Yes, words do mean things, and the people who teach baptismal regeneration have been refining the meaning of the term for over a thousand years.
Baptismal regeneration doesn't mean what you say it means, and I think the people who believe in the doctrine are better suited to say what it means than its opponents are.
Even the poster child of baptismal regeneration, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't define baptismal regeneration as you are defining it.
Wikipedia defines is so: "Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it." (emphasis mine.)
You can argue that that's not what it really means, but you're arguing against the common use of the term, and words, after all, do mean things.
It's truly bemusing to watch someone insist that everyone who has developed, defined, and espoused a doctrine for centuries must now roll over and submit to what he says they are allowed to mean by it.
It reminds me of nothing so much as the classic exchange from Through the Looking-Glass:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that’s all.”
Of course, the present interlocutor one-ups even Humpty Dumpty, with an argument that amounts to "When you use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean..."
Terms DO have meaning. I am not going to stand by and let you alter standard definitions without pointing that out. Your friend is running down a clearly illogical argument.
Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion now.
You are seemingly under the impression that some people in this discussion think words don't mean things. That impression is mistaken.
What some people in this discussion do think is that your definition of baptismal regeneration is incorrect.
Instead of loudly repeating truisms we all agree with, wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of any word, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
I read the Sword and Trumpet debate, but it's been months.
Could you please share the quotes where MM said that someone not rightly baptized is lost and still in their sins? Because I don't recall him saying and that feels like something I would remember.
Words mean things. If one believes in baptismal regeneration it means that on who is not baptized is unregenerate, in otherwords outside of Christ. Words and theological terms have meaning, you do not get to change the definition to suit your need of the hour. I WROTE the opening article, and submitted replies for some of the others. IF one believes in baptismal regeneration, you believe one who is not rightly baptized is unregenerate. You do not have the privilege of twisting the English language. It is that by definition, you do not get to alter the definition to suit your needs.
Yes, words do mean things, and the people who teach baptismal regeneration have been refining the meaning of the term for over a thousand years.
Baptismal regeneration doesn't mean what you say it means, and I think the people who believe in the doctrine are better suited to say what it means than its opponents are.
Even the poster child of baptismal regeneration, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't define baptismal regeneration as you are defining it.
Wikipedia defines is so: "Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it." (emphasis mine.)
You can argue that that's not what it really means, but you're arguing against the common use of the term, and words, after all, do mean things.
I'd be careful about putting too much stock in what a C- Wikipedia article says the term means. Especially considering that since according to the article history the meaning has changed a number of times within the past twenty or so years, sometimes maintaining that baptismal regeneration is considered a heretical view, sometimes claiming that baptismal regeneration claims that salvation is impossible apart from baptism, and sometimes claiming that salvation apart from baptism isn't necessarily precluded. Or maybe that is what is meant when people say that the meaning of words changes over time...
It's truly bemusing to watch someone insist that everyone who has developed, defined, and espoused a doctrine for centuries must now roll over and submit to what he says they are allowed to mean by it.
It reminds me of nothing so much as the classic exchange from Through the Looking-Glass:
Of course, the present interlocutor one-ups even Humpty Dumpty, with an argument that amounts to "When you use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean..."
Terms DO have meaning. I am not going to stand by and let you alter standard definitions without pointing that out. Your friend is running down a clearly illogical argument.
Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion now.
You are seemingly under the impression that some people in this discussion think words don't mean things. You are mistaken about that. What some people in this discussion do think is that your definition of baptismal regeneration is incorrect.
Instead of loudly repeating truisms we all agree with, wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of words, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
Are you all saying that unregenerate people go to heaven? I am saying that is impossible.
It is the position that is being put forth here that they can that is both illogical and impossible.
John 3:3. John 3:3 KJV
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Born again or born from above is the very definition of regeneration.
So are you saying that people who are not born again are receiving eternal life? That would be the conclusion of saying that people who are not regenerate receive eternal life.
If there is some other way they are born again, I would invite you to show me. But saying unregenerate people are saved is universalism and universalism is heresy.
It's truly bemusing to watch someone insist that everyone who has developed, defined, and espoused a doctrine for centuries must now roll over and submit to what he says they are allowed to mean by it.
It reminds me of nothing so much as the classic exchange from Through the Looking-Glass:
Of course, the present interlocutor one-ups even Humpty Dumpty, with an argument that amounts to "When you use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean..."
