Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

My definition of regeneration is quite correct.

So it seems it's to be the second option then.

Except that what's in dispute here is not the definition of the word "regeneration," but of the phrase "baptismal regeneration." From here on out, let's all try to leave the goal posts alone, shall we?

Explain Biblically how an unregenerate person is saved without resorting to universalism and than we might be able to have a discussion.

An unregenerate person is saved by believing and being baptized.

[brothereicher]

My definition of regeneration is quite correct.

So it seems it's to be the second option then.

Except that what's in dispute here is not the definition of the word "regeneration," but of the phrase "baptismal regeneration." From here on out, let's all try to leave the goal posts alone, shall we?

No, I simply do not accept the crowdsourced definition in Wikipedia.

Here is what is said on the International Church of Christ Website:

"We believe anyone, anywhere who follows God’s plan of salvation in the Bible and lives under the Lordship of Jesus, will be saved. Christians are saved by the grace of God, through their faith in Jesus Christ, at baptism. "

https://disciplestoday.org/about-the-icoc/

I will concede that it includes some "God decides who will be saved" verbiage, but that is not what their message is. This is the classic definition of Baptismal regeneration. I will note that many in FOTW came out of ICOC. In my grad. school days, it would have beed generally called a cult. They have since cleaned up their act.

Here is the point. Without regeneration, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God, period. If you are saying that baptism brings about regeneration, than a person that has not been baptized in unregenerate. Explain Biblically how an unregenerate person is saved without resorting to universalism and than we might be able to have a discussion.

Baptism is commanded by Christ and the apostles.
Can a person be disobedient to Christ and be regenerated?

[Judas Maccabeus]

So it seems it's to be the second option then.

Except that what's in dispute here is not the definition of the word "regeneration," but of the phrase "baptismal regeneration." From here on out, let's all try to leave the goal posts alone, shall we?

No, I simply do not accept the crowdsourced definition in Wikipedia.

Here is what is said on the International Church of Christ Website:

"We believe anyone, anywhere who follows God’s plan of salvation in the Bible and lives under the Lordship of Jesus, will be saved. Christians are saved by the grace of God, through their faith in Jesus Christ, at baptism. "

https://disciplestoday.org/about-the-icoc/

I will concede that it includes some "God decides who will be saved" verbiage, but that is not what their message is. This is the classic definition of Baptismal regeneration. I will note that many in FOTW came out of ICOC. In my grad. school days, it would have beed generally called a cult. They have since cleaned up their act.

Here is the point. Without regeneration, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God, period. If you are saying that baptism brings about regeneration, than a person that has not been baptized in unregenerate. Explain Biblically how an unregenerate person is saved without resorting to universalism and than we might be able to have a discussion.

Baptism is commanded by Christ and the apostles.
Can a person be disobedient to Christ and be regenerated?

Can one who sins remain regenerated? 1 John 2:1-2 seems to say so…..

I would reply that the scripture clearly states that faith is the basis for salvation, that being faith that results in a changed life.

Great. That is the classic baptismal regeneration position, that is generally held by the Restoration movement. Glad we got that straightened out. So you do believe in baptismal regeneration.

I have no interest in repeating hours of research and writing here. The discussion with Mr. Miloni is well documented in Sword and Trumpet. I stand by what my associates and I wrote. If you are interested, read it there. I put many hours in that, and my position is clear.

Are Mike and Finney on the same page?

[brothereicher]

No, I simply do not accept the crowdsourced definition in Wikipedia.

Here is what is said on the International Church of Christ Website:

"We believe anyone, anywhere who follows God’s plan of salvation in the Bible and lives under the Lordship of Jesus, will be saved. Christians are saved by the grace of God, through their faith in Jesus Christ, at baptism. "

https://disciplestoday.org/about-the-icoc/

I will concede that it includes some "God decides who will be saved" verbiage, but that is not what their message is. This is the classic definition of Baptismal regeneration. I will note that many in FOTW came out of ICOC. In my grad. school days, it would have beed generally called a cult. They have since cleaned up their act.

Here is the point. Without regeneration, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God, period. If you are saying that baptism brings about regeneration, than a person that has not been baptized in unregenerate. Explain Biblically how an unregenerate person is saved without resorting to universalism and than we might be able to have a discussion.

Baptism is commanded by Christ and the apostles.
Can a person be disobedient to Christ and be regenerated?

Can one who sins remain regenerated? 1 John 2:1-2 seems to say so…..

I would reply that the scripture clearly states that faith is the basis for salvation, that being faith that results in a changed life.

