You wrote, "If it is only a 'sign' as you say..." (sic) I did not use the word "only" or "symbolic" in my post. Please do not put words into my mouth. I have a hard enough time being accountable for what I say myself! :-) Okay, now I'm answering your questions. Time for you to answer one of mine: Is the "non-denominational" church you mention in your profile a Church of Christ church? In Him, Doc PS So when do I get to send you that book so you can learn some of these things and begin to do the exegesis yourself? If you read this book I am offering you -- a non-denominational book, by the way -- you would learn a number of these things. I am not seeking your agreement -- goodness no -- just seeking to equip you. Regardless, I'm praying for you, buddy. |