Yuku free message boards

I've reflected some more on how to get people to best understand the Methodist position on how Baptism is linked to Regeneration and Justification (since I am so lousy at articulating it). It isn't instant Regeneration (as with the Catholics and Orthodox), you know, the moment water is applied, one becomes regenerated. As I study the overall Methodist position more, I see that it is more complicated than that, but while it departs from the Catholic/Orthodox position, it is markedly different from the Baptist position.

In that book I gave you, there is an in-depth explanation, (pages 71-74).
Peace in Christ,

Evan

I don't have to love my neighbor as myself, because it would be a work, and that is contrary to salvation by Grace alone?

I believe in salvation by Grace alone. However, the early Christians felt very differently about this issue than much of Christendom does today. Baptism is a mystery, and we cannot separate it from the Christians Regeneration.

www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm

Justification and Baptism?, 25 Jan 03 by Rufus

What do you think about the following article? Stay with it, it gets interesting toward the climax! Rufus (:>)

BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS IS JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
J. S. SWEENEY

THE advocates of the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins have no trouble in finding many passages of Scripture that not only seem to teach it in their most natural meaning, but also seem incapable of any other honest interpretation. Some passages teach so expressly, and others by fair and seemingly unavoidable inference. And it is clear, also, that those who deny this doctrine labor under a felt difficulty in their efforts to dispose of these passages.

It comes within the purpose of this article merely to recite the most of the passages that are nearly always brought into the discussions of the doctrine in hand.

Mark 1:6: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Luke 7:29: "All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of him." [391]

John 3:5: "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."

Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Rom. 6:3, 4: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Eph. 5:25, 26: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

Tit. 3: 5: "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

1 Pet. 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us."

These passages, just as they read in the Common Version of the Scriptures, seem to teach baptism for the remission of sins about as clearly as anything else is taught, in the New Testament; and, indeed, as clearly as anything could be taught [392] in language. So that if they do not put the matter beyond question, it is simply because it is impossible for language to do so. Moreover, the result of translation and criticism of these passages, which the controversy has given rise to, has not in the least weakened the cause of the advocates of the doctrine, while it is more than sustained by the history of the church in all ages.

What, then, the question naturally arises, is the reason this doctrine is so earnestly opposed by so many Protestants, and its advocates counted as unevangelical for holding it? It is not unreasonable that a new doctrine, sustained only by questionable inferences from Scripture and analogical reasoning, should be opposed; but why should one, taught in every century of the church's history, taught expressly in the Scriptures, and sustained by the fairest inferences from Scriptures and the strongest analogies, be so generally counted unevangelical by so large a portion of Protestant Christians? It will be attempted in this brief paper to show what the difficulty is.

The doctrine of "justification by faith" has been so conspicuously and so generally taught by Protestants since the Lutheran Reformation that it has come to be styled "the great doctrine of the Reformation," and is made a sort of test of Protestant orthodoxy; so that whatever teaching or practice seems to conflict with justification by faith is, for that reason, condemned. Nor is this [393] doctrine to be questioned in this article. It is certainly Protestant and as certainly a New Testament doctrine. This being herein assumed and so generally received and insisted on, it becomes needless to recite any of the many passages that so teach. And here it is that the trouble with which the Disciples of the nineteenth century, who have conspicuously taught baptism for remission, have had to contend, has arisen. In the estimation of many, "baptism for remission of sins" seems to conflict with "justification by faith." Hence the former is condemned as untrue. The argument against it that is really most potent is substantially about this: Whatever teaching conflicts with justification by faith is unscriptural; but the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins does so conflict, therefore the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins is unscriptural. It may be justly said that no one has ever discussed the doctrine of baptism for remission, negatively, without experiencing much difficulty in disposing of the Scriptures adduced in its support, even to his own satisfaction. This is not meant to apply, of course, to the ignorant and bigoted partisan, but to the scholarly and fair-minded Protestant. But may not both doctrines be Scriptural? Is there any such conflict, when both are fully understood, as is generally assumed? Men are apt to see conflict too soon. Many truths have been condemned, on this ground, that were really [394] in harmony with all other truths, the only difficulty being that the harmony was not seen. This weakness of men has been developed in all departments of investigation. And this fact should cause men to think.

