So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PRmerger]

John 3:25’26. Talks of baptism and purifying.

Here is the verse of which you speak:

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:25-26[/BIBLEDRB]

Where does it mention it is NOT for regeneration and NOT for bestowing of new life/spirit?

 

[PRmerger]

Have no idea what you are talking about.if you are confused why do you judge ? Read my statement again. Then read the entire Cornelius account with discernment about just when did Cornelius believe the old covenant, the new covenant, when was he regenerated when did he receive the gift of the HS, when when was he water baptized…iam proposing quite a catholic thing and yet your catholic box is not letting read the text plainly…I say you can do this,read it more openly for just as surely as you do not put god in box with Mary’s immaculate conception ( she was cleansed by the blood in foreknowledge/ application) do not so either with Cornelius.

Can you please just answer the question–it’s really quite simple, ben.

When was Cornelius regenerated?

 

[benhur]

benhur;12028178:

I am not understanding your posting–it is too messy, benhur.

Would you mind telling us what verse says that baptism is not for regeneration or for bestowing of the spirit/new birth?

Is purification in OT for regeneration?when you purify yourself during lent, advent, or for any special occasion is it for regeneration ? Was John the Baptist regenerating people or preparing people ? I showed you a verse that talks of OT baptism in terms of purifying, not regeneration, and applied it to previous discourse with nicodemus, an OT leader, that the water did not primarily signify water baptism for new birth, that that was unheard of in OT.that is how this whole dialogue-thing started…sorry am not at computer but iPad with limited skill

 

[PRmerger]

Is purification in OT or nt regeneration?when you purify yourself during lent, advent, or for any special occasion is it for regeneration ?

Are you talking of a specific ritual we do to purify ourselves during Lent or Advent? I am not sure what you mean here.

Was John the Baptist regenerating people or preparing people ? I showed you averse that talks of OT baptism in terms of purifying, not regeneration, and applied it to previous discourse with nicodemus, a not leader, that the water did not primarily signify water baptism for new birth, that that was unheard of in OT.that is how this whole dialoguething started…sorry am not at computer but iPad with limited skill

I am not sure what is going on here–with the iPad, or if you’re in a different writing mood–but your posts are a bit incoherent so I am going to wait until morning and perhaps your style will be a bit clearer to me in future postings.

But I would like to see the answer to my simple question: when was Cornelius regenerated?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Baptism is not what saves you. It is a command of Jesus, and if we love Jesus, we will obey his commands. Any person who has accepted Christ should want to be baptized in imitation of Jesus, whom they claim to follow.

What? Baptism is not what saves you? But that is a direct contradiction of scripture!

Baptism is a certainly a command of Jesus. Now though, why did Jesus command it? Just to be commanding? Of course not. Jesus commanded it because baptism is the means He instituted to cleanse us of our sins after we have repented. It is not an arbitrary command, as insinuated in the above post. We do not get baptized merely to imitate Jesus, because we want to follow him. We get baptized because this is how Jesus washes away our sins.

Sure, we know Jesus is actually what saves us, but Jesus has instituted ways by which He exercises His salvation. Baptism is one of those. Whether we like it or not, this is what scripture tells us. This is what Jesus told us.

 

[benhur]

I’m confused – are you saying verse 36 refers to a Jewish ritual?

Can you point to the verse that says God does not or cannot dispense his grace to infants? Or the mentally infirm? You seem to limit God’s grace to human action.

Sorry meant vs 25,26 about purifying/baptism which was a ritual in OT. Again you seem to judge me before even understanding,thru some of my fault, what I am trying to convey. How can we discuss infants when we have not exhausted words to clarify what is plainly written in the nicodemus/Cornelius discourses ?

 

[PRmerger]

They were present, and were not asked to leave because there was going to be a believer’s baptism. Thus, they received the preaching.

Unless you believe they were excluded from the preaching, as well as excluded from the baptisms?

Book, chapter and verse for this, please, if that is your position.

This is quite consonant with Catholicism. No one is positing that the infants could understand and respond to the preaching.

Well, we don’t know, do we?

This appears to be a case where a non-Catholic is permitted to believe something that’s not in the Bible–the “Where Scripture is silent, we are permitted to believe it”.

But then there are other places where Scripture is silent* the paradigm espoused by many non-Catholics is, “Where Scripture is silent, you are not permitted to believe this”. (here, read: praying the rosary, the IC, purgatory, etc etc etc).

*Actually in the majority of cases/situations in our lives, Scripture makes no pronouncement whatsoever. That’s why we have a Magisterium so we won’t be left orphans. Scripture doesn’t speak of whether we can play instruments during our worship services. It is silent about child marriages. It is silent about first strike nuclear warfare. It is silent about the Pill…

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

Book, chapter and verse for this, please.

