Sola Fides

[Mickey]

Pastor Robert:

I came in here to engage in serious theological discussion and understand modern Romanism. I answered a question put to me and await a response, which by the way I see you did not give.

I’m not an apologist, but I’ve been around it too long to not see right through your psuedo-hospitality. Ingrained bigotry is difficult to hide. No, you will not find me conversing with you.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Good Pastor,

If you think baptismal regeneration is heresy, then what think you of the Lutherans and Anglicans? As fellow Protestants, they would definitely dispute that baptism is man’s work, but rather God’s work.

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Enjoying the discussion folks.

Regarding the term ‘Romanism’ whilst a dictionary has no authority in my eyes regarding this matter I have no desire nor intent to offend. I guess the term ‘Popery’ is also not desirable so I’ll simply talk of RCism.

Sad that Mickey refuses to interact but that’s his liberty, I will not call for him to burn at the stake. As a gospel preacher I am not hiding the fact that I am committed to calling sinners of every creed and color to truly trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Regarding Lutherans, Anglicans and anyone else, yes even Baptists. If they teach any form of baptismal regeneration they teach heresy.

Baptism is an ordinance of the church that symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ but only the Holy Spirit alone actually brings it into existence. There is no efficacy in the water.

The texts speaking of believe and be baptised speak of the basis of salvation, faith and the evidence of it, baptism ie public confession of union with Christ. a step all true disciples are called to take.

I would like to hear you on some other topics.

Peter and the office of Pope
Mary the co-redemptrix
Purgatory

These things should keep us busy.

With sincerest regards

RB

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Pastor Robert:

Justification leads inseparably to sanctification. Someone who claims to be justified but have no interest in sanctification is deceived and most probably a false professor of Christ.

Hope this helps

Warmest regards

RB

Hello Pastor Robert;

Your statement helps me to understand your position, but the statement is not supported by the Bible. Justification seems to be a process that continues in one who lives their faith and keeps God’s commandments. It is not the one-time legalistic imputation of righteousness that you would support, artificially separated from the works that follow. That is where Catholic and Protestant doctrines seem to part ways. I believe that Scripture supports the Catholic position, and you have provided no citation to Scripture in response to my specific questions.

Please answer my prior questions.

Also, what is the sola fide explanation for Jn. 15:1-17. Isn’t Jesus himself telling us to not simply have faith in Him, but “abide” (or live) in Him and keep His commandment to love one another. Doesn’t that seem to require us to have an active (or working) faith, which in turn requires both faith and works performed in love as a means of obtaining salvation through Grace?

Here’s the text for your convenience:

[1] "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
[2] Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
[3] You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you.
[4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
[5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
[6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
[7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.
[8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.
[9] As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.
[10] If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
[11] These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
[12] "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
[13] Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
[14] You are my friends if you do what I command you.
[15] No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
[16] You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
[17] This I command you, to love one another.

One final comment. In your response (quoted above) you noted that one who has no works, but claims to be saved by their faith, is a “false professor.” If such is the case, then - as a practical matter - aren’t all followers of sola fide still compelled to do good works to manifest the presence of “saving faith?” And if “saving faith” must be accompanied by good works, then it cannot be faith alone that saves, but saving faith accompanied by good works? That doesn’t seem too far from the Catholic position at all - IMHO.

I look forward to your response Pastor Robert.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Pastor Robert:

Enjoying the discussion folks.
…
I would like to hear you on some other topics.

Peter and the office of Pope
Mary the co-redemptrix
Purgatory

These things should keep us busy.

With sincerest regards

RB

I suggest that you start new threads for each topic you are interested in discussing. It makes for better focus, easier reading, and less overall confusion.

 

[piety101]

Pastor Roberts

                    Respectively, you are ignoring the witness of the early fathers who DID write that water baptism is for the remission of sins and constitutes the new birth. Their written testimony on this subject is overwhelming. For example, both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus quote Jesus' own words of being born of water. Justin wrote a WHOLE section on water baptism in regards to the Christian, being washed, born again and receiving the remission of sins by baptism.

                       I ask you again, how can you maintain your position and yet ignore the written testimony of the church fathers?

 

[MariaG]

posted by Pastor Robert
I smell the heresy of baptismal regeneration in this very clear statement.

Respectfully sir, while I understand you believe it to be heresy, you are on a Catholic board. I think you have many ingrained ways of thinking, that while acceptable in your church, are offensive here. If you try not to call us heretics,** I** will at least do the same to you. Unfortunately, I can not say the same for everyone, but I can only pray for their charity also.

EDIT: On second reading, you did not call us heretics just our belief heresy. Since I see yours as the same, I can’t argue. Different witnessing style I guess.