Terms DO have meaning. I am not going to stand by and let you alter standard definitions without pointing that out. Your friend is running down a clearly illogical argument.
Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion now.
You are seemingly under the impression that some people in this discussion think words don't mean things. That impression is mistaken.
What some people in this discussion do think is that your definition of baptismal regeneration is incorrect.
Instead of loudly repeating truisms we all agree with, wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of any word, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
My definition of regeneration is quite correct. You do not seem to understand the implications of not being regenerate.
Salvation without regeneration is a contradiction in terms.
jahertz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:05 pm
wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of any word, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
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?
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:22 pm
Are you all saying that unregenerate people go to heaven? I am saying that is impossible.
It is the position that is being put forth here that they can that is both illogical and impossible.
Oh, if THAT'S what you thought someone said, no wonder you're worried.
Normally I try not to speak for others, but I do know for absolute fact that neither brothereicher nor anyone else in good standing with FOTW believes unregenerate people go to heaven. You're having this discussion with Christians, remember.
Now that we've got that cleared up, who wants a glass of cold kombucha before bed?
Last edited by jahertz on Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 4:56 pm
Words mean things. If one believes in baptismal regeneration it means that on who is not baptized is unregenerate, in otherwords outside of Christ. Words and theological terms have meaning, you do not get to change the definition to suit your need of the hour. I WROTE the opening article, and submitted replies for some of the others. IF one believes in baptismal regeneration, you believe one who is not rightly baptized is unregenerate. You do not have the privilege of twisting the English language. It is that by definition, you do not get to alter the definition to suit your needs.
Yes, words do mean things, and the people who teach baptismal regeneration have been refining the meaning of the term for over a thousand years.
Baptismal regeneration doesn't mean what you say it means, and I think the people who believe in the doctrine are better suited to say what it means than its opponents are.
Even the poster child of baptismal regeneration, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't define baptismal regeneration as you are defining it.
Wikipedia defines is so: "Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it." (emphasis mine.)
You can argue that that's not what it really means, but you're arguing against the common use of the term, and words, after all, do mean things.
I'd be careful about putting too much stock in what a C- Wikipedia article says the term means. Especially considering that since according to the article history the meaning has changed a number of times within the past twenty or so years, sometimes maintaining that baptismal regeneration is considered a heretical view, sometimes claiming that baptismal regeneration claims that salvation is impossible apart from baptism, and sometimes claiming that salvation apart from baptism isn't necessarily precluded. Or maybe that is what is meant when people say that the meaning of words changes over time...
That's a good point.
At any rate, the description I quoted is accurate to FOTW's beliefs. I shared the quote with Finny tonight and he confirmed that.
He said that he prefers not to use the term baptismal regeneration, due to it being a loaded term, and associated with ideas that the act in itself, without the accompanying requisite faith accomplishes something. He says that a preferred formulation would be "baptism for the remission of sins."
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 9:33 pm
Terms DO have meaning. I am not going to stand by and let you alter standard definitions without pointing that out. Your friend is running down a clearly illogical argument.
Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion now.
You are seemingly under the impression that some people in this discussion think words don't mean things. That impression is mistaken.
What some people in this discussion do think is that your definition of baptismal regeneration is incorrect.
Instead of loudly repeating truisms we all agree with, wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of any word, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
My definition of regeneration is quite correct. You do not seem to understand the implications of not being regenerate.
Salvation without regeneration is a contradiction in terms.
No one said that people can be saved without being regenerated. Believing that baptism is a means of regeneration doesn't mean that baptism is the ONLY means of regeneration. Romans says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Paul tells the jailor, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Peter says "baptism doth now save us."
So there's a lot of different things that we are told save us. And it makes sense to me that those are all part of the salvation process. God saves us through all those means. But it's to be expected that all of these elements are part of salvation. The jailor, for example, believed AND was baptized.
brothereicher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:54 pm. He says that a preferred formulation would be "baptism for the remission of sins."
I don't use the term baptismal regeneration myself, for the same reason. Defaulting to the terms Biblical authors use for a doctrine doesn't stop people from attacking it, alas, but at least it slightly raises the barrier to entry.
jahertz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:05 pm
wouldn't it be more to the point to cite a source or two to support your claim that your definition is the one generally accepted?
Unless of course you mean to argue that the definition of any word, like the definition of heresy, is whatever you "personally regard" it to be, full stop, enough said.
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. "
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.