Also, would this cover those who are invincibly ignorant, too, such as Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc etc?

 

[benhur]

What? Baptism is not what saves you? But that is a direct contradiction of scripture!

Baptism is a certainly a command of Jesus. Now though, why did Jesus command it? Just to be commanding? Of course not. Jesus commanded it because baptism is the means He instituted to cleanse us of our sins after we have repented. It is not an arbitrary command, as insinuated in the above post. We do not get baptized merely to imitate Jesus, because we want to follow him. We get baptized because this is how Jesus washes away our sins.

Sure, we know Jesus is actually what saves us, but Jesus has instituted ways by which He exercises His salvation. Baptism is one of those. Whether we like it or not, this is what scripture tells us. This is what Jesus told us.

God is pure. We are born impure in sin. The two can not mix.how can the spirt in dwell and unite with our dead in sin spirit unless we be cleansed/ forgiven, regenerated first by faith. …Cornelius received the gift of the HolySpirit before water baptism. Can you explain this from your boxy dogma? Can a dead spirit believe,even repent? Can a dead spirit gladly receive the word of The Lord? Does this not contradict the scripture that says there is enmity between fleshly man and God ?

 

[esieffe]

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I am not going to run through all the scripture, I am sure that has been done already.

“The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same.”
― Steve Maraboli, Life, the Truth, and Being Free

 

[benhur]

What? Baptism is not what saves you? But that is a direct contradiction of scripture!

Baptism is a certainly a command of Jesus. Now though, why did Jesus command it? Just to be commanding? Of course not. Jesus commanded it because baptism is the means He instituted to cleanse us of our sins after we have repented. It is not an arbitrary command, as insinuated in the above post. We do not get baptized merely to imitate Jesus, because we want to follow him. We get baptized because this is how Jesus washes away our sins.

Sure, we know Jesus is actually what saves us, but Jesus has instituted ways by which He exercises His salvation. Baptism is one of those. Whether we like it or not, this is what scripture tells us. This is what Jesus told us.

He also told us to believe on the one whom the father has sent for eternal life. So tell me, do you get baptized then believe on the One and receive eternal life ? I have not been to a consensual baptism where this was not a prerequisite- belief in the One, and belief in the One does what ? Grant eternal life ?..by the way I believe in being obedient to The Lord with water baptism, but in a different truth and spirit,and experientially or from experience make my proclamation yet rebirth is rebirth by any other name ?

 

[mackbrislawn]

ltwin;12028150
But I don’t read this as saying that the paralytic man had no faith at all. The way I read these passages, the paralytic himself is included in the “their.” Obviously, this is an instance where the man himself could not get to Jesus, but the faith of his friends made it possible. I doubt they just picked the man up and carried him to Jesus against his will.

Scripture is silent on the faith of the paralytic. Of course we presume he had faith; but the paralytic’s faith is not the point of the story.

However, his friends must have had a lot of faith themselves, in order to go to all the “work” of carrying him up, digging a hole in the roof, and lowering him down in front of Jesus (not to mention having a lot of nerve!). So on the face of scripture, the paralytic’s sins were forgiven on the basis of his friends’ faith.

(As an aside, this is an example of what might be called “saving” faith. It is faith that is acted upon. That is, because you have faith, you do what your faith tells you to do.).

Christ died for all mankind, children included. If a child (or even a grown individual who is developmentally challenged) is unable to believe, then the child is unable to commit the sin of unbelief, unable to reject Christ. In such a situation, I believe the grace of God covers infants.

I take it is not a statement of a Calvinist. I also wonder how salvation is applied to those who never heard the gospel.

I also wonder about the grey area when a child is innocent, but eventually becomes guilty and in need of repentance. When that happens has always been a doubt of mine. How can we be sure? Maybe baptize it right now to erase those doubts!

 

[ltwin]

This, too, is contradicted by Scripture.

The inspired writer, St. Peter, tells us that “baptism saves you now” 1 Peter 3:21

He’s not talking about water baptism.

They were present, and were not asked to leave because there was going to be a believer’s baptism. Thus, they received the preaching.

Unless you believe they were excluded from the preaching, as well as excluded from the baptisms?

Book, chapter and verse for this, please, if that is your position.

I never said they were excluded from the preaching. My point is that it is hard to “receive” something that you can’t even understand.

When Acts 16:34 states that the Philippian jailer “rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God” are infants included in those who rejoiced?

If the plain meaning of Scripture is that every time “household” and “baptism” are mentioned in the same sentence it signifies that infants were also baptized, then it must also be true when Scripture says that households rejoiced.

Well, we don’t know, do we?