Here is a foundational error of Rome that deceives many into trusting their eternal destiny to a sprinkling of water on their head.

Jesus Christ alone my friend, plus nothing.

That gets us off to a clear start

Warmest regards

Catholic Christians do not trust our eternal destiny to a sprinkling of water on our heads.

While Catholics Christians do believe that God regenerates our soul at baptism, if that regenerated soul does not seek Our Lord, he will surely be damned to hell. So how are we relying on a “sprinkling of water” whether or not the baptism is regenerative or not?

The only way that person will get to heaven is by the Grace of God, through faith in Christ.

I actually find this rather interesting. On the one hand, Catholics are accused of trying to work our way to heaven, yet on the other it appears you think we believe we believe we can baptize our infants and then do nothing else and be assured of heaven?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

posted by Pastor Robert

Baptism is an ordinance of the church that symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ but only the Holy Spirit alone actually brings it into existence. There is no efficacy in the water.

You are correct, the Holy Spirit is the one that brings it into existence. Just as God is the one that heals. But the Bible shows us God chooses to manifest His power through things and people.

There are many healings God did THROUGH the apostles as well as I know of two places where God healed people in the NT through Peter’s shadow :bible1: Acts 5:15-16 and heals a person through a face cloth that touched Paul :bible1:Acts 19:11-12. No one believes the face cloth did anything, God did. But that does not change the fact that God choose to heal through an object.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Eden]

Pastor Robert:

Enjoying the discussion folks.

Regarding the term ‘Romanism’ whilst a dictionary has no authority in my eyes regarding this matter I have no desire nor intent to offend. I guess the term **‘Popery’ ** is also not desirable so I’ll simply talk of RCism.

Sad that Mickey refuses to interact but that’s his liberty, I will not call for him to burn at the stake. As a gospel preacher I am not hiding the fact that I am committed to calling sinners of every creed and color to truly trust in Christ alone for salvation.

O.K. Let’s get it out of your system and move on. Just shout it out: ROMANISM ROMANISM ROMANISM POPERY POPERY POPERY!!! Feel better? Can we move on now?

About the burning at the stake, medieval scholars have discovered some surprising things. It’s not quite what you’d think. In fact, *secular *authorities burned heretics not the Church.
Here is an article from the Medieval scholar Thomas F. Madden:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. **For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

 

[Fiat]

Pastor Robert:

Sad that Mickey refuses to interact but that’s his liberty, I will not call for him to burn at the stake. As a gospel preacher I am not hiding the fact that I am committed to calling sinners of every creed and color to truly trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Regarding Lutherans, Anglicans and anyone else, yes even Baptists. If they teach any form of baptismal regeneration they teach heresy.

Baptism is an ordinance of the church that symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ but only the Holy Spirit alone actually brings it into existence. There is no efficacy in the water.

The texts speaking of believe and be baptised speak of the basis of salvation, faith and the evidence of it, baptism ie public confession of union with Christ. a step all true disciples are called to take.

RB

I have noticed many self-proclaimed believers state what you are stating here: (1) in order to enter heaven we must be born again; (2) being born again means having the Holy Spirit; (3) in order to have the Holy Spirit we must believe. Interestingly, St. Paul observes differently. In Acts 19, St. Paul comes to Ephesus and encounters people who the Bible specifically terms as believers. However, St. Paul notices that they do not have the Holy Spirit, in spite of the fact that holy scriptures specifically describes them as “believers.” St. Paul expresses his concern asking them if they had been baptized. Apparently, St. Paul believes that baptism was the normative means of acquiring the Holy Spirit. Because these disciples, these BELIEVERS had only been baptized with John’s baptism, St. Paul saw the need for them to receive baptism in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit did not come upon these “Disciples,” these “Believers” until they had been confirmed through the laying on of hands.

In Jesus and Mary

Fiat

 

[Eden]

Here are excerpts from Dave Armstrong on the subject of “baptismal regeneration”.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ215.HTM

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.
For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by (name removed by moderator)oured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle."

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From ed. by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224,230, pages 162, 165)

 

[Eden]

Pastor Robert:

I would like to hear you on some other topics.

Peter and the office of Pope
Mary the co-redemptrix
Purgatory

These things should keep us busy.

With sincerest regards

RB

Please start new threads for each of these topics.

 

[Eden]

Here are some Baptists on the subject of “baptismal regeneration”:

DALE MOODY (TWENTIETH-CENTURY BAPTIST)

“A baptismal hymn in Titus 3:4–7 is thelocus classicus on baptism in relation to regeneration . . . Baptism in relation to the whole process of salvation brings further focus on the primacy of faith. Another baptismal hymn found in 1 Peter 3:18–22 does indeed declare that, after the antitype of Noah’s flood, ‘baptism now saves’” (The Word of Truth, 466).

