Regeneration/Born-Again

[wpr]

**Let’s look at some biblical definitions of the true believer.

The true believer is predestined, called, justified, glorified. All are past, or aorist, active, indicative. The predestination, calling, justifying, glorifying will not be rescinded. That is the present state of the true believer.

The true believe is predestined to adoption, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, will not perish, and cannot be taken out of the Father’s hand, will not be cast out, will be raised up on the last day, has an inheritance that will not fade away, and that is reserved in heaven, and is kept by God for that inheritance (Eph 1:5; John 5:24; 10:28, 29; 6:37, 40; 1 Pet 1:4, 5). All of the language contained in those statements is absolute and irrevocable. God is not an Indian giver.**

Finally, the cat is out of the bag. Mr. Calvin has entered the room with his hyper-predestination theology.

That has got to be the most depressing interpretation of the Gospel I have heard. I’ll bet you go to bed at night thanking God you are one of the “elect”. How nice for you. How arrogant as well.

What’s the point Sandusky, if we’re all predestined, why try t o convert us poor unelected Catholics?

You are way out of balance. Decidely un biblical in your slanted approach.

 

[bene7]

Contarini:

Are you suggesting that people under the Old Covenant were not saved by grace?

No, not at all. But the Old Covenant of Law, given to national Israel as a rule of life, cannot co-exist with the believer’s rule of life under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, under grace, and to be lived out in the Spirit.

In fact, the Law never did, or ever could, save anyone. It’s only power was to give definition to sin and reveal the utter sinfulness of all men, along with their inability to free themselves from the effects of sin and the divine condemnation because of it. Paul related his own inward struggle with the Covenant of Law in Romans seven in respect to “thou shall not covet.” And based on the knowledge of his sinfulness that the Law imparts, he concludes, “Wretched man that I am, WHO will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Law (not even the Decalogue) can co-exist as a rule of life for the believer under the New Covenant. Paul, speaking as a Jew, born under the Covenant of Law, states:

ROM 7:6 “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and NOT in oldness of the letter.”

The believer, born again (regenerated) by the Spirit has nothing to do with the “Old” Covenant of Law. He is to serve God in newness of the Spirit (by the new life generated within Him through faith in Christ, 2 Cor. 5:17), not in struggling to obey commandments that have the power only to condemn him: “thou shall not…”. But instead, “walk by the Spirit and you will not carry our the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

I’ll even let Paul answer your question:

ROM. 9:30-32 “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone…”

And we know that the “stumbling stone” is Christ, to whom the Law was to drive them that they might be justified by faith alone.

GAL. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

Besides, I have not heard RedBandito say that we should still live according to the Mosaic Covenant. Did I miss something?

The “Rojo Bandito” is right in that Catholicism has “transformed” the Jewish mentality of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. It still tries to live out (as a “rule of life”) its form of Christianity by continuing to abide in commandments (which still condemn them); their own priesthood as mediators to reconcile them to God; and their own “sacrifice” in the Eucharist. And in my opinion they too stumble over the “stumbling stone.” It’s from this trans-form-ation of the “New Covenant” from the Old that Redbandito poses his arguments.

Are you and John Wesley in agreement with him?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

On the one hand, you believe that one does not merit salvation, and that it is a gift from God. On the other hand, you think that one can be bad enough to lose that which one does not deserve; that makes no sense; it is faulty and erroneous reasoning.

Predestination to grace is not the same as predestination to eternal glory. The gift of faith is not the same as the gift of final perseverence. There’s nothing erroneous about it, if you don’t make the mistake of making the two distinct gifts the very same gift. You can receive the gift of faith and consequent with this gift, become justified. However, this does not guarantee that you will receive the gift of final perseverence.

Now, the gift of grace is a free gift, which cannot be merited by man’s natural “good deeds.” The gift of final perseverence, a distinctly different gift, is also a free gift from God. Both are gratuitous gifts which are undeserved. Man has no means of obliging God for any gratuitous gift.

