dirtfarmer here

[Razeontherock]

Until the advent of the anabaptists in the 16th century, ALL Christians believed that baptism makes you a Christian and thus places you in the Body...

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Cor 12:13)

I don't think this gives you enough information to be able to speak for "all Christians," not at any time of Church history.


Plus, the passage you cite can easily be read as drinking of the Spirit is a separate event from Baptism. (I don't think that's how you read it, and I'm perfectly ok with that understanding too; although my own experience does not jibe with that)

So, not so simple, and plenty of room for discussion ...

 

[Walpole]

I don't think this gives you enough information to be able to speak for "all Christians," not at any time of Church history.


Plus, the passage you cite can easily be read as drinking of the Spirit is a separate event from Baptism. (I don't think that's how you read it, and I'm perfectly ok with that understanding too; although my own experience does not jibe with that)

So, not so simple, and plenty of room for discussion ...

Feel free to give me the name of one single Christian prior to the anabaptists who did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Also, there is only one baptism (cf Eph 4:5) and St. Paul is quite explicit in 1 Cor 12:13 that by baptism we are made part of the body.

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

Works is not a dirty word if it is Christ that does the work through the Spirit.

When do we become Spiritually alive? At baptism or the moment we believe. it is when are baptized by the Spirit, placed into the body of Christ?

Paul stated in Romans 7:18, " For I know that in me ( that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." In this verse he says that "the want to" is there but the ability is not. But in verse 25 he states that with his mind he serves God but with his flesh he serves the law of sin. In verse 23 of that same chapter he states," But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
When we understand that salvation is a 3 stage process, we understand that there is nothing that is accomplished by the flesh that is pleasing to God.
1. we are saved from the penalty of sin
2. we are saved from the power of sin
3. We will, in the future, be saved from the presence of sin.
We are still living in the presence of sin, just look at the world around you. It is Spiritual baptism( the placing into the body of Christ) that must happen. Water baptism only gets you wet.

I know many will say that "water" baptism is a witness to the world, but , to this I say, the world was not present at your "water" baptism". The witness to the world that you have been baptized (placed into the body) by the Spirit is how you are a different person from what you were before; no more cursing, don't go to the same places, don't laugh at nor listen to "off color" jokes, and etc.

It seems to me as if water baptism is the flesh saying, "I had something to do with my salvation.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Feel free to give me the name of one single Christian prior to the anabaptists who did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Also, there is only one baptism (cf Eph 4:5) and St. Paul is quite explicit in 1 Cor 12:13 that by baptism we are made part of the body.

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

The apostle Paul didn't believe in "water" baptismal regeneration.

 

[Razeontherock]

Feel free to give me the name of one single Christian prior to the anabaptists who did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Please ask yourself what is behind a question like that. The overwhelming majority of Christians, throughout Church history, never had their thoughts recorded. We simply do not know, which is exactly what I said.

Also, there is only one baptism (cf Eph 4:5) and St. Paul is quite explicit in 1 Cor 12:13 that by baptism we are made part of the body.

That passage specifically refers to being Baptized in the Spirit.

Again, realize that there is PLENTY of room to read this differently than you do - then continue to believe as you wish

 

[Razeontherock]

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

The apostle Paul didn't believe in "water" baptismal regeneration.

This is an interesting assertion. I would've loved to have had the chance to hear Paul preach. As I understand it, that's sorta what the Gospel of Luke is.

Can you demonstrate your assertion here, via Scripture?

What I can point to is that being Baptized in water is not necessarily concurrent with being Baptized in the Spirit: Acts 19:3 (verse 1-6 for context)

I don't think this one passage is enough to be definitive, either way.

We also have Acts 18:24 through 26. This is a similar event, but I don't see enough information here to be definitive either.

So I'm not adamant about these particulars. The most I can say is that in the instructions to Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that we have a very solid foundation for Trinity.

 

[stovebolts]

Well here are some thoughts that may help expose the common ground we share re: Baptism:

Is it possible to get Baptized, without sufficient teaching or understanding to know what's happening, such that all that's happening is you're getting wet?