JAMES McCLENDON, JR (TWENTIETH-CENTURY BAPTIST)

“How can some gallons of water (and some words) make outsiders insiders, beget anew, banish sin, merge our lives with the risen One’s life, transmit God’s Holy Spirit? How can any rite admit, or convert, or identify, or endue?. . . It will not be enough to point out that it is God and not the Christian assembly, God and not the candidate, who does these things, for while in Scripture the believer, the community, Christ, and the Spirit are all depicted as active agents in baptism, Scripture also speaks of the baptismal act itself as effectual (cf. Luke 3:16, 1 Cor. 1:14ff, Acts 2:38, with 1 Pet. 3:21)” (Systematic Theology: Doctrine, 387)

R. BEASLEY-MURRAY (TWENTIETH-CENTURY BAPTIST)

“The rite of baptism is not only God’s appointed way of his either bestowing or confirming the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e., regeneration) and of our entering into the church of Christ, but it is also the means by which the new Christian testifies to having been born from above and converted to the Lord Jesus Christ” (Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration, 188).

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702word.asp

 

[Philthy]

Hello again! :tiphat:
Pastor Robert:

Enjoying the discussion folks.

Me too - lets try to keep it enjoyable
Pastor Robert:

Regarding the term ‘Romanism’ whilst a dictionary has no authority in my eyes regarding this matter I have no desire nor intent to offend. I guess the term ‘Popery’ is also not desirable so I’ll simply talk of RCism.

Catholic is the best term. Roman Catholicism seems like an oxymoron - just like “faith alone”
Pastor Robert:

Sad that Mickey refuses to interact but that’s his liberty, I will not call for him to burn at the stake. As a gospel preacher I am not hiding the fact that I am committed to calling sinners of every creed and color to truly trust in Christ alone for salvation.

We all agree in trusting in Christ alone - we just disagree on what that means exactly
Pastor Robert:

Regarding Lutherans, Anglicans and anyone else, yes even Baptists. If they teach any form of baptismal regeneration they teach heresy.

If you truly wish to reach people you should not pretend to have the authority to determine heresy, nor should you pretend to have the exclusive biblical interpretation on the topic. Much better to simply express your opinion for what it is - simply your opinion.
Pastor Robert:

Baptism is an ordinance of the church that symbolizes the believer’s union with Christbut only the Holy Spirit alone actually brings it into existence.There is no efficacy in the water.

Yes and no. Baptism is symbolic to the observers of it, but this is not it’s primary function. Certainly no public witness is needed. Just think about what the eunich said to Philip just before he got baptized: “Look, here is water. What is to keep me from being baptized?” Apparantly the absence of a crowd of “witnesses” to “profess his faith” was unecessary. Of course it is the Holy Spirit which effects regeneration in baptism - did you think Catholics thought differently? The water of baptism is A means of grace - and only because God has made it so.
Pastor Robert:

The texts speaking of believe and be baptised speak of the basis of salvation, faith and the evidence of it, baptism ie public confession of union with Christ. a step all true disciples are called to take.

Again, the “public confession” baloney doesnt add up when you consider all of Scripture and especially Philip and the eunich: remember - Philip, the only witness of the baptism, was immediately removed to Heaven. Sorry, you’ll get nowhere with that argument.
Pastor Robert:

I would like to hear you on some other topics.

Peter and the office of Pope
Mary the co-redemptrix
Purgatory

Focus on one thing at a time - its important. You haven’t even begun to defend your theology. In reality, we should have started with the basis of your faith - the Bible - and discussed why you(and I) believe it is the word of God, etc. But that’s OK, we can go there eventually.
Pastor Robert:
These things should keep us busy.

With sincerest regards

RB

Hey, by the way, you ignored my first post regarding “faith alone” - please comment if you can - if not I understand.

Phil

 

[MariaG]

Pastor Robert,

I decided to go and listen to CA to try to find out what you thought was poorly explained. I was slightly confused since on May 27, the topic was Mary, Mother of the Church. I continued on anyway but ran out of time in listening.

Do you remember about when in the program you were listening? I listened for 20 minutes into the program but had to stop. I did not hear anything about sola fides. If you could pin it down closer in time wise I and I am sure others could go and listen to the program and therefore have a more intelligent and interesting dialogue.

You said this morning. CA airs in the evening. Which program were you listening to? Was it Catholic Answers or a different one?

posted by Pastor Robert

I was listening to your radio broadcast this morning with interest. The issue of sola fides was introduced and I believe poorly answered in terms of the epistle of James.

