Shared altar / pulpit

[Bonnie]

I am posting as if I was a non believer, and attempting to draw out both you and Bonnie into expressing the process of LCMS baptism in a less liturgical manner. As she first wrote it, it seemed to me that the actions in the ritual were paramount, therefore, baptism, especially on an infant, was an action that conferred grace.

Neither of you mentioned the important prepositional phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" and the purpose that Peter stated 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "

No, I am not attempting to be pedantic or play the (Mormon-inspired) game of "Say the magic words.", because that is very rude, and I would ask similarly pointed questions if Bonnie's hubby was a CARM poster.

Therefore I am asking questions for understanding, and not attacking anything.

We did not mention it because it is so obvious. But good point. Though we have stated that while we perform the sacrament of Holy Baptism, it is God who effects the forgiveness of sins through the water WITH the Word--"In the Name of the Father..." etc.

No, my husband has never been on CARM.

 

[Bonnie]

For Mike, now 1 Peter 3--I already did this earlier on here but here is is again:

17 For it is better, if [m]God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the [n]spirit; 19 in [o]which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the [p]water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism NOW saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [q]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

"Brought safely THROUGH the water." The waters of the deluge drowned the disobedient in all the earth, and Noah and his family alone were saved. So, while the waters drowned the disobedient, it supported the ark, in which 8 people and all the animals lived.

SO, corresponding to this--the 8 people being safely brought through the water, baptism NOW SAVES YOU. It doesn't wash dirt from our bodies, but enables us to appeal to God for a good conscience. What would give us a good conscience? The forgiveness of sins, so that we will be blameless before God in Christ Jesus our Lord. SO, that is how baptism "NOW SAVES US." There is no way around what this verse means. BAPTISM SAVES....THROUGH the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How does Christ's resurrection save us? Here is Romans 6:

6 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [a]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old [c]self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be [d]done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is [e]freed from sin.

8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, [f]is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

So, what does it mean when we have been buried with Him in the likeness of His death? When Jesus died on the cross, our sins "died" with Him. That means our sins are forgiven through His atoning death. Sins dead and buried in Holy Baptism=forgiveness of sins. SO, just as Christ rose from the dead to new life, so in Baptism do WE have the forgiveness of sins and are raised to new life in the spirit, just as Christ was raised to new life in a glorified, resurrected body.

Now, one more, from Galations 3:

22 But the Scripture has shut up [ah]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

What does it mean to be "clothed with Christ"? It means HIS perfection/righteousness is credited to us by faith in Him. That means we have forgiveness of sins THROUGH Him, when we are baptized INTO Him.

Now, let me make one thing clear: we believe that we receive God's grace though word AND/OR Sacrament. Baptism is one means; the Lord's Supper is another. And believing the Gospel message (word) is yet another. Also, the HS isn't limited to HOW or WHEN He comes to us; He can do so prior to Baptism, as He did with Cornelius et. al. when they began to believe Peter's message, but also AFTER Baptism, as He wills it, as He did with those at Pentecost. It is His call.

 

[Bonnie]

Finally, Ephesians 5:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself... (NASB 1995)

"Water" here in Greek is "hudor." "Gospel" is "euaggelion" if I am reading it correctly. (I don't know the proper declensions of these words as used in the text.). Now, if Paul had meant being washed by the Gospel, then why did he write "hudor" (don't know what the declension would be)? Also, he wrote "washing of water WITH the word." Isn't "word" in Greek "logos"? So, what would this "logos" be? One could make the argument that it means "In the Name of the Father...." etc., as Jesus commanded us to Baptize at the end of Matthew. OR it could be the Gospel message itself. Also, Baptism is the Gospel of grace in a nutshell; the recipient is having Baptism done to him/her. The reception of the forgiveness of sins in Baptism is entirely passive; it is something granted to us by Jesus Christ THROUGH water WITH the word. It is NOT a work that we do at all, but entirely the work of God, the forgiveness of sins by this means of grace.