Now, there are two conceivable methods of justifying a sinner. Justification by law is entirely out of the question. No sinner can ever be justified by mere law. It is the nature of law to approve the obedient and condemn the sinner. It will be admitted that, should any one render perfect obedience to law, he would be just. He would be just before the law, but not a justified sinner. He would be approved before the law, because he had not violated it. Should any one render perfect obedience to moral law, he would be just before God. But this is not the kind of justification the New Testament treats of. The justification of a sinner, or one condemned by law, is the problem it grapples with. So that justification of a sinner by law is not conceivable. Justification by works is one method. The Jews supposed that in the ceremonial works of their law there was something really meritorious or compensative in its nature, affording the worker somewhat of merit or compensation to set over against his sins, to go to his credit against past delinquencies. Such works were called "works of righteousness." Romanists had at the time of the Reformation, and some have yet possibly, some such notion of works of penance. [395] This, as was said, is a conceivable method of justifying a sinner. It assumes for the works done a meritorious and compensative character. The works of the Jewish law had a value as types and shadows of good things to come, which they mistook for a real intrinsic value. This mistake led them to lay hold of the shadow and reject the substance; to hold on to the type and reject the antitype. This was the difficulty with which the apostles, and Paul most conspicuously, had to contend. Justification by this method was justification without Christ. It rejected Christ, who, in fact, gave all the value to them that there was in all the gifts and sacrifices of the law of Moses. This was what was in the mind of Paul when he excluded "deeds of the law," or "works of righteousness," from justification; holding that whoever would be justified by the deeds of the law merely, would be profited nothing by Christ.

The other, which is the New Testament method, is one of grace, mercy, pardon. It justifies one who is condemned by law, and has nothing he can do or offer as a compensation. It is, therefore, opposed to the method of work. The condemned sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified freely by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and all ground of boasting save in the cross of Christ is excluded. By His death Jesus procured justification, bearing therein Himself the sins of the world. But the question meets us here, Why is justification on this [396] method of grace, or mercy, said to be by faith? This is so because faith is the means by which we appropriate and enjoy that which was procured by the sacrifice of Christ. Faith is not a work of merit, or of righteousness, in the sense before indicated. Faith takes hold of Jesus and His sacrifice, and rests in Him. Faith lays hold of and claims the grace of God in Christ Jesus. "Therefore," says the apostle, "it is of faith that it might be by grace." Faith lays hold of and appropriates what only the death of Jesus could procure. Faith is itself, in one sense, a work. It is a work of the mind. But it is not a work of the kind that the apostle excludes from justification. It has in it no idea of merit or compensation, but exactly the opposite--that of trust in and reliance upon another. For the same reason, also, deeds of faith are not excluded from justification. Not only so, but they, like faith, are necessary to justification. Deeds of faith partake of this character. Indeed, they are but faith expressed, or actualized. Baptism is simply an act of faith. It is that act under the gospel in which faith first actualizes or expresses itself. It is, therefore, of faith, and in all proper classifications belongs on that side. So the apostle Paul classifies it in the following passage: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3:5). Here, "works of [397] righteousness" are set on the one side, and baptism on the other; these excluded from our salvation, and the other connected with it. Baptism is an act of faith, and not only does not belong with works of righteousness, but is exactly opposed to them. Now, that baptism is, under the gospel, that act in which faith becomes an actuality and is expressed, is quite clear to the unbiased mind from the commission of our Lord to the apostles, and from their practice under it; but for the benefit of another class of readers, it may not be amiss to cite here a few extracts from an eminent and a standard theologian, with those who advocate justification by faith as opposed to baptism for remission of sins--Richard Watson:

"The design of this institution . . . was to express faith in Christ, on the part of those who were to be baptized" (Watson's Dictionary, p. 130).

"To the covenant in this new form he also requires a visible and formal act of acceptance, which act, when expressive of the required faith, makes us parties to the covenant, and entitles us, through the faithfulness of God; to its benefits: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'" (Institutes, p. 622).

