I just found this. Finally !!
Did the Early Church fathers really teach bapstismal regeneration?
Part 1
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/17/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt1/
Part 2
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/24/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt2/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Doesn't it seems strange that it has take 500 years for Mr.Kauffman to come along?
Maybe it is like E.P. Sanders, a protestant, coming along after centuries and proving Paul was addressing Jewish nationalism and not Pelagianism,huh?
There is probably some good analysis somewhere deep in some old books; or maybe even newer books, but I just have not found them. (There is a lot to continue to learn in these areas.)
Guy Fawkes,
If you read part 3, which was posted today, you'll find that both Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian explicitly state that baptism is merely an outward sign and seal of a regeneration that is already presumed to have taken place in the heart, mind and soul.
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/31/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt3/
Those statements have existed for almost 2,000 years. They are not new statements—just statements overlooked by Rome in its haste to find the Roman Baptismal Font in every Patristic reference to "laver," "regeneration," "baptism," "water," and "washing."
Enjoy,
Tim Kauffman
Hi Ken.
Just curious if you agree with Mr. Kauffman's articles?
In Him,
Joe H
K5,
Rather than wading through the tomes written on Baptismal regeneration by the Fathers ( or on Mary as new Eve, the Papacy, merit, prayers for the dead or to the saints, etc. )why don't we just apply the rule of Sola Scriptura? Titus 3:5 pretty much nails it. So do Our Lord's words to Nicodemus. Baptism saves,regenerates,justifies us.
Hi Joe, (Joe H.)
Are you Joey Henry?
If you are, I appreciate your articles on justification and and discussions I have seen (If this is the same person) on Called to Communion.
So far, as far as the Baptismal Regeneration articles, yes, as far as I understand them; I agree with them.
I have not read much else; but some - there are some other very interesting ones that I want to study more. Some stuff is very new to me.
I want to find the time to go through the 3 Baptismal regeneration articles more in depth and looking at the context of each passage.
Hi Ken.
No, I am not Joey Henry.
Just another Joe H who has followed the blog and commented here and there.
Okay, so perhaps you have not had time to see the quotes in context yet and evaluate Tim's claims...and your agreement is perhaps more of a desire and hope that they are correct, and not really because of the actual arguments.
in Him,
Joe
Hi Guy.
"Rather than wading through the tomes written on Baptismal regeneration by the Fathers ( or on Mary as new Eve, the Papacy, merit, prayers for the dead or to the saints, etc. )why don't we just apply the rule of Sola Scriptura? Titus 3:5 pretty much nails it. So do Our Lord's words to Nicodemus. Baptism saves,regenerates,justifies us."
As a Lutheran convert from Reformed, though I agree scripture does more than implicitly teach bapt regeneration/renewal/forgiveness of sins and is not simply an empty symbol...there certainly can be much benefit to studying what the church has taught through the ages on the matter.
in Him,
Joe
"Rather than wading through the tomes written on Baptismal regeneration by the Fathers ( or on Mary as new Eve, the Papacy, merit, prayers for the dead or to the saints, etc. )why don't we just apply the rule of Sola Scriptura? Titus 3:5 pretty much nails it. So do Our Lord's words to Nicodemus. Baptism saves,regenerates,justifies us."
The solid exegesis of these articles refutes your claim.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/12/06/a-brief-rebuttal-of-baptismal-regeneration-vintage/
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/baptismal-regeneration-justification.html
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/john-3:5---part-i
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/john-3:5---part-ii
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/acts-2:38
the above was for Guy Fawkes.
Joe H. - thanks for that. I want to read them again and study them more deeply, but from what I saw - yes I read them over once; they seem right to me.
Time is a challenge.
Ken
Another refutation of Guy Fawkes claim:
Exegesis of Titus 3:5
http://vintage.aomin.org/NotByWorks.html
Joe,
I remember you now. We already hashed out the issue between us at earlier articles I wrote on Baptismal regeneration.
I think that combox had the most ever. James Swan can verify if so or not.
Let's not go there again.
I do not know exactly how relevant this patristic quote is on the baptismal regeneration debate, but I still think this to be interesting:
“And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water, as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied, forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver [baptismal font], which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.”
Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (254-257 A.D.)
Post a Comment