Ancient Christian Witness

As seen from the Theological forum.

The efficacy of Baptism doesn't depend on me the individual. It depends on God. Accepting a gift through physical means isn't works righteousness! And so Baptism, isn't a work I as an individual do for God (something alot of Baptists say and what I use to say back when I was a Baptist). It's a work God does for the individual through the Church. We can see this in John 1:11-13

quote:

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

We see from the text:

1.) God gives the right to become children of God

2.) Children born not of natural descent

3.) Children born not of human decision

4.) Children born not of a husband's will

5.) But Children born of God

And so the efficacy of Baptism comes from God. Baptism is rightly called Grace! We have been Saved by Grace through faith and this not from ourselves, it is the gift of God!

When God healed Naaman he did it through a means. Naaman was upset at first because he wanted it without means. Without anything physical, but God wanted to clean Him through something physical. He had to go to the prophet and the prophet told him to go to the water. Also, God gave Naaman the right to be healed, Naaman went into the water, but it was God that healed him.

2nd Kings 5:14

^"So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy."

In a similar manor, God wants to clean us through water Baptism. For we can't make ourselves clean. It is God who makes us clean! It is God who unites us with Christ!

Job 14:4

"Who can bring what is pure from the impure?
No one!"

No one but God! What is impossible with man is possible with God!

Ezekiel 36:25

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

Acts 22:16

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’"

The Ancient Faith is one that embraces the rightful place of water Baptism being what it is:

Barnabas
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-roberts.html
"This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit."

Hermas
CHAPTER XVI
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html
"They were obliged," he answered, "to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For," he continued, "before a man bears the name of the Son of God s he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God."

Justin Martyr
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

And when we look at the ancient creed we see:

Quote:
"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins."

When one looks at the canons of the councils then they will see how they understood water Baptism, and so we looked at Scripture, the early Christians as well as an ancient ecumenical creed in regards to this issue and all three were in perfect harmony! If you reject Baptismal Regeneration it's because of what happened later in time with somebodies group. It's because of other ideas that one holds to. Back when I was a Baptist, I would normally question other groups when they didn't agree with us. I pointed the finger at them as being the problem. What I didn't do was point the finger at myself and the Baptists. What I didn't do was ask why the Baptists believe the way that they did. What I didn't do was question myself and the Baptists! I thought I was following Scripture, but I really wasn't. I was following a foreign developed system of thought that handled and interpreted the Scriptures in a certain way. A certain fashion. Other groups would slightly handle the Scriptures differently, in a different fashion.

And so, if you belong to a new Christian group that just began yesterday, then question yourself and your group and not just those that oppose you. The Apostles handed something down to the next generation of believers, if Baptismal Regeneration is that view ......which I believe it is, then one should point the finger back on themselves and their group as to why they don't embrace the Mystery? One should investigate the cultural, philosophical and theological influences of their group's rejection of Baptismal Regeneration.

As seen from the Roman Catholic blog "Called to Communion" by Bryan Cross

Quote:
"According to PCA pastor Wes White, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is “impossible in the Reformed system.”1 By noting this, he intends to show that we should reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But if the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is stronger than the evidence for the truth of the “Reformed system,” then the incompatibility of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the Reformed system serves as evidence against the Reformed system. Here I present both Patristic and Scriptural evidence for the truth of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration

. Introduction

The only sacrament mentioned by name in the Creed is baptism. We confess in the Creed: “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Because Protestants and Catholics share the same Trinitarian baptism, we share a certain real but imperfect unity. But baptism is also a point of disagreement not only between Protestants and Catholics, but also between various Protestant traditions. The Catholic Church has always believed and taught that the grace by which we are born again comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. A small percentage of Protestants agree with the Catholic Church that through baptism we are regenerated with the life of God, cleansed of all our sins, and brought into the Kingdom of God. But many other Protestants think that justification is not through baptism, but by “faith alone,” or by some kind of “sinner’s prayer.” Some Protestants believe that baptism is only a symbol, something not to be done until a person is old enough to understand the gospel for himself. Other Protestants believe that like circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant, not efficacious for rebirth and the reception of the grace of divine life but only a ‘confirmation’ or ‘seal’ of faith through which one is brought into the New Covenant family.

