Sattler College Turmoil

[Judas Maccabeus]

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

Brothereicher, does this mean that FOTW does not hold to the same concept of baptismal regeneration that Church of Christ has?

I'm not familiar enough with CoC to say for sure.
But if CoC is saying that everyone is damned who doesn't receive baptism in a specific mode, then FOTW does not teach that.

But clearly they DO believe in baptismal regeneration, which means that those who have not been baptized as believers are not in a right relationship before God, and is not regenerated. Regeneration is the action that makes one a child of God, or the same as being "born again" They therefore teach that someone not rightly baptized is lost, and still in their sins.

PLEASE do not try and claim otherwise. I am one of the authors involved in the dialog with Mr. Miloni in Sword and Trumpet. I KNOW WHAT HE WROTE.

I personally regard that position as heretical, full stop. Enough said.

[brothereicher]

Brothereicher, does this mean that FOTW does not hold to the same concept of baptismal regeneration that Church of Christ has?

I'm not familiar enough with CoC to say for sure.
But if CoC is saying that everyone is damned who doesn't receive baptism in a specific mode, then FOTW does not teach that.

But clearly they DO believe in baptismal regeneration, which means that those who have not been baptized as believers are not in a right relationship before God, and is not regenerated. Regeneration is the action that makes one a child of God, or the same as being "born again" They therefore teach that someone not rightly baptized is lost, and still in their sins.

PLEASE do not try and claim otherwise. I am one of the authors involved in the dialog with Mr. Miloni in Sword and Trumpet. I KNOW WHAT HE WROTE.

I personally regard that position as heretical, 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 that, and that feels like something I would remember.

He does say that spiritual life begins with the work of the Spirit.

"Jesus gives a helpful analogy: baptism is the new birth. Is birth the beginning of life? No. Conception is. Similarly faith is the beginning of our Christian journey but baptism is the last step of the process to initiate the Christian life. Faith is to conception as baptism is to birth. Your question presumes that salvation happens at one point in time, as opposed to the biblical view of salvation beginning as a composite process, a cluster of three tightly linked conditions–faith, repentance, and baptism."

It's hard to read this and believe that the person writing it thinks a person is damned prior to baptism, unless one believes that salvation happens at a moment in time.

We know that Saul's (later, named Paul) sins weren't washed away before Ananias came, because he tells him "arise and be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord." I can't imagine anyone would argue that Saul would have been damned to hell had an errant 18-wheeler chariot had crashed through the house before Ananias arrived. And yet, his sins had not yet been remitted.

And if you'll argue that God would keep that from happening because he sees Saul's heart and desire to receive baptism, I'll say the same about everyone else between believing and baptism.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm not familiar enough with CoC to say for sure.
But if CoC is saying that everyone is damned who doesn't receive baptism in a specific mode, then FOTW does not teach that.

But clearly they DO believe in baptismal regeneration, which means that those who have not been baptized as believers are not in a right relationship before God, and is not regenerated. Regeneration is the action that makes one a child of God, or the same as being "born again" They therefore teach that someone not rightly baptized is lost, and still in their sins.

PLEASE do not try and claim otherwise. I am one of the authors involved in the dialog with Mr. Miloni in Sword and Trumpet. I KNOW WHAT HE WROTE.

I personally regard that position as heretical, 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.

[brothereicher]

But clearly they DO believe in baptismal regeneration, which means that those who have not been baptized as believers are not in a right relationship before God, and is not regenerated. Regeneration is the action that makes one a child of God, or the same as being "born again" They therefore teach that someone not rightly baptized is lost, and still in their sins.

PLEASE do not try and claim otherwise. I am one of the authors involved in the dialog with Mr. Miloni in Sword and Trumpet. I KNOW WHAT HE WROTE.

I personally regard that position as heretical, 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.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

I haven't read the whole argument back and forth in S&T, but even I can see the nuance in FotW's position in this sentence alone. It seems to clearly mean that salvation is granted to those who have faith, repent, and are baptized; but that it is only a REFUSAL to participate in the process that would result in a lack of salvation, not in an incidental lack of participation. For example, someone who has faith but is killed before baptism would be saved, but someone who professed faith and then said "but I am not going to be baptized, no way!" may not be saved.

[jahertz]

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.

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..."

[Josh]

The obvious question is that if baptism isn’t required for salvation… then what on earth is “baptismal degeneration”? Do you get saved a second time? Are all your sins committed between when you were regenerated by being born again and believing, and baptism, washed away?

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, being it is “crowdsourced. This definition has an “out” whereby someone can indeed be saved without baptism, but as your crowdsourced definition says, that people do not necessarily believe that salvation is impossible without baptism, but you really do not want to use that “out”. Baptismal regeneration means that a person is regenerated, or made new in Christ through the act of baptism subsequent to faith. It means what it means and that is what it means. People that are not regenerate do not enter the kingdom of God. The only exception is if you are teaching universalism, which some that teach baptismal regeneration do. In that case, the unregenerate do enter the kingdom, as well as everyone else. Do you know what regeneration is, in a theological context? Are you a Sattler grad, at which point, you should know what regeneration means.

This is not Alice in Wonderland. Words have meaning. The meaning of regeneration is the act of God whereby a person is made new through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is that which brings about a new life in Christ. If you hold that unregenerate people are saved, you are teaching that regeneration is unnecessary to enter the kingdom on the last day.

So which is it? One is not saved unless they are baptized, or everyone is saved.

Choose wisely. I am on the road and do not have access to my notes, but this is so obvious I can give you this off of the top of my head.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

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.

[Judas Maccabeus]

We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

I haven't read the whole argument back and forth in S&T, but even I can see the nuance in FotW's position in this sentence alone. It seems to clearly mean that salvation is granted to those who have faith, repent, and are baptized; but that it is only a REFUSAL to participate in the process that would result in a lack of salvation, not in an incidental lack of participation. For example, someone who has faith but is killed before baptism would be saved, but someone who professed faith and then said "but I am not going to be baptized, no way!" may not be saved.

So you think by putting out that doctrine, and publicizing it, they are condemning more people that are saved if they do not submit to it, than they are saving people who do?

Better to stop teaching it, if that is your logic.

This is insane.