So, yes, we can see clearly from God's actual word that A. Baptism saves us by connecting us to Jesus' resurrection, B. we have forgiveness of sins in Baptism, since our sins are buried with Jesus in Baptism, and we are raised to new life in Him, our sins forgiven, and C. in Holy Baptism, we "put on Christ" which means our sins are forgiven in Baptism and His righteousness is credited to us as our own, for we have none of our own to boast about.

Now, was this enough context for you?

 

[John t]

These are YOUR words, Mike:

Mike McK said:

And I've shown you that Acts 2:38 uses the word "eis", which indicates that baptism follows the forgiveness of sins, and Acts 22:16 uses the word "epikalesamenos", which indicates something that forgiveness of sins has already happened.

There is no element of time attached to eis because it is a preposition, and not a verb. If you doubt my saying that, please provide evidence using a lexicon such as Liddell and Scott, or a Greek grammar such as Dana and Mantey, cutting and pasting your evidence. That cannot be done. Here is proof:

A. T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36).

In addition, J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04).​

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"

In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

www.christiancourier.com

J. H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94).​

​

​

Wm. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven ... Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).​

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"

In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

www.christiancourier.com

You wouldn't have lasted five minutes in my seminary classes.

You can insult me all you want, edit, but what I said is both true and grammatically correct.

No insults given in my post there, except in your imagination, and the ones you gave me because you messed up big time. But now you are "doubling down" and insisting that your error is correct. That is not a trivial matter. I say that because The words of Scripture are the very words of God; He spoke, and His servants wrote exactly as He wanted. To say differently is to make Scripture into Jabberwocky. Therein lies my passion for accuracy in dealing with Scripture in the original languages.

 

[BJ Bear]

I am posting as if I was a non believer, and attempting to draw out both you and Bonnie into expressing the process of LCMS baptism in a less liturgical manner. As she first wrote it, it seemed to me that the actions in the ritual were paramount, therefore, baptism, especially on an infant, was an action that conferred grace.

Neither of you mentioned the important prepositional phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" and the purpose that Peter stated 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "

No, I am not attempting to be pedantic or play the (Mormon-inspired) game of "Say the magic words.", because that is very rude, and I would ask similarly pointed questions if Bonnie's hubby was a CARM poster.

Therefore I am asking questions for understanding, and not attacking anything.

Ok, I went back and looked at your previous exchange with Bonnie. The question about "dry cleaning" is vague and since you are asking about the LCMS view here is an additional one that is LCMS specific. It is a view asserted by one of their dogmaticians, Pieper.

There is no substitute for water in baptism. What occurs in baptism is all gift or grace through a promise on account of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Lord. Among those promises are the forgiveness of sins, being clothed with Christ, etc. This means baptism into Christ as law is out, as are the extra Biblical notions of a baptism of desire, or of blood, etc.

I'm not LCMS but that is a very brief summary from memory. If anyone is interested in more expansive and detailed information then it is from a section on baptism in his four volume dogmatics.

 

[BJ Bear]

These are YOUR words, Mike:


There is no element of time attached to eis because it is a preposition, and not a verb. If you doubt my saying that, please provide evidence using a lexicon such as Liddell and Scott, or a Greek grammar such as Dana and Mantey, cutting and pasting your evidence. That cannot be done. Here is proof:

A. T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36).

In addition, J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04).​

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"

In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

www.christiancourier.com

J. H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94).​

​

​

Wm. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven ... Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).​

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"

In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

www.christiancourier.com

No insults given in my post there, except in your imagination, and the ones you gave me because you messed up big time. But now you are "doubling down" and insisting that your error is correct. That is not a trivial matter. I say that because The words of Scripture are the very words of God; He spoke, and His servants wrote exactly as He wanted. To say differently is to make Scripture into Jabberwocky. Therein lies my passion for accuracy in dealing with Scripture in the original languages.

Thanks for the Mantey reference. I have a tendency to fly by the seat of my pants relying on memory.

Re eis in Acts 2:38, you could also add Robertson's own view that the intended meaning isn't strictly a matter of grammar.