Is Baptism efficacious? (I don't particularly like using theological terms, but I suspect everyone here can address this and I'm not excluding anyone from participating)

And if Baptism is efficacious, what effect does it have? (This is the part where folks will continue to diverge the most, and we should respect one another's differences)

I will readily admit I do not have these answers, and I can laugh at myself about that! I mean, with all the intense revelations God has given me, why have I never sought Him on this? It's so basic! What I can say is when I got Baptized as a young adult, I deeply wanted to stay submerged longer, facing death and the tempter directly, and having it out then and there. And only recently have I learned that the Orthodox practice is to be submerged 3x, in succession

I think before those questions should be answered, let alone asked, one should simply read the storylines where baptism occurs, why it occurred and the effects it had. I honestly think this is foundational milk to the matter.

 

[Razeontherock]

I think before those questions should be answered, let alone asked, one should simply read the storylines where baptism occurs, why it occurred and the effects it had. I honestly think this is foundational milk to the matter.

Yes, of course! I would hope everyone participating has already done that

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, of course! I would hope everyone participating has already done that

Dont take it for granted. Most like to go right to their pet argumentative doctrine against another's argumentative doctrine without really reading the biblical accounts in a non combative, anti denominational view.

 

[Razeontherock]

Dont take it for granted. Most like to go right to their pet argumentative doctrine against another's argumentative doctrine without really reading the biblical accounts in a non combative, anti denominational view.

That is an EXCELLENT point, Sir!

That last phrase, "reading the biblical accounts in a non combative, anti denominational view," is something I made an intense effort to do, before ever coming to the Lord. Some say it's not possible to strip ourselves of our biases; I found it absolutely ESSENTIAL to "finding God" in the first place. Also to Spiritual growth.

May I never lose that "key to the kingdom"

 

[stovebolts]

That is an EXCELLENT point, Sir!

That last phrase, "reading the biblical accounts in a non combative, anti denominational view," is something I made an intense effort to do, before ever coming to the Lord. Some say it's not possible to strip ourselves of our biases; I found it absolutely ESSENTIAL to "finding God" in the first place. Also to Spiritual growth.

May I never lose that "key to the kingdom"

I learned more when I went back to reading it as a narrative, void of agenda and then started to try and hear it with the ears of those who first read it.
Let's face it, Augustine, Calvin and Luther were not the initial audiance, and each viewed those stories with a theological bias against other views.

 

[Walpole]

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

The apostle Paul didn't believe in "water" baptismal regeneration.

Then why did he write and instruct about it?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the Church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.” (Eph 5:25-27)

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5)


Here is Ananias instructing St. Paul about it...

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” (Acts 22:16)

 

[Walpole]

Please ask yourself what is behind a question like that. The overwhelming majority of Christians, throughout Church history, never had their thoughts recorded. We simply do not know, which is exactly what I said.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question: Please give me the name of one single church / group which did not profess baptismal regeneration prior to the arrival of the anabaptists in the 16th century.

That passage specifically refers to being Baptized in the Spirit.

Then there is not one baptism, but rather multiple baptisms. This would contradict St. Paul's explicit teaching in Ephesians 4:5.

Again, realize that there is PLENTY of room to read this differently than you do - then continue to believe as you wish

I am not sure how you can read that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" to mean there is not just one baptism, but rather multiple baptisms. Make your case why you are right and St. Paul is in error.

I am not sure how you can read "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" to mean we do not become members of the body by being baptized into it. Make your case why you are right and St. Paul is in error.

 

[Razeontherock]

Then why did he write and instruct about it?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the Church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.” (Eph 5:25-27)

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5)


Here is Ananias instructing St. Paul about it...

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” (Acts 22:16)

This account with Ananias might not be the best basis for forming Doctrine, as this was pretty early and even the Apostles hadn't yet figured out the impact of the shed blood of Jesus Christ on everyday lives of common people.

Your other examples are very staunch denominational stances, even if you yourself aren't Lutheran (which you haven't said)

Notice that no one is attacking your position; it is well-accepted within Christianity. Can you allow for fellow believers to have some variation of thought?

 

[Walpole]

This account with Ananias might not be the best basis for forming Doctrine, as this was pretty early and even the Apostles hadn't yet figured out the impact of the shed blood of Jesus Christ on everyday lives of common people.