Yet, man can strive to do God’s will and pray for the gift of faith and pray for the gift of final perseverence. This is how we can “work out our salvation in fear and trembling” as Paul teaches. Yet, even this still does not oblige God to give us such gifts. We are at His mercy. One can have hope that God, in his love and mercy, may will to answer our prayer with such gifts.

John Calvin is quoted as stating:

"Augustine is so completely of our persuasion, that if I should have to make written profession, it would be quite enough to present a composition made up entirely of excerpts from his writings (John Calvin, as quoted by Roger E. Olson, “Fighting Words,” Christianity Today, July 1, 2000)

If John Calvin had simply limited his writings to excerpts from Augustine, we would have all been much better off.

**Contary to Calvinist doctrine, St. Augustine clearly taught that some of those regenerated and justified in Christ are among the elect, but some are not. **

We, then, call men elected, and Christ’s disciples, and God’s children, because they are to be so called whom, being regenerated, we see to live piously… But if they have not perseverance,–that is, if they continue not in that which they have begun to be… they are not this in the sight of Him to whom it is known what they are going to be,–that is to say, from good men, bad men. (Augustine, “On Rebuke and Grace” (De Correptione et Gratis), Ch 22)

… But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated … [some] receive the grace of God, but they are only for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God (ibid, Ch. 42)

If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. (ibid, ch 9)

Calvin was wrong. If only Calvin was a better student of Augustine, then perhaps he would have been a better student of Scripture.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

I’d get into this but not here. Plus it’s been discussed many times on this forum.Ok, then name them and explain them if you agree they exist.I never said concerning the other Biblical Covenants that one made the other obsolete. But I did quote you from God’s written Word to the Hebrews that when Christ inaugurated the “New” Covenant in His blood He made the “Old” (Mosaic Covenant) “obsolete.” The reason being, Law and Grace cannot co-exist.Actually, based on what you’ve just said above, I don’t think you’ve actually studied the Biblical Covenants and what each one states. I mean you have your own romantic idea of what a Covenant is, but it doesn’t conform to God’s Word which actually reveals those Covenants and His desired purpose for them. You even deny what the writer of Hebrews explicitly states regarding the abolition of the “Old” Covenant (Mosaic) as a rule of life, based on your own romantic definition of a covenant.

Blessings,
Bene

Whatever you say dude. The covenants start from the very beginning. The first covenant was with Adam as husband to Eve. The sign of this covenant is the sabbath. This covenant brings Adam and Eve into covenant with God. The second covenant was with Noah. The sign of this covenant was the rainbow. Through this covenant God brought a whole household to Him. The third covenant was with Abram, soon to become Abraham. In this covenant God brings to Him a tribe. The sign of this covenant is circumcision. The fourth covenant was with Moses, in which Moses pours the blood of the slain animals over the Israelites and says, “This is the blood of the Covenant”. On a side note, it is no coincidence that this statement is only repeated one other time in Scripture (The Last Supper). The sign of this covenant is the Passover. In this covenant God makes His people into a nation. The Fifth covenant is the Davidic Covenant. In this covenant God turns his people into a National Kingdom. The sign of this covenant is the throne. Finally, Jesus fulfills all these covenants in the New Covenant. The sign of this covenant is the Eucharist, which is the fulfillment of the Passover. In this Covenant, God makes His people into a Heavenly Kingdom, of which the Church militant is part. Is that enough information on the different covenants? Finally, it seems you like to ignore previous posts, so let me just re-state this for you Bro. The OC is obsolete SOLELY because it has been FULFILLED. That does not deny what the writer of Hebrews states. It denies your interpretation of what the writer of Hebrews states. There is a difference, despite the fact that you are not capable of making that distinction. If you cannot get that simple concept, I can’t help you. Ignore that response all you want, but it only shows that either you are not reading the whole of my responses, or that you choose to ignore them, because you can’t refute them.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for all this “faith alone” talk…

St. John describes “belief” as including obedience, and this is what Catholics teach. Any sort of faith which excludes obedience to God’s will is not a faith that justifies.