I think it’s quite clear that the paralytic is included in the “their.” He came to Jesus, with the aid of his friends who could not get him past the door because of the crowd. Yet, they (the whole group, the paralytic man included) did not lose faith. Instead, his friends lowered him from the roof.

This appears to be a case where a non-Catholic is permitted to believe something that’s not in the Bible–the “Where Scripture is silent, we are permitted to believe it”.

This is not an argument from silence. This is a plain reading of the text.

 

[ltwin]

At what point did they become regenerated?

Were they already born that way?

I’ve already addressed this.

So then you believe that non-Christians get to heaven without any saving faith.

No. Please refer to what I’ve already written several times on this thread:

Luke 1:15 indeed provides Scriptural proof that infants can be regenerated and filled with the Spirit even before birth. But this has nothing to do with infant baptism. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit before it was physically possible to even baptize him.

I agree that Scripture is clear that God is able to save infants in an unusual way apart from hearing and understanding the Gospel. Yet, it’s important to note that in every case in Scripture where this happens, this regeneration occurs without the aid of baptism. It is always the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

Book, chapter and verse for this, please.

Albert Mohler and Daniel L. Aken explain it like this:

First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed “in the body.”[2 Corinthians 5:10] That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer “according to what he has done,”(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.

One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. “Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers.”[Deuteronomy 1:35] But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.”[Deuteronomy 1:39] The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who “have no knowledge of good or evil” because of their age. These “little ones” would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.

We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body - are not yet moral agents - and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . .

Jesus instructed his disciples that they should “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”[Mark 10:14] We believe that our Lord graciously and freely received all those who die in infancy - not on the basis of their innocence or worthiness - but by his grace, made theirs through the atonement He purchased on the cross. . . . .

Also, would this cover those who are invincibly ignorant, too, such as Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc etc?

I don’t think so. They will be judged for what they have done and failed to do. As Paul said, “They are without excuse.”

 

[benhur]

This, too, is contradicted by Scripture.

The inspired writer, St. Peter, tells us that “baptism saves you now” 1 Peter 3:21

And what is it that a consenting individual does at water baptism ? most baptisms I have been to the person confesses a saving faith in Christ. Before they go under. I have not attended a Catholic baptism so do they confess anything,or have to believe anything ? i am talking about children of age or adults. Would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut on Catholic sacrament ritual wording .

 

[benhur]

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I am not going to run through all the scripture, I am sure that has been done already.

“The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same.”
― Steve Maraboli, Life, the Truth, and Being Free

Yes and some say that let go and let God sounds to simple also and who said His yolk is easy ?..as to your quote to accept and proclaim the Lord as savior and lord,should cost you everything as said by Catherine kohlman it is the right thing to do and so hard it is impossible except for God…the gospel is Good and more than too good but true

 

[mackbrislawn]

God is pure. We are born impure in sin. The two can not mix.how can the spirt in dwell and unite with our dead in sin spirit unless we be cleansed/ forgiven, regenerated first by faith. …Cornelius received the gift of the HolySpirit before water baptism. Can you explain this from your boxy dogma? Can a dead spirit believe,even repent? Can a dead spirit gladly receive the word of The Lord? Does this not contradict the scripture that says there is enmity between fleshly man and God ?

I’m not entirely sure I understand everything here. Dogma? Just scripture. Scripture says repent and be baptized. Why should you repent unless you believe? Unless you have faith? Then, because you have faith you realize you are impure in sin, and Jesus will remove or wash away these sins by baptism. Scripture is clear on this.

“We are regenerated first by faith.” Not exactly. It is because we have faith that we want to be regenerated by the way Jesus has commanded, baptism. Why baptism? I don’t know, you have to ask Jesus. But is it a definite physical act to go along with our physical bodies, also in keeping with the expectations of the Jews and people of that time. (Maybe not of our times, but of those times.)

Of course, if we are run over by a chariot or captured and thrown to the lions on our way to baptism, God will take that into account. Just like Cornelius and Abraham, God can count it as righteousness.

Can a dead spirit gladly receive the word of the The Lord? I guess so, or how else could any spirit receive the word of The Lord? All spirits are dead aren’t they? For, all have sinned!

Cornelius? Jesus can send the Holy Spirit as He wills. Enmity between fleshly man and God? I suppose so, that is why God wants us all to be washed clean.

 

[ltwin]

What? Baptism is not what saves you? But that is a direct contradiction of scripture!

Our justification from sins takes place when we have saving faith, not when we are baptized in water. Therefore, water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary for obedience.

I wont repeat what I’ve already said in regards to baptism. You can read that at post #14.

Baptism is a certainly a command of Jesus. Now though, why did Jesus command it?

Baptism is a “means of grace” in that it brings spiritual benefits to believers. There is God’s favor and blessing that comes from obedience, as well as the joy and reassurance that we have in knowing that we have died and rose with Christ and that our sins are washed away.