 

[BJ Bear]

True. There are elders there that can help keep the pastor in line. I actually know of only one such case, when we lived near Philadelphia. There was an elderly retired pastor and his wife who were members of our church. The wife told me that her husband was once an interim pastor for a church in the east. The pastor that had been there had left to become a military chaplain, but she told me that he nearly ruined the congregation before he left. She said he was childish and excommunicated people from the congregation for trivial reasons and had a bad temper. HOW someone like that became a minister is beyond me. I don't know if he was young or what, but I think he was. Anyway, from what I remember, his elders tried to keep him in line, but eventually, he left and the lady's husband became interim pastor for a couple of years. When this church got a nice new young pastor, whom we know and were friends with, he had his work cut out for him, trying to heal the membership. He visited all of the excommunicated members to hear their story and managed to convince some of them to return. The church gradually returned to normal.

But this is rare, in my opinion.

Yes, rare indeed. I've been hanging around for a while now and I've never seen it.

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, rare indeed. I've been hanging around for a while now and I've never seen it.

Just an FYI--the interim pastor's wife never mentioned names. Just told me what happened.

 

[Mike McK]

Awe, the heretic card.

Baptism saves…by the washing of water with the word.

No, it doesn't. That verse isn't even about baptism.

1Pe 3:21(NKJV) There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism…Heretic!

It's no less dishonest of you to take that snippet of a verse out of context edit

A sacrament imparts divine grace.

Yeah, that's why we have ordinances, and not sacraments.

 

[VDMA]

No, it doesn't. That verse isn't even about baptism.

It's no less dishonest of you to take that snippet of a verse out of context edit

Yeah, that's why we have ordinances, and not sacraments.

The problem with false teachings from Calvin and Zwingli, is not that its “logical”, but that it misuses logical syllogism to overthrow scriptural teachings (e.g. false doctrines on baptism, Holy communion, “once saved always saved”, etc.).

No baptism doesn’t save!! But see look what St. Peter clearly stays “baptism now saves you”…No it doesn’t!!

I posted a thread with all the biblical references to Holy baptism. What are all you the verbs doing in the baptismal passages, is it something we do for God or is it something God does for us.


EDITED

IMAGE VIOLATIONS: PERMITTED ONLY FOR SUPER MEMBERS

 

[Mike McK]

The problem with false teachings from Calvin and Zwingli, is not that its “logical”, but that it misuses logical syllogism to overthrow scriptural teachings (e.g. false doctrines on baptism, Holy communion, “once saved always saved”, etc.).

And the problem with false teachings from you and the other heretics in this thread is that it's not Biblical.

 

[VDMA]

And the problem with false teachings from you and the other heretics in this thread is that it's not Biblical.

You’ve been taught wrongly. You’re probably wrestling with the fact and realization that you’ve been taught heterodoxy by those whom you look up to and taught you. I understand why you’re lashing out with the heretic card. It’s a tuff pill to swallow, edit per mod

 

[Mike McK]

You’ve been taught wrongly.

So, the plain reading of God's Word and 2,000 years of orthodox Christian scholarship is wrong, but you've got the answer?

No thanks.

You’re probably wrestling with the fact and realization that you’ve been taught heterodoxy by those whom you look up to and taught you. I understand why you’re lashing out with the heretic card. It’s a tuff pill to swallow, edit

Saved by grace through faith, and not of works isn't heterodox. It's the Gospel.

 

[VDMA]

So, the plain reading of God's Word and 2,000 years of orthodox Christian scholarship is wrong, but you've got the answer?

The fact you can’t produce a single Church Father or Council should raise a red flag.

The entire church throughout history believed in baptismal regeneration and the only ones to deny baptismal efficacy were the anabaptists of the reformation who were largely heterodox or even Heretical in their doctrines. All the church fathers (Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by Apostle John) affirmed it. Every council that spoke of baptism affirmed it, and, what's more, a straightforward reading of the baptism passages also teaches baptismal regeneration.

I can produce ALL the church fathers and Councils you can produce ZERO.

Saved by grace through faith, and not of works isn't heterodox. It's the Gospel.

Awe, the go to text for non-sacramentals.
Modus operandi for non-sacramentals is to use biblical text that have nothing to do with baptism to try to disprove the biblical view of baptismal regeneration. Holy Baptism is God’s word… Extra Nos (Outside Ourselves).