John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”
The Greek used by St. John for “does not obey” is apeiqwn
(“apeitheo”), which means “not believing” but also means “disobey”

According to the Protestant source, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, et. al, (abridged edition):

***apeitheo. ***This word means “to be disobedient” and is a significant term in the LXX for disobedience to God. In the NT it is used of the wilderness generation in Heb 3:18, that of the flood in 1 Pet. 3:20, all sinners in Rom. 2:8, and Gentiles in Heb 11:13; Rom. 11:30. “To believe” is the opposite in Acts 14:1-2, and unbelief is parallel.

So you can see that “to believe” so as to have eternal life includes obedience.

A well-known Protestant theologian, C.H. Spurgeon put it this way…

“Have I that faith which leads me to obey my God?—for obedience, if it be of the kind we are speaking of, is faith in action—faith walking with God” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermon called “Obedience of Faith,” August 21, 1890)

Likewise, for Catholics, the obedience of faith which we believe leads to eternal life is not mere human achievement, but what C.H. Spurgeon calls “faith in action.”

C.H. Spurgeon continues…

If our faith…lacks the fruit of obedience, it will leave us among the “dogs” who are “'without.” The ***faith that makes us obey is alone the faith which marks the children of God. ***It is better to have the faith that obeys than the faith which moves mountains. … If thou believest in the living God unto eternal life, thou wilt be quick to do thy Lord’s bidding, even as a maid hearkens to her mistress. Thou wilt not be as the horse, which needs whip and spur; thy love will do more for thee than compulsion could do for slaves. Thou wilt have wings to thy heels to hasten thee along the way of obedience. … He would have us obey him with the heart, and that will lead us, not merely to regard a few pleasing commands, but to have respect unto all his will. … Alas! dear friends, we have so much talk, and so little obedience! The religion of mere brain and jaw does not amount to much. We want the religion of hands and feet. (ibid.)

From my studies and experience, Catholicism is truly a religion of hands and feet!!

Finally, from C.H. Spurgeon…

Those who practice the obedience of faith look for the reward hereafter, and set the greatest store by it… They know the words, “No cross, no crown;” and they recognise the truth that, if there is no obedience here, there will be no reward hereafter…

The obedience which faith produces must be continuous… Providence is God’s business, obedience is ours. What comes out of our life’s course must remain with the Lord; to obey is our sole concern. We can win “Well done, good and faithful servant”: to be a successful servant is not in our power, and we shall not be held responsible for it. Our greatest risk is over when we obey. God makes faith and obedience the way of safety…Obedience may appear difficult, and it may bring with it sacrifice; but, after all, it is the nearest and the best road…He who through the Holy Spirit, is always believingly obedient, has chosen the good part.

… ***this is a kind of life which will bring communion with God…If we transgress against him, we shall soon be in trouble; but a holy walk—the walk described by my text as faith working obedience—is heaven beneath the stars. God comes down to walk with men who obey. If they walk with him, he walks with them. The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey. Obedience is heaven in us, and it is the preface of our being in heaven. Obedient faith is the way to eternal life—nay, it is eternal life revealing itself. ***(ibid.)

"The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey." Sounds Catholic!!

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Yes.

Look at the examples in Acts, most follow a basic, repent, believe, be baptized formula.

The important point is that baptism cannot save you, nor are you regenerated in baptism, but by the H.S.

No real disagreement there bro. The only point I would make is that baptism is the means by which the H.S. regenerates us, thus making it necessary.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Yes, all of the O.T. law pointed to Christ, and were fulfilled in Christ. My point is that the sacrificial part of the law is gone, thus God’s destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. There is no more sacrifice to be offered, only a sacrifice to be remembered.

I agree, and again, the sacrifice is finished. No more sacrifice.

Yes, there is a relation, but, as with the old law, baptism and the Eucharist do not save, Catholic theology says they do.

Along with Wesley, I too, sin against the perfect law of love every day.

I am not familiar with that hymn, and it is not in my hymnal, but I will look for it. I do not agree that the Eucharist is a reception of benefits, but a remembrance of Christ’s death for us. The reception of benefits is appropriated by faith in His death, and what it accomplished.

