Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + + + + + + + +
response to User:DavidB4 and RobS
:::::::*In the proverb of the Prodigal son, which is a metaphor for all unsaved humanity, the prodigal son said, "I will return to house of my father...." (i.e. ''metanoia'' or repentance, a change of heart and mind toward his father) ''without'' any ritual cleansing on his part. When he arrived, he was clothed by his father. Only the blood of Jesus saves;.
:::::::*In the proverb of the Prodigal son, which is a metaphor for all unsaved humanity, the prodigal son said, "I will return to house of my father...." (i.e. ''metanoia'' or repentance, a change of heart and mind toward his father) ''without'' any ritual cleansing on his part. When he arrived, he was clothed by his father. Only the blood of Jesus saves;.
::::::And I should have included this part up front: remaindered of Romans 10:9-10, "''For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'' In all three examples above the "I will" part came out of the mouth. Salvation is not dependent upon any action (or "work") by us. "It is finished", as Jesus said. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::And I should have included this part up front: remaindered of Romans 10:9-10, "''For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'' In all three examples above the "I will" part came out of the mouth. Salvation is not dependent upon any action (or "work") by us. "It is finished", as Jesus said. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
In the body of the article I covered both sides of that point as follows:
:This doctrine of "regenerative baptism" which causes an [[Ontology|ontological change]] that actually cleanses and washes away sins, by effecting in the soul a new supernatural life directly infused by the "washing of water with the word", is found by apologists for infant baptism in the following scriptural texts:
::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+11%3A19-20&version=NRSVCE Ezekiel 11:19-20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+36%3A25-29&version=NRSVCE 36:25-29a]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+24%3A7&version=NRSVCE Jeremiah 24:7]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31%3A31-33&version=NRSVCE 31:31-33]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A5-6&version=NRSVCE Titus 3:5-6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A9&version=NRSVCE 2 Peter 1:9]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A21&version=NRSVCE 1 Peter 3:21]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A25-27&version=NRSVCE Ephesians 5:25b-27]; and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A9-14&version=NRSVCE Colossians 2:9-14].
:They point to these texts as teaching that according to the Bible baptism [[Salvation|saves]] us now by regeneration of the soul unto new life, as a "new creature", and that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church with the washing of water with the word as a [[sign]] of the cleansing of the soul by his blood, to present the whole church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. They point to the fact that Paul teaches by a [[Typology|typological]] [[analogy]] that baptism replaces [[circumcision]], which is done when a child is only eight days old, which made that baby a genuine member of the people of God, to be raised and taught the way of the Lord in truth, by the priests of the faith.<ref>[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2%3A4-7&version=NRSVCE Malachi 2:4-7]</ref>
:This doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which includes infant baptism, is repudiated as being totally against the teaching of the Bible. Abraham, our father in [[faith]], was converted, regenerated, forgiven and had righteousness reckoned (imputed) to him by faith (an unborn or newborn child cannot exercise faith), being circumcised in the heart by faith, apart from physical circumcision, baptism, or any other statute, or ordinance. Those who reject infant baptism as regenerative or salvific in any manner accept that the outward [[symbol]] of washing of water with the word is an [[ordinance]] to be faithfully obeyed, not a [[sacrament]], an outward testimony to faith in the salvation of God through [[Belief|believing]] in the promises of Jesus Christ alone. They obey His ordained ordinances, including baptism, because by faith in Him they '''''are''''' regenerated, not in order to '''''be''''' regenerated; and as a result of '''''having''''' a new heart, not that they might receive a new heart.<ref>See [https://www.bing.com/search?q=a+concise+refutation+of+baptismal+regeneration%2C+by+james+p.+shelley.&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=3f263ada36184adab3a65191ce7aba9c&cc=US&setlang=en-US&plvar=0 A Concise Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration, by James P. Shelley (bing.com)] <br> Also [https://arcapologetics.org/comparative-religion/baptismal-regeneration-refuted/ Baptismal Regeneration Refuted, By Robin A. Brace - Apologetics Resource Center(arcapologetics.org)]</ref>
No one can say that I didn't present both sides. The scriptures listed here are the best response I can give to the objections raised here regarding the need for conscious repentance, and the fact that infants unborn and born are incapable of it before they are able to walk. You have clearly articulated the position for credobaptism, [[Reiteration|reiterating]] the arguments for it which I was very careful to represent without distortion as more extensively explained in the article. Having been an ardent Conservative Baptist and anti-Catholic in my youth, I know the arguments for it from the inside. See the related article giving both views in [[Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation]]. Both cannot be true at the same time. Only one is probably right. Either that, or both are wrong. Meanwhile, look at [http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-11.htm Revelation 22:11] and [http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-14.htm Matthew 15:14]. It remains a matter of faith and discernment and being "honest to God". In accordance with your own tradition of preaching, be very certain that your position is correct before you die. I cannot fault your obviously genuine sincerity and your passion for scriptural proof in defense of your position. This response above, and the whole of the article itself, is all I have to say to your position that baptism is not required for salvation. As a Bible believer, I cannot ignore the whole of the scriptural context of the Bible. I wish you well. ''pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:00, 10 October 2019 (EDT)