Your other examples are very staunch denominational stances, even if you yourself aren't Lutheran (which you haven't said)

Notice that no one is attacking your position; it is well-accepted within Christianity. Can you allow for fellow believers to have some variation of thought?

To the contrary, I think the account with Ananias demonstrates baptismal regeneration was understood, taught, believed and practiced right from the beginning. It was the regula fidei.

 

[dirtfarmer]

To the contrary, I think the account with Ananias demonstrates baptismal regeneration was understood, taught, believed and practiced right from the beginning. It was the regula fidei.

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

What does "baptismal regeneration" if. as you say, understood correctly do to the cleansing blood of Christ?

 

[Razeontherock]

Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question: Please give me the name of one single church / group which did not profess baptismal regeneration prior to the arrival of the anabaptists in the 16th century.





Then there is not one baptism, but rather multiple baptisms. This would contradict St. Paul's explicit teaching in Ephesians 4:5.




I am not sure how you can read that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" to mean there is not just one baptism, but rather multiple baptisms. Make your case why you are right and St. Paul is in error.

I am not sure how you can read "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" to mean we do not become members of the body by being baptized into it. Make your case why you are right and St. Paul is in error.

No Sir. I have said nothing about Paul "being in error."

What I have said, is that it is quite possible to read these relevant passages differently than you do; and to do so while taking in the WHOLE of Scripture. My process of doing that has lead me to a slightly more nuanced position, but it by no means contradicts your position outright. In fact it seems to me that our positions are both pretty centrist, with the Church including a wide array of positions that deviate from said center in both directions.

Does holding those differing positions make others somehow less Christian? I don't think so. Am I to love them any less because of it? I don't think so. Are we to work towards the Unity of the Faith? Yes! (And would that be a "work?" And would that be a work of the flesh, or of the Spirit? We've covered a lot of ground in this thread)

I think there's tremendous value in accepting one another. I even see Joseph's coat of many colors speaking directly to this point.

I think you and I both wish all of Christendom could agree 100% on all aspects, at least pertaining to Baptism. (I mean, it seems so simple, right?) And I hope everyone here joins us in that desire. But going around in the effort to "prove that guy over there" wrong, doesn't usually serve Christ's goal of building His Church.

This is a difficult task, I know! And it can challenge our thinking. It can also 'enlarge our hearts!'

Responding to the first part of your post, I'm not familiar with the founding of the Anabaptists, nor of any group's stance prior to that as per your request. I focus on Christ, and Him crucified. And buried. And resurrected. And ascended! And wow is His perfect life here on Earth challenging. Prophecy of Him beforehand, I find much easier.

God's hands extended to a lost and dying world, THAT is really important to me. If someone wants to be Baptized a little differently? Or think of it a little differently? I don't want to make a big deal of something like that. I do like to see how other people relate to God though! That has value to me. Great fellowship in the Spirit can come about that way

 

[Razeontherock]

regula fidei.

Does that mean "regular Faith?" (Sorry, my google-fu is coming up empty) Or ruler of Faith? (As in rule, or measured?) And according to whom? Knowing your background would help here.

 

[Walpole]

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

What does "baptismal regeneration" if. as you say, understood correctly do to the cleansing blood of Christ?

Baptism is only efficacious because of the blood of Christ. This is why St. John repeatedly connects the blood of Christ with water...

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." (John 19:34)

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:6-8)

 

[dirtfarmer]

Baptism is only efficacious because of the blood of Christ. This is why St. John repeatedly connects the blood of Christ with water...

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." (John 19:34)

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:6-8)

hello Walpole, dirtfarmer here

When is the desired effect produced (efficacious)? It is my belief that the sin of the whole world was "put" on Jesus Christ and the only sin that is condemnatory is the sin of unbelief. In my studies I have found that once a person is
"saved" sin is no more imputed to their account, but Christ is making intercession for the believer when Satan accuses them. In his intercession for the believer before God Christ states that the believer is not guilty, but is a saint and fellow-heir. Justification as I understand it can be explained this way: " Just as if I had never sinned".

The piercing of the side of Christ in which blood and water gushed forth is a completely different study.