Come on Sandusky, you can do better than this. Are you willfully resisting trying to understand how the Church explains this? If so, I wonder how that fits in with “test everything, hold on to the good”. Sandusky, your earlier posts did not agree with what you are saying now. You have backtracked. It’s okay to admit you were wrong. We have all been there. I spent my whole life there. Furthermore, as has been stated, and restated ad nauseum, the Eucharist effective because it participates in the ONCE AND FOR ALL sacrifice of Christ. How can one repeat something that is eternal? Baptism is regenerative because God chose this sacrament to be the means by which He imparts the Holy Spirit. Now you can disagree, but at least attempt to understand what we are saying. Furthermore, while you may disagree with our Biblical interpretation, it is disingenuous to boil this down to a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. There have been plenty of Scriptures thrown around on both sides of the argument. We all look to the Bible. That’s not the question. Your interpretation/tradition is simply different than our’s. Luckily for my position, it happens to line up with 2000 years of Church history.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You have absolutely no way of proving that statement whatsoever. You must rely on your traditions to do so.

As must you Sandusky. The difference is as a Catholic that I am readily aware of it and admit it. You seem to be totally ignorant of the fact you are doing the very same thing, or you just refuse to admit it. You seem to think that you have just approached the Scriptures completely objectively and without ever having any training from others. Which brings up the real point (although a point for another thread) that we all have tradition. The question is which is the tradition of man, and which is the Tradition of the Apostles. That is for another thread though.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

No, not at all. But the Old Covenant of Law, given to national Israel as a rule of life, cannot co-exist with the believer’s rule of life under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, under grace, and to be lived out in the Spirit.

In fact, the Law never did, or ever could, save anyone. It’s only power was to give definition to sin and reveal the utter sinfulness of all men, along with their inability to free themselves from the effects of sin and the divine condemnation because of it. Paul related his own inward struggle with the Covenant of Law in Romans seven in respect to “thou shall not covet.” And based on the knowledge of his sinfulness that the Law imparts, he concludes, “Wretched man that I am, WHO will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Law (not even the Decalogue) can co-exist as a rule of life for the believer under the New Covenant. Paul, speaking as a Jew, born under the Covenant of Law, states:

ROM 7:6 “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and NOT in oldness of the letter.”

The believer, born again (regenerated) by the Spirit has nothing to do with the “Old” Covenant of Law. He is to serve God in newness of the Spirit (by the new life generated within Him through faith in Christ, 2 Cor. 5:17), not in struggling to obey commandments that have the power only to condemn him: “thou shall not…”. But instead, “walk by the Spirit and you will not carry our the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

I’ll even let Paul answer your question:

ROM. 9:30-32 “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone…”

And we know that the “stumbling stone” is Christ, to whom the Law was to drive them that they might be justified by faith alone.

GAL. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.The “Rojo Bandito” is right in that Catholicism has “transformed” the Jewish mentality of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. It still tries to live out (as a “rule of life”) its form of Christianity by continuing to abide in commandments (which still condemn them); their own priesthood as mediators to reconcile them to God; and their own “sacrifice” in the Eucharist. And in my opinion they too stumble over the “stumbling stone.” It’s from this trans-form-ation of the “New Covenant” from the Old that Redbandito poses his arguments.

Are you and John Wesley in agreement with him?

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, you don’t understand the Catholic position as well as you think you do. “the Law never did, or ever could, save anyone. It’s only power was to give definition to sin and reveal the utter sinfulness of all men, along with their inability to free themselves from the effects of sin and the divine condemnation because of it.” That’s not the only thing it was for. The moral law is there to instruct how to love perfectly. The fact that we cannot achieve this does not mean God should not still give us the ideal. Yes, God expects perfect adherement to the law, but He is also merciful when He sees His children giving all they have and begging for mercy when they fail. You still seem to think, despite all the facts to the contrary, that Catholics believe you can be saved by the law. It is just a misunderstanding.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

As for all this “faith alone” talk…

St. John describes “belief” as including obedience, and this is what Catholics teach. Any sort of faith which excludes obedience to God’s will is not a faith that justifies.

John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”
The Greek used by St. John for “does not obey” is apeiqwn
(“apeitheo”), which means “not believing” but also means “disobey”

According to the Protestant source, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, et. al, (abridged edition):

So you can see that “to believe” so as to have eternal life includes obedience.