If you going to argue for the biblical view of baptism you need to use passages that are talking about baptism.

Ephesians chapter 2 has nothing to do with Baptism.

Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Lutheran are certainly not antinomian. The role of works do plays a role in the final judgement. Scripturally, there is a judgment according to demonstrative works. Just read the Apology of the Augsburg confession or 1 corinthians, etc. but are not the cause of salvation.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession: art. xx, par. 91

89 The adversaries also add references to their own condemnation, and it is worthwhile to provide several of them. They quote from 2 Peter 1:10, “Be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.” Now you see, reader, that our adversaries have not wasted any effort in learning logic, but have the art of concluding whatever pleases them from the Scriptures. For they conclude, “Make your calling sure by good works.” Therefore, they think that works merit the forgiveness of sins. This is a very nice way of thinking, if one would argue this way about a person whose death sentence had been pardoned: “The judge commands that from now on you stop stealing from others. Therefore, you have earned the pardon from the punishment, because you no longer steal from others.” 90 To argue in this way makes a cause out of no cause. Peter speaks of works following the forgiveness of sins and teaches why they should be done. They should be done so that the calling may be sure, that is, should they fall from their calling if they sin again. Do good works in order that you may persevere in your calling, in order that you do not lose the gifts of your calling. They were given to you before, and not because of works that follow, and which now are kept through faith. Faith does not remain in those who lose the Holy Spirit and reject repentance. As we have said before (Article XII 1), faith exists in repentance.

91 They add other references that make no more sense. Finally, they say that this opinion was condemned a thousand years before, in Augustine’s time. This also is quite false. For Christ’s Church always held that the forgiveness of sins is received freely. Indeed, the Pelagians were condemned. They argued that grace is given because of our works. 92 Besides, we have shown above well enough that we hold that good works should follow faith. “Do we then overthrow the law?” asks Paul. “On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31), because when we have received the Holy Spirit through faith, the fulfilling of the Law necessarily follows. Patience, chastity, and other fruit of the Spirit gradually grow by this love.

A baptized saint who is living by faith is capable and able to do good works and they do good works. A baptized saints lives in daily repentance and by faith.

 

[Mike McK]

The fact you can’t produce a single Church Father or Council should raise a red flag.

The fact that you never asked me to, and then claim I can't do something you never asked me to do is
EDIT RULE 12 VIOLATION

 

[BJ Bear]

The fact you can’t produce a single church Fathers or Council should raise a red flag.

The entire church throughout history believed in baptismal regeneration and the only ones to deny baptismal efficacy were the anabaptists of the reformation who were largely heterodox or even Heretical in their doctrines. All the church fathers (Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by Apostle John) affirmed it. Every council that spoke of baptism affirmed it, and, what's more, a straightforward reading of the baptism passages also teaches baptismal regeneration.

I can produce ALL the church fathers and Councils you can produce ZERO.



Awe, the go to text for non-sacramentals.
Modus operandi for non-sacramentals is to use biblical text that have nothing to do with baptism to try to disprove the biblical view of baptismal regeneration. Holy Baptism is God’s word… Extra Nos (Outside Ourselves).

If you going to argue for the biblical view of baptism you need to use passages that are talking about baptism.

Ephesians chapter 2 has nothing to do with Baptism.

Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Lutheran are certainly not antinomian. The role of works do plays a role in the final judgement. Scripturally, there is a judgment according to demonstrative works. Just read the Apology of the Augsburg confession or 1 corinthians, etc. but are not the cause of salvation.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession: art. xx, par. 91

89 The adversaries also add references to their own condemnation, and it is worthwhile to provide several of them. They quote from 2 Peter 1:10, “Be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.” Now you see, reader, that our adversaries have not wasted any effort in learning logic, but have the art of concluding whatever pleases them from the Scriptures. For they conclude, “Make your calling sure by good works.” Therefore, they think that works merit the forgiveness of sins. This is a very nice way of thinking, if one would argue this way about a person whose death sentence had been pardoned: “The judge commands that from now on you stop stealing from others. Therefore, you have earned the pardon from the punishment, because you no longer steal from others.” 90 To argue in this way makes a cause out of no cause. Peter speaks of works following the forgiveness of sins and teaches why they should be done. They should be done so that the calling may be sure, that is, should they fall from their calling if they sin again. Do good works in order that you may persevere in your calling, in order that you do not lose the gifts of your calling. They were given to you before, and not because of works that follow, and which now are kept through faith. Faith does not remain in those who lose the Holy Spirit and reject repentance. As we have said before (Article XII 1), faith exists in repentance.