Maria

 

[thessalonian]

Pastor Robert:

Enjoying the discussion folks.

Regarding the term ‘Romanism’ whilst a dictionary has no authority in my eyes regarding this matter I have no desire nor intent to offend. I guess the term ‘Popery’ is also not desirable so I’ll simply talk of RCism.

Dictionaries have no authority? Where do we go for a common understanding of the English language so that we can communicate? Does your Bible have word definitions in it or something? Most dictionaries call it derogatory or offensive so I think it’s pretty common knowledge accept to someone who uses it as a habbit like one who swears constantly. By the way I have an interesting question for you about english languages and translations. I’ll save it for later though. Looks like you have a few things in the hopper.

RCism. Well short for Roman Catholicism I suppose it is fine. Or RCC is okay as well. How about just C or Catholic.

I can tell your straight off you will win noone over with your method. It’s been tried on many boards by Protestants I have sparred with. But it does help our cause as you will misrepresent things and then when the light of truth is shown you will not acknowledge error.

Why do you suppose the NT writers neglected to put the words faith and alone together. 273 times the word faith is used and only once with the word alone. One time that will do you no good. James 2:24.

Blesssings

 

[michaelgazin]

Which is the greatest…faith, hope or love? In 1 Cor. 13:13, is Paul a little off?

James 2:22 says Abraham’s faith was completed by his works. If works are the *result *of a saving faith, then your saving faith is incomplete. James, in addition to his other explicit statements, says plainly that faith is *completed *by works. A faith without works is an incomplete faith. Can an incomplete faith save you? According to your theology, works are the result of faith, however according to the Bible, faith is not yet complete without works.

Paul seems to agree in Gal 5:6 “faith working in love,” or an alternate translation is “faith made effective by love.”

So, we clearly see from James that faith is completed by works. From Paul we see that faith is made effective by works of love. How much clearer can it be?

As C.S. Lewis said, focusing on faith or works to the exclusion of the other, is like thinking one blade of a scissors is more necessary than the other.

 

[DaveD]

Pastor Robert,

Nice to have you back! Here are links that will answer the questions you have asked. I suggest you read them, know them, and even buy and read a copy of the catechism. The arguments you presented are lacking in many ways and a good Catholic apologist will chop them down like wheat before the sickle. Here are common answers to common questions:

1. Justification and Sanctification
   http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-...ication&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=Justification+

http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-..._id=40952&query=Justification&SCOPE=EnglishUI

1. Baptism
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1262
2. Petrine Office
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Here is a link to the best book a person can buy on the Petrine Office. It is called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Every serious Christian should read this.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-2912028-1640718?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

1. Mary Co-Redemptrix
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm#969

Before you engage in any assault on Mary read this; St. Jerome’s refutation of any notions against the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother Written 303A.D.

cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

1. Purgatory
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1030

Here is a link to the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is Christianity 101. There is simply no way to argue against the faith without knowing this cover to cover. I suggest you buy a copy if you really want to debate Catholocism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Pastor Robert. I am a convert to the Catholic faith from a Southern Baptist Background. If you would like to discuss anything with me in detail send me a private messege and I will give you my e-mail address. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about why a Baptist would eventually become Catholic.

Peace be with you,

 

[DaveD]

Pastor Robert,

Something may be wrong with the links I gave for Justification. I had to click on them twice to get them to work right.

Here is the Vatican site. You can go there and search for justification and sanctification if you like.

www.vatican.va

 

[the_storygirl]

I agree that the differences between Protestant (the general view, anyhow) and Catholic interpretations of faith alone are very difficult to pin down and they still somewhat perplex me. But I think if Protestants approached the gospels more with an idea of getting theology from them we would come to an understanding with more speed. We often rely too heavily upon St. Paul, who, though I respect him very much, is obtuse, and I would be inclined to say that his writings require a historical as well as a careful biblical context.

The other thing I suppose we should remember is that because Protestantism declares that works are of no effect, Catholics often emphasize works over much in a reaction against it. Faith always has had a value above works in that it is the faith that gives the works any value; and the Protestant position is not so very different as any of us would like to believe, Protestants for the sake of the strength of sola fide and Catholics that they may actually address the issue without the entire conversation disintegrating into bickering, which seems to be what is happening here.

But since you bid me read Martin Luther, may I fill you in on what he wrote about the Blessed Virgin? I quote:
“… she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. … God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. … God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.” (Luther’s Works, American edition, Vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968). (Emphasis added.)

And really, would it not be more effectual to the edification of the body of Christ to have some other means of general profession of faith than to do something exceedingly stupid looking in front of everybody to show that you really, really mean it? Surely Baptism accomplishes more than that.

---