Great. That is the classic baptismal regeneration position, that is generally held by the Restoration movement. Glad we got that straightened out. So you do believe in baptismal regeneration.

I have no interest in repeating hours of research and writing here. The discussion with Mr. Miloni is well documented in Sword and Trumpet. I stand by what my associates and I wrote. If you are interested, read it there. I put many hours in that, and my position is clear.

Are Mike and Finney on the same page?

I mean, I already said three or four pages ago that we believed in baptismal regeneration, so this isn't some stunning admission.

And I already said that Finny confirmed that our position matched the quote I gave from Wikipedia.

I realize that you like another definition better, and I can't speak to that. So let's just say that we believe in whatever that thing is that Wikipedia currently says is baptismal regeneration.

[ohio jones]

I have no interest in repeating hours of research and writing here. The discussion with Mr. Miloni is well documented in Sword and Trumpet. I stand by what my associates and I wrote. If you are interested, read it there. I put many hours in that, and my position is clear.

For those who may not have read this previously, or wish to refresh their memory, here's the discussion:
https://swordandtrumpet.org/baptismal-regeneration/

[Judas Maccabeus]

I have no interest in repeating hours of research and writing here. The discussion with Mr. Miloni is well documented in Sword and Trumpet. I stand by what my associates and I wrote. If you are interested, read it there. I put many hours in that, and my position is clear.

For those who may not have read this previously, or wish to refresh their memory, here's the discussion:
https://swordandtrumpet.org/baptismal-regeneration/

What is missing here is the article that was published, referred to herein that triggered this whole discussion. I footnoted said video, as I always do. Unfortunately, it is only available in print. It is way too long to post. It is a classic refutation of Stone-Campbell theology. Basically, our editors are asking them if they wish to respond to this article that would soon be published. Once again, I stand by both my article, and our editors response here.

There are enough copies in circulation for anyone who wishes to read this.

[Josh]

Which position does FotW hold?

“Baptism is required for salvation”.

vs

“It is possible for someone to be saved before they are baptised.”

See, in my denomination, the criteria for salvation isn’t unclear or ambiguous. Belief in Jesus’ offer of free salvstiin, and then a desire to accept that free gift, is all that is required to be saved. Baptism, church membership, following church teachings like nonresistance, regular church attendance, the head covering, etc., removing the radio from your car, or wearing modest clothes are NOT required to be covered by Jesus’ saving grace.

Of course, we think an obedient believer will eventually desire to be baptised. Just the same as an obedient believer stops wanting to tell lies or to intend to harm/kill others.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Which position does FotW hold?

“Baptism is required for salvation”.

vs

“It is possible for someone to be saved before they are baptised.”

See, in my denomination, the criteria for salvation isn’t unclear or ambiguous. Belief in Jesus’ offer of free salvstiin, and then a desire to accept that free gift, is all that is required to be saved. Baptism, church membership, following church teachings like nonresistance, regular church attendance, the head covering, etc., removing the radio from your car, or wearing modest clothes are NOT required to be covered by Jesus’ saving grace.

Of course, we think an obedient believer will eventually desire to be baptised. Just the same as an obedient believer stops wanting to tell lies or to intend to harm/kill others.

Our criteria are the same as yours. This is common for all conservative Mennonites.

[brothereicher]

Which position does FotW hold?

“Baptism is required for salvation”.

vs

“It is possible for someone to be saved before they are baptised.”

See, in my denomination, the criteria for salvation isn’t unclear or ambiguous. Belief in Jesus’ offer of free salvstiin, and then a desire to accept that free gift, is all that is required to be saved. Baptism, church membership, following church teachings like nonresistance, regular church attendance, the head covering, etc., removing the radio from your car, or wearing modest clothes are NOT required to be covered by Jesus’ saving grace.

Of course, we think an obedient believer will eventually desire to be baptised. Just the same as an obedient believer stops wanting to tell lies or to intend to harm/kill others.

I find the use of the phrase “removing the radio from your car” particularly interesting, as I don’t see that phrase anywhere in scripture.

[brothereicher]

Which position does FotW hold?

“Baptism is required for salvation”.

vs

“It is possible for someone to be saved before they are baptised.”

Once again, we believe that salvation is a process. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved.

So, I believe both statements above. Baptism IS required for salvation. "Baptism doth now save us." Baptism IS for the remission of sins.

But since the process of salvation begins prior to baptism in the same way that faith precedes baptism, one can be "being saved" while unbaptized.

But baptism is, and always has been the rite of initiation into the kingdom.