91 They add other references that make no more sense. Finally, they say that this opinion was condemned a thousand years before, in Augustine’s time. This also is quite false. For Christ’s Church always held that the forgiveness of sins is received freely. Indeed, the Pelagians were condemned. They argued that grace is given because of our works. 92 Besides, we have shown above well enough that we hold that good works should follow faith. “Do we then overthrow the law?” asks Paul. “On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31), because when we have received the Holy Spirit through faith, the fulfilling of the Law necessarily follows. Patience, chastity, and other fruit of the Spirit gradually grow by this love.

A baptized saint who is living by faith is capable and able to do good works and they do good works. A baptized saints live in daily repentance and by faith.

To add to the two thousand pound elephant in the small room:

Even those heretics and others who delayed baptism did so because it regenerates, saves. The reason they delayed it was because of the misunderstanding that the forgivrness of sins omly applied to prior sins or that it only absoled original sin. Therefore dome people delayed it as long as possible.

 

[VDMA]

The fact that you never asked me to, and then claim I can't do something you never asked me to do is just more dishonesty on your part.

Find one Church Father or Council that supports mere symbolism…just one. I’ll give you a hint. Fact: There is none.

I will wait patiently as you frantically run to Google. Oh Google please help me. 🙏🏻 Alexa how many Church Fathers taught mere symbolism. You mean not one supports my possession. You mean all supported and taught baptismal regeneration.

Well I must be smarter than those ancients.

———

Just curious do you think a St. Augustine, Ignatius, Polycarp…are heretics? 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Mike McK]

Find one Church Father or Council that supports mere symbolism…just one. I’ll give you a hint. Fact: There is none.

Clement of Rome: “Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356): Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.

Chrysostom (349-407): For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.

Chrysostom (349-407): “For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” Homily on Galatians 3.9-10. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: “God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: “For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

There are many more, but since the challenge was to name one, this is sufficient.

I will wait patiently as you frantically run to Google. Oh Google please help me. 🙏🏻 Alexa how many Church Fathers taught mere symbolism. You mean not one supports my possession. You mean all supported and taught baptismal regeneration.

See above. Incidentally, your snotty attitude is why this will probably be my last post to you.

Just curious do you think a St. Augustine, Ignatius, Polycarp…are heretics? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Not at all. Just you, Bonnie, Nic, and "BJ."

 

[VDMA]

Clement of Rome: “Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356): Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.

Chrysostom (349-407): For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.

Chrysostom (349-407): “For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” Homily on Galatians 3.9-10. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: “God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: “For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

There are many more, but since the challenge was to name one, this is sufficient.



See above. Incidentally, your snotty attitude is why this will probably be my last post to you.

Not at all. Just you, Bonnie, Nic, and "BJ."

Nice try but none of those references have anything to do with baptism. Same modus operandi but this time with the Church Fathers. I don’t think you’re picking up what I’m throwing down, baptism is not a work, it’s Extra Nos (Outside Ourselves).

Now can you just please reference only that which has to do with Holy Baptism only. Please! 🤦🏻‍♂️ Kyrie eleison! Christe Eleison! Kyrie eleison! Christe eleison!

You realize St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom…etc, taught baptismal regeneration…right?

All church fathers and councils taught Baptismal regeneration.

 

[Mike McK]

Nice try but none of those references have anything to do with baptism.

Not my problem. I posted them because of what they do say, not because of what they don't say.

Now can you just please reference only that which has to do with Holy Baptism only.

No. When you go into court, you don't get to insist that the other side show only the evidence you approve of.

Neither do you get to tell me what evidence I can show.

All church fathers and councils taught Baptismal regeneration.

Except the ones I cited.