A well-known Protestant theologian, C.H. Spurgeon put it this way…

Likewise, for Catholics, the obedience of faith which we believe leads to eternal life is not mere human achievement, but what C.H. Spurgeon calls “faith in action.”

C.H. Spurgeon continues…

From my studies and experience, Catholicism is truly a religion of hands and feet!!

Finally, from C.H. Spurgeon…

“The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey.” Sounds Catholic!!

And Protestant!!

No disagreement. Obedience is required, any notion of eternal security without obedience is devoid of truth.

But, obedience does not save; faith does.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

As must you Sandusky. The difference is as a Catholic that I am readily aware of it and admit it. You seem to be totally ignorant of the fact you are doing the very same thing, or you just refuse to admit it. You seem to think that you have just approached the Scriptures completely objectively and without ever having any training from others. Which brings up the real point (although a point for another thread) that we all have tradition. The question is which is the tradition of man, and which is the Tradition of the Apostles. That is for another thread though.

You are wrong. Common sense insists that in every epistle written, those addressed include believers, and unbelievers; they exist side by side within the church, as illustrated by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

Bene, you don’t understand the Catholic position as well as you think you do. “the Law never did, or ever could, save anyone. It’s only power was to give definition to sin and reveal the utter sinfulness of all men, along with their inability to free themselves from the effects of sin and the divine condemnation because of it.” That’s not the only thing it was for. The moral law is there to instruct how to love perfectly. The fact that we cannot achieve this does not mean God should not still give us the ideal. Yes, God expects perfect adherement to the law, but He is also merciful when He sees His children giving all they have and begging for mercy when they fail. You still seem to think, despite all the facts to the contrary, that Catholics believe you can be saved by the law. It is just a misunderstanding.

I don’t understand how you can say that Catholics do not believe that they are saved by the law, and that it is just a “misunderstanding.”

You are bound by Trent, which states in its Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification:

“…to those *who work well unto the end *and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).

See also Canons 9, 11, 12, 17, 23, 24, and 32 following the sixteen chapters on justification and what they declare.

Those statements have never been renounced and are still binding upon you.

If there is a misunderstanding, it is on your part, not mine, or bene’s.

 

[wpr]

sandusky:

You are wrong. Common sense insists that in every epistle written, those addressed include believers, and unbelievers; they exist side by side within the church, as illustrated by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

That is only true if you beleive that the proffession of faith justifies instantaneously and results in irrevocable salvation. You assume the writer knows the outcome per your theology. This is not the case. It is your lopsided interpretation.

 

[wpr]

sandusky:

You are wrong. Common sense insists that in every epistle written, those addressed include believers, and unbelievers; they exist side by side within the church, as illustrated by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

You dropped the ball again! Look at the parable of the Sower. Some beleived for awhile! Then fell away. Christ does not tell us “they never truely beleived” Your notion is absurd.

 

[bene7]

Redbandito:

Whatever you say dude. The covenants start from the very beginning. The first covenant was…"

You missed two and most of your content does not coincide with the Scriptural text in which they’re found, or with whom they’re made.

The OC is obsolete SOLELY because it has been FULFILLED.

Oh, I see you did a little backpedaling here, eh?

That does not deny what the writer of Hebrews states

Actually the writer of Hebrews explains it quite clearly in the ninth chapter. After describing the regulations of divine worship and the tabernacle prescribed under the OC, including the animal sacrifices, in verse eleven he uses the resounding word, “BUT” :

HEB 9:11-15 “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

It’s a NEW Covenant, Red. Not a “transformed” old one. It’s based on better promises, better blood and eternal realities through the once for all time sacrifice of Christ:

Heb. 9:26 “…but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

HEB 10:12 "but He, having offered ONE sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

Maybe a good way for you to possibly understand it, Red, is thinking of “old” technology vs. “new” technology in computers. The landfills are full of “old” technology. Why? Because the “old” is OBSOLETE. Neither the old hardware or the old software is compatible with the new. It can’t even be updated, it’s useless. Hence, it’s thrown out. The believer is called by faith under the NC. He has absolutely no relationship with the OC. They are completely incompatible with each other. That’s why you get from us, who understand the difference, nothing but “error” messages. Jesus presented this same truth using the "technology of His day, i.e., old wine skins and new wine skins. Try to put the new in the old and what happens? The wine skins burst. They’re totally incompatible. Comprende, amigo?

