quote:
No. I disagree that the Roman Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration has been consistent overtime, especially just prior to and after Trent.
Can you demonstrate that the understanding of baptismal regeneration changed over time or are you just going to claim that?
quote:
In other words, the Church's position over time has not been consistent in what they mean by baptismal regeneration.
Aggie4Life. There is a difference between making an assertion and presenting an argument. Lately you've been making a lot of assertions but not making any arguments.
quote:
I believe there are some views of baptismal regeneration that are orthodox, but mistaken. i.e. some who claim baptismal regeneration also claim sola fide.
Which church father claims sola fide? Can you name them?
quote:
Question: Was Abraham justified before he was circumcised, or after?
Both. Justification is not a one time imputed event. In fact, the book of Genesis says that Abraham was justified at least three times.
Paul cites Abraham in Romans 4:3:
"For what does the Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." In this passage, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6 in order to show that Abraham was justified by faith and not circumcision (in order to refute the judaizers), for he was not circumcised until Genesis 17.
But Paul also refutes the evangelical interpretation, for it is apparent that Abraham was put into a condition of friendship with God by his first response to the call and promise of God narrated in Genesis 12:1. (Isaiah 41:8)
Abraham was justified in Genesis 12, before he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. There were many years, probably more than ten years, between his first mentioned demonstration of saving faith (Gen 12 and later quoted in Heb 11) and the subsequent declaration of righteous in Genesis 15. At what point did his faith save him? Or was it a process of faith and obedience?
quote:
Question 2: Was Cornelius regenerated before he was baptized, or after?
He was regenerated at his baptism. This is when he was 'born again of water and spirit.' Not before. He had faith before this and we can say that his justification began before this but he was not regenerated until baptism.
But Aggie4Life. I already know that
you disagree with the constant teaching of the church on baptism. This isn't the point.
The point is that you call the Catholic Church an apostate church because it doesn't agree with you on the 'essentials.' As demonstrated by Zwingli's quote about baptismal regeneration this means that you must also believe that the early church in its entirety was also apostate.
For some reason you are not able to anathematize the church fathers. Yet your only response has been to make several assertions not grounded in any evidence.
It seems like you
need to believe that the church fathers did not teach baptismal regeneration for some reason. Why?
Let me help direct you. This question was recently asked on Puritan Board on
this thread. You may know that Puritan Board is an all Reformed website. One must prove that they submit to the Reformed confessions in order to join. There are many seminarians and clergy who participate there.
Read that link. You’ll note that Charlie Johnson, of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, asks the same question that I am asking. Note the responses. These are all learned Reformed people. None of them are able to produce anything.
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 7/10/2009 9:29a).]