Again, commenting on 1 Pet. 3:21, he says:

"It is thus that we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he [398] was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith in order to the remission of sins" (Institutes, p. 624).

Moral law is addressed to the moral sense in man, and obedience thereto is morality; while positive law is addressed to faith in man, and obedience is piety. Adam was put under positive law in the garden, when the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. There was no apparent reason why that fruit should not be eaten, only that God had forbidden it. This was, therefore, a trial of Adam's faith, a test of his piety. And so it was in the case of Abraham, when he was commanded to offer up his son Isaac. When he obeyed God in the thing that doubtless, to him, seemed not good, that seemed even to conflict with moral law, with the law of nature; when he obeyed God in the thing commanded, his faith triumphed gloriously; "and the scripture was fulfilled which with, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness" (Jas. 2:23). And Abraham was made the example and father of the faithful. We are justified now on the same principle that Abraham was. His faith was made actual, "made perfect," by doing the thing God commanded: our faith is made perfect by doing what Jesus has commanded us. Faith may express itself differently; that is, in different acts, that being [399] varied by what is commanded. But the principle is the same. We are justified on precisely the same principle that Abraham was. He believed God, perfected or actualized his faith in doing what God commanded him, and was justified. We believe, now, our faith is expressed or perfected in doing the things God has commanded us, and we are justified.

Our faith in the Lord is brought out in doing just what He had commanded. The sinner now who seeks to be justified has not to offer Isaac, or to bring his gift to the altar, but to be baptized. Baptism without faith is nothing. It has in it no merit or compensation for justification. It is what it is because it is expressive of faith in the Lord. He who believes and will not be baptized has not actual, living faith. His faith is as an idea unexpressed; it is dead, thing unborn, being alone.

But one is ready to say, What of the person who believes, but, being honestly in error as to baptism, fails to do what the Lord has commanded--fails really to be baptized Perhaps no one is authorized to say what of such a one. He certainly fails to express his faith in the Lord's appointed way. That, indeed, is assumed in the case; it would not be safe to say that he does not express faith at all, if he does what he honestly thinks the Lord has commanded. The case is a supposable one, it is true, but not one upon which [40 any man is authorized to speak, only to deliver his opinion. It is generally held that one is not guilty of crime unless he has intentionally done what is criminal. One obeys the law when he intentionally does what it requires, and disobeys it when he intentionally refuses to comply with its requirements. The case supposed falls under the head of neither obedience nor disobedience of the Lord. It is a case wherein there was a good intention resulting in a wrong action. It is a case, therefore, not justly to be tried in the court of law, but falls more properly into the divine equity, and that is a court mortals are not licensed to practice in.

But extraordinary cases do not set aside a general rule, and we should not lose time on them. The fact is, however Abel, or Abraham, or anybody else before Christ, or during His personal ministry, might have expressed his faith, the commissions make it the duty of the believer to be baptized. Baptism, therefore, is simply actualized faith. Baptism for remission of sins is justification by faith. Baptism is faith acting and appropriating justification to the believer. And hence the seeming conflict between baptism for the remission of sins and justification by faith is only a seeming one; and the two classes of passages in Scripture, which have to some seemed somewhat in conflict, are in fact in perfect harmony. [401]

www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm

These are the writings of early, devout, Godly Christian men. They reflect the beliefs of the time. You should honestly read it, and give it some serious consideration.

would it be more likely to influence you than if only a few said it? Early Christianity overwhelmingly believed water Baptism was tied to Regeneration.

Regardless of who posted the quotes, they are legitimate quotes. The Apostles had disciples. Yes! And they believed what Christ taught.

Baptism is no more a work, than repentence is a work. Baptism is a MYSTERY, which we cannot truly understand. Also, even if I did not quote the early Christians, I can quote from GOD HIMSELF, in Mark 16:16, and John 3:5.

Is repentance a work? Is it opposite of salvation by faith alone? If so, one need not repent in order to be saved.

Baptism is a mystery, and I am content with that.
May Christ's love be with you,

Evan