I take it is not a statement of a Calvinist.

I’m an Arminian.

I also wonder how salvation is applied to those who never heard the gospel.

It’s a tough question. I think, however, rather than speculating, it is more constructive to heed Paul:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15)

I also wonder about the grey area when a child is innocent, but eventually becomes guilty and in need of repentance. When that happens has always been a doubt of mine. How can we be sure? Maybe baptize it right now to erase those doubts!

I don’t think we can ever truly know the exact time when a child loses innocence. Rather than wasting energy speculating about that, it would be more constructive for parents to be prepared to teach and model the Christian life, so that there would never be a time in the child’s life when he or she did not know to love and trust in the Lord.

 

[mackbrislawn]

He also told us to believe on the one whom the father has sent for eternal life. So tell me, do you get baptized then believe on the One and receive eternal life ? I have not been to a consensual baptism where this was not a prerequisite- belief in the One, and belief in the One does what ? Grant eternal life ?..by the way I believe in being obedient to The Lord with water baptism, but in a different truth and spirit,and experientially or from experience make my proclamation yet rebirth is rebirth by any other name ?

In another post you said we are all born impure in sin. Therefore even a baby is impure, and hence cannot meet the pure God. That is a dilemma we confront if we believe God is all good and just.

You ask, do you get baptized and then believe in the One and receive eternal life? I’m not sure what is meant. I have said before, we believe, and then because we believe we repent, which means leaving our sinful past behind; but because our sinful past remains on us no matter what we do ourselves, we have to have it removed by Jesus, which He does by His commandment of baptism.

Infants and the mentally infirm are a problem, since you have asserted we are all born impure in sin, which includes infants and the mentally infirm. The only thing that can be decided is that since they cannot repent, they also cannot be saved because they have no way of being washed clean of their inborn impurity.

 

[mackbrislawn]

=ltwin;12028393 Our justification from sins takes place when we have saving faith, not when we are baptized in water. Therefore, water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary for obedience.

This statement is the crux. Right here. It also defines the term “saving faith.” Because saving faith is otherwise a very nebulous term. What is saving faith? It is faith that leads to obedience, of course. Without saving faith there is no salvation.

Good enough, but the above quote contains a strange statement: “Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is necessary for obedience”! But how can we be saved without obedience? And if we are not baptized we have not obeyed! Therefore, without baptism there is no salvation! Jesus has commanded baptism simply because that is the way He has made it. It is not an arbitrary command.

Sure, one who has “saving faith” and has the intention of being baptized but dies beforehand, that will be counted to him as righteousness, but if one says he does not need to be baptized, that means his faith is not saving faith because he is not obeying Jesus, but is listening to something else.

Baptism is a “means of grace” in that it brings spiritual benefits to believers. There is God’s favor and blessing that comes from obedience, as well as the joy and reassurance that we have in knowing that we have died and rose with Christ and that our sins are washed away.

“Means of grace” is in quotes. From where does the quote come? Scripture? Nope…

And how does baptism bring spiritual benefits to believers? Does scripture tell us about those?

Why does one need God’s favor and blessing since one is already saved? What more is there? All this strikes me as ad hoc statements to try to explain baptism in a non-scriptural manner…

I’m an Arminian.

It’s a tough question. I think, however, rather than speculating, it is more constructive to heed Paul:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15)

Fair enough. Someone has to be sent.

I don’t think we can ever truly know the exact time when a child loses innocence. Rather than wasting energy speculating about that, it would be more constructive for parents to be prepared to teach and model the Christian life, so that there would never be a time in the child’s life when he or she did not know to love and trust in the Lord.

You’re right, we don’t know. I suppose, since the child is impure, we have to teach the child right away it is sinful, so it can ask for forgiveness. Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

This is not an argument from silence. This is a plain reading of the text.

LOL!

This limns quite well why the Bible Alone as one’s sole rule of faith is so obfuscatory and confusing.

We are 2 Christians here in dialogue about Faith matters, and we can’t even agree on what is, apparently, a “plain reading” of the text.

If people can’t even decide what is a “plain reading”, how can Scripture be used, alone, to be one’s sole rule of faith?

Regardless: there is NOTHING in Scripture that talks about this paralytic’s faith. You must add your own lens to see that he had faith. In fact, you add your own uncertainty to this scene when you wrote, “I doubt they just picked the man up and carried him to Jesus against his will.” Because, you really don’t know. Scripture is silent about it.

As far as picking him up and taking him against his will: well, why not? Maybe he was mentally disabled as well as paralyzed. Maybe he was a disbeliever. Maybe he was agnostic.

We simply don’t know.

Scripture is not the complete story.