One way that we resolve these disagreements about what baptism is and what it does, is to consider what the Church Fathers believed and taught about baptism. Here I am only focusing on what the Church Fathers say about the relation between baptism and regeneration. I have kept my commentary to a minimum, providing only needed explanatory notes. After examining what the Church Fathers say about this subject, I then offer a brief summary of the New Testament teaching regarding the relation of baptism and regeneration.

To read the rest please visit Called to Communion.







ICXC NIKA

Despite what some online Zwinglian Calvinistic Baptists(Rhology), and Presbyterians may say, Lutherans are ""suppose to"" believe in Baptismal regeneration, and they don't allow their concept of the imputed version/interpretation/form of ""faith alone"" to get in the way of this. Which ultimately means, the Lutherans might have a different interpretation of what "faith alone" means from other protestant groups.

Quote:
"faith alone saves" "Baptism saves" - No contradiction

It is decreed by God that whatever is not faith avails nothing and receives nothing. But if they say, as they will do: After all, Baptism itself is a work, and you say works avail nothing for salvation. What, then, becomes of faith? I answer: It is true, our works certainly contribute nothing toward our salvation.
Baptism, however, is not our work but God's; for, as was stated, you will have to make a great distinction between Christ's Baptism and an immersionist's "Baptism" (der Bader Taufe). God's works are beneficial and necessary for salvation. They do not exclude but require faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by permitting water to be poured over you, you have not as yet received and observed Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you.

But it does become beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized because you believe that it is performed according to God's command and order and in God's name, too, so that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, neither the hand nor the body can grasp this salvation; the heart must believe it.

Thus you clearly see that there is no work here which we perform but a treasure which He gives us and which faith apprehends. Just as the Lord Christ on the cross is not a work but a treasure comprehended and offered us in the Word and apprehended by faith. Therefore they do us an injustice by crying out against us as if we were opposing faith by our teaching about Baptism when, in fact, we insist on it as so necessary for the apprehension of the benefits of Baptism that without it nothing can be received or enjoyed. (W 30 I, 216-E 21, 134 - SL 10,127 f)" [1]

I got this quote from the Lutheran book, "What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian


















Christ is Risen!



[1] Page 56 from the book "What Luther Says: A practical in-Home Anthology for the Active Christian" PLASS

This is from the podcast Coffee Cup Commentaries by Fr. Farley




Play Audio







ICXC NIKA

This is from the podcast Christ the Eternal Kalimat.

As seen from the website:
"Fr. Daniel explains the nature and purpose of John the Baptist, as one crying in the wilderness."


Play Audio

Direct Link








JNORM888

A Catechumen's Tale: Saint Ambrose on Baptism

Tony Allen posted what Saint Ambrose had to say about Baptism.

Great post!






JNORM888

This was taken from the podcast Sermons at St. Nicholas.


Play Audio

Direct Link





JNORM888

As seen from the Podcast "Christ the Eternal Kalimat"





As seen from the website:
"Fr. Daniel continues his study of the Gospel of John with an examination of John the Baptist and putting on Christ in Baptism."




Play online:
online

Download:
download

Direct link:
direct





JNORM888

The title of the google vid said "Orthodox Baptism in Holy Spirit", at the end of the video it said "Orthodox Baptism in water & the Holy Spirit", but the first 7 minutes of the video deals with the Roman split from the East, and a few common Augustinian beliefs between some forms of classical Protestantism with Roman Catholicism. After that she begins to talk about the issue of Orthodox Baptism. However, she doesn't stay on the topic long. She moves on to talk about her Testimony or journy as a Roman Catholic nun (I think...I could be wrong about the nun thing), to Word of Faith Charismatic, to Eastern Orthodox. Most of the video is about her journy.


