Judy wrote: Regeneration by baptism is NOT a scriptural teaching. dm: This statement seems rather arrogant to me. Surely you must understand that very good students of the Scriptures have held to regeneration by baptism. For example, Martin Luther believed it.
jt: Something is either true or it is not and in this case it is not. Luther was taught in the RC system and it didn't all fall away overnight. I wouldn't believe the same way as Luther about other things also. The Jews being one. dm: Luther was a champion of saved by grace through faith alone, yet he believed in baptismal regeneration. Are you seriously going to say that Martin Luther's teaching on this matter was not from the Scriptures? jt: If he taught baptismal regeneration, yes I would say that. dm: There are literally millions upon millions of Christians throughout the ages who have considered regeneration in baptism to be Scriptural. Besides Roman Catholics, the Lutherans teach it, the Anglican church teaches it, the Eastern Orthodox churches teach it, the Stone-Campbell restoration churches teach it, such as the churches of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ. I can understand if you have a disagreement and interpret the Scriptures differently, but let's not get so arrogant that we claim that it is NOT a Scriptural teaching. jt: I don't believe it is arrogant to allow the Holy Spirit to lead me into ALL truth David and on this issue the truth I see in the scriptures is that baptism in itself symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and it is the combination of faith in this DBR and repentance that cleanses the conscience. dm:: The variances of understanding of baptism and its role in regeneration all stem from the Scriptures. All the viewpoints have their basis in Scripture, jt: The above statement can not be true David. This is where the confusion comes in. The RCC are about as bad as the Mormons in adding their tradition and peculiar views to the Word of God and like DaveH they also claim that they have their basis in Scripture. dm: some emphasizing certain Scriptures over others, and some, such as your viewpoint, tend to out right deny that certain passages in the Bible should be read exactly as they are written (e.g., 1 Peter 3:20-21). jt: It's OK to read it exactly as it is written but you should understand that Peter wrote it with the cross in mind, that is the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter wrote that Paul said some things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) but Peter was in agreement. The scriptures do not contradict themselves and all scripture must be interpreted in the light of other scripture - rather than in the light of tradition and/or dead orthodoxy. So... 1 Peter 3:21 must be understood in the light of the following: Colossians 2:11 Romans 6:3-8 Galatians 3:27 Grace and Peace, Judy ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
