C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
The following are my thoughts on the aomin response by James Swan:First I was said to miss the need for baptism in my citations of Acts 8:35 and 16:14. While indeed there is a Biblical mandate for believers to be baptized, Scripture does not teach that baptism regenerates.
Scripture most certainly does teach that Baptism regenerates. Infact the only time I have seen St Paul use the term “regeneration” is in Titus 3:5:4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He 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, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. I know what your thinking, “washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” doesnt mean Baptism. Yes it does, and the testimony of the Eary Church fathers is clear on this account. But just in case any Protestants are reding this who dont buy the ECFs testimony, both Luther (Luther’s Large Catechism, Baptism, 27) and Calvin (Commentary on Titus, Ch3) explicitly said this verse was in reference to Baptism.
One question worth brining up is that if Baptism is a “mandate” as Swan says, and yet it does nothing, then what kind of a mandate is that? The Catholic Church has no problem here because Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace as the Bible teaches (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5ff)Neither of these chapters in Acts states that conversion is brought about by baptism.
Certainly it does, your not an official Christian until you are Baptized (Matt 28:19). Its no accident those stories in Acts have Baptism included in the conversion process.The majority of Catholic interpretations I’ve seen on Romans 3-4 attempt to limit Paul’s concern to the Jewish ceremonial laws. But such an interpretation misses Paul’s contrast between working and believing, as Romans 4:4-5 clearly demonstrates.
My main concern here is the “Jewish ceremonial laws” charge…yes it is true, I myself once held to that view…but once I read St Augustine’s ‘On the Spirit and the Letter’ I realized I was wrong. That being said St Augustine in no way defended the Protestant notion of Faith Alone, and he was clear to point out the faith St Paul talks about must be a living faith of the type that “works through charity” (Gal 5:6) as well as other claims about how the commandments are to be kept (eg “love is fulfilment of the law” Rom 13:8ff).
Scripture most certainly does teach that Baptism regenerates. Infact the only time I have seen St Paul use the term “regeneration” is in Titus 3:5:4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He 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, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. I know what your thinking, “washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” doesnt mean Baptism. Yes it does, and the testimony of the Eary Church fathers is clear on this account. But just in case any Protestants are reding this who dont buy the ECFs testimony, both Luther (Luther’s Large Catechism, Baptism, 27) and Calvin (Commentary on Titus, Ch3) explicitly said this verse was in reference to Baptism.
One question worth brining up is that if Baptism is a “mandate” as Swan says, and yet it does nothing, then what kind of a mandate is that? The Catholic Church has no problem here because Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace as the Bible teaches (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5ff)Neither of these chapters in Acts states that conversion is brought about by baptism.
Certainly it does, your not an official Christian until you are Baptized (Matt 28:19). Its no accident those stories in Acts have Baptism included in the conversion process.The majority of Catholic interpretations I’ve seen on Romans 3-4 attempt to limit Paul’s concern to the Jewish ceremonial laws. But such an interpretation misses Paul’s contrast between working and believing, as Romans 4:4-5 clearly demonstrates.
My main concern here is the “Jewish ceremonial laws” charge…yes it is true, I myself once held to that view…but once I read St Augustine’s ‘On the Spirit and the Letter’ I realized I was wrong. That being said St Augustine in no way defended the Protestant notion of Faith Alone, and he was clear to point out the faith St Paul talks about must be a living faith of the type that “works through charity” (Gal 5:6) as well as other claims about how the commandments are to be kept (eg “love is fulfilment of the law” Rom 13:8ff).