Blessing,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

That is only true if you beleive that the proffession of faith justifies instantaneously and results in irrevocable salvation. You assume the writer knows the outcome per your theology. This is not the case. It is your lopsided interpretation.

I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you denying that unbelievers stand side by side with believers in Christ’s Church?

wpr:

You dropped the ball again! Look at the parable of the Sower. Some beleived for awhile! Then fell away. Christ does not tell us “they never truely beleived” Your notion is absurd.

Oh, but He does. It is your insistence, and I agree, that only those who endure to the end will be saved. If they left, they never truly believed because they did not endure to the end.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

The Catholic believes that rebirth comes through the act of baptism. Scripture does not say that. Scripture says that regeneration comes through the washing of regeneration by the H.S. That is not baptism, but a washing by the Spirit.

This is inaccurate. Of course Catholics believe that rebirth is a washing by the Spirit, and one of the times it occurs is at Baptism. You are dead wrong if you meant to imply that the Catholic view of Baptism is that it accomplishes something apart from the holy Spirit.

In Jn 3:5, Jesus referred not to literal water, but to the need for “cleansing” (e.g., Eze 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the O.T., it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit: (Nu 19:17-19; Ps 51:9, 10; Is 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the H.S. through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom. That is not literal water washing.

Sandusky, don’t be ridiculous - you keep trying to imply that a “water washing” is what Catholics believe baptism is. Of course the washing is Spiritual, but the mode is still Baptism by water here on earth. “Born of water” from John 3-5 is the same as the “bath of rebirth” in Titus 3-5; and “Born…of the holy spirit” from John 3-5 is analogous to the “renewal by the holy Spirit” in Titus 3-5. The former pair refers to physical water baptism while the latter refers to the Spiritual rebirth that inseparably occur.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Contarini:

No, you don’t understand what I was saying. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. You’re treating any reference to the role of the Holy Spirit in regeneration as if it excluded the role of water baptism. Scripture knows nothing of this either/or. You assume that the “water” of John 3:5 is purely figurative. But you didn’t give any evidence for this. Your “human tradition” teaches you that if regeneration is the work of the Spirit then it cannot be ascribed to the sacrament of water baptism. This is not what Scripture teaches. According to Scripture, regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and it comes through baptism. That was also the uniform teaching of the early Church.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin - I had posted my clumsy reply before reading your crystal clear one…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Yes, all of the O.T. law pointed to Christ, and were fulfilled in Christ. My point is that the sacrificial part of the law is gone, thus God’s destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. There is no more sacrifice to be offered, only a sacrifice to be remembered.

I agree, and again, the sacrifice is finished. No more sacrifice.

Romans 12-1: I urge you ,therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to offer your bodies as a living SACRIFICE holy and PLEASING TO GOD.
The sacrifice is not over - it has been transformed, and those who are “in Christ” can offer it to God. If Christs sacrifice was infinitely perfect AND it is purely in the past - finished as you say, how can we,now, possibly offer a sacrifice which is pleasing to God?

Phil

 

[sandusky]

is at Baptism. You are dead wrong if you meant to imply that the Catholic view of Baptism is that it accomplishes something apart from the holy Spirit.”One of the times it occurs?” Philthy, scripture speaks of a washing of regeneration, not washings of regenerations. It is a singular experience.

Philthy:

Romans 12-1: I urge you ,therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to offer your bodies as a living SACRIFICE holy and PLEASING TO GOD.
The sacrifice is not over - it has been transformed, and those who are “in Christ” can offer it to God. If Christs sacrifice was infinitely perfect AND it is purely in the past - finished as you say, how can we,now, possibly offer a sacrifice which is pleasing to God?

So because the word sacrifice occurs in this passage, it signifies ongoing sacrifice? What are you saying?