Eventhough she touched on "Orthodox Baptism", the theme of the video seemed to be about "Gnosticism" and it's influence in certain circles......for she talks about that all throughout the video. So maybe the title should of been different.





JNORM888

Over at Orrologion 's blog he posted something about Salvation, in regards to the translation of two syriac words.

Perhaps one of the most succinct of all ways of describing
how salvation comes about is to be found encapsulated in just two words in
Syriac (rather more in translation!): "He put us on, and we put Him on (labshan
wa-lbeshnayhy)," where the first element refers to the Incarnation and the
second to baptism.

The use of the first plural suffix us, our, occurs in
a number of other phrases, too, and serves to emphasize that the Incarnation is
not just an event of the past but that it involves us in the present. Thus, the
Divine Word puts on, not just the body, but also our body, our humanity, the
body of our humanity, our likeness, our nature, our image, our form, our
race.

To see the whole post, go to Orrologion's blog:
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-salvation-happened-he-put-us-on-and.html




JNORM888

It took me awhile to understand Baptismal grace. I was raised Baptist and we were tought that it was a work that we do for God out of Obedience, and that it was nothing more than a symbol of our dying and rising with Christ.

The Prespyterians have a little stronger view, in the sense that they teach that Baptism is a means of grace.

It is unclear at this time, what they mean by that. And their interpretation of that statement may vary in each Prespyterian church....or denomination.

The Anglicans are suppose to believe in Baptismal regeneration, but because of the influence of the Reformed, it may be a bit watered down. I know that some of the highchurch Anglicans have a different interpretation of it then the other groups within Anglicanism.

And when I was Anglo-Catholic I believed that it was something God did for us. Therefore it was grace........not a work.

The Lutherians are supposed to believe in Baptismal regeneration, but some of them seem to be embarrased of the doctrine.

But those that do embrace it, claim that it is something that God does for us. So they see it as Grace.

The Cambellites (The Church of Christ) also embrace a form of Baptismal regeneration, although some of them may reject that term for the doctrine that they believe in. I kind of forgot how they view it, so I won't comment about their view of it.


The Methodhists seem to hold to a form of Baptismal regeneration for infants, but it is still unclear to me how they understand Baptism. Sometimes it seems as if they have been influenced by a Baptist Zwinglian understanding or a Reformed understanding of it, but it is still unclear to me what they mean when they talk about Baptism.


The Orthodox believe that Baptism is grace, the same is true for Rome. Now how this relates to a later personal awareness is this:


The seed found in 1st John

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.


The seed planted in us through Baptism & Chrismation may be dorment for a time, but when we make the faith of our parents our own, then the emotional experience that some get when they repent and say a protestant "sinners prayer", or walk up to an alter call (at a protestant gathering)


What they are really experiencing is nothing more than the grace that was already givin at water Baptism & Chrismation. It was just awakened at a later time, or the person was made personally aware of that grace at a later time.

And this is what I believe is happening to alot of people that were Baptized as infants in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But as they get older, some of them astray and no longer attend the church of their parents. Some may wonder in the World until they find a T.V. or Radio preacher, and so they say the sinners prayer.

Or maybe they have friends that were protestant, so they were invited to a church revival, in where they walked up to the alter call.

And they are told that such an experience is what it means to be born again, when in reality, what they experienced was the grace givin to them at Baptism when they were infants.

They were just made aware of the seed put in them, at a later age.


Well, this is my 2 cents of what's going on. Not only with myself, but with a host of other Americans and now people in the third world countries.


There needs to be a re-teaching in the land/culture that being born again is at water Baptism, for that is when we are united with Christ's death and resurrection. If it is only a mere symbol then that would mean that our Union with the dying and risen Lord is mere symbolic. Which would also mean that salvation itself is mere symbolism.


I hope I didn't offend anyone, but there needs to be both, an embrace of one's infant baptism as well as a personal interier awareness & commitment to follow the Lord for the rest of our days.





JNORM888