Engaging the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Baptist-Catholicism

Being raised in a typical American-baptist church, I heard the message of decisional regeneration proclaimed as the gospel. Scripture condemns this false gospel. I was shocked to see how similar it is to the Catholic doctrine of salvation – thus I have coined it such… but this is not particular to baptist only, but is an interdenominational lie.

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Greetings! Saw your post in Google Blogsearch and came to read.

    Interesting video. While I agree that decisional regenration is unbiblical, I disagree with the speaker on baptismal regeneration as I find that clearly supported by both the Old and New Testaments.

    The speaker kept mentioning baptismal regeneration with “the 1800’s” and I’m at aloss for his context. Baptismal regeneration has been the constant teaching of the Christian Church since the apostles. In addition to the scritures, there are dozens upon dozens of surviving historial documents by the earlly Christian CHurch and most present the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Thus I am curious as to his repeated mentioning of “the 1800’s”

    Thanks for linking to eSword. I do the same.

    God bless…

    +Timothy

    October 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm

  2. commissioned2serve

    I would contend with you, timothy. I would urge you to return to Scripture and pray the LORD to show you your error. It is not a slight one. To say decisional regeneration is unscriptural, yet baptismal regeneration is, is fallacious. They are both built upon the false understanding that man must do something to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. This is in exact contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ (see John 3 for example), and the words of Paul (Romans 3-6).
    I do believe you are in grave error. A doctrine so fundamental as regeneration is not one to accept a variety of interpretations.
    To be regenerated by a prayer, by baptism, by mass, by anything other than The efficacious grace of God is a works salvation – thus unbiblical. I do not say you do not have proof texts, as nearly every doctrine under the sun can find a proof text in Scripture to use to prop itself up, we have Mormon’s, JW’s, Catholics, etc who say they are Biblically based religions.
    Works salvation is another gospel.
    I appreciate you post, and your viewing this blog.
    Here is a link I would recommend to you, or anyone else who would like further reading.

    http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html

    May The LORD open your heart to the error of works-regeneration, and give you the grace to shun it and embrace what is clearly emphasized in His Word.

    October 12, 2008 at 1:04 am

  3. >”They are both built upon the false understanding that man must do something to be regenerated by the Spirit of God.”

    No, I think the error is on your part. Yes, we are saved by God’s grace alone. However, there is absolutely no limitation on God as to by what means God may impart that saving grace. God is free to use ordinary water to impart His grace and regeneration. God is just as free to point His “finger” at a pigmy in remotest jungle and remove all sine and regenerate the pigmy’s soul without baptism, faith, works, or even having heard of Jesus (Salvation is by grace alone).

    I find sufficient evidence in both the Old Testament (Noah) and the New Testament (Paul) that God does use baptism as a means to impart His saving grace. I have found nothing in your post or your reference to change a doctrine long held and taught by the Christian Church.

    I think your error stems from trying to break down salvation by grace into a timeline and deciding that one thing “occurs” before another, when God is outside of time and all things are occuring at the same time. For example, while we are exchanging these words, Christ is still in the upper room instituting the Eucharist, Christ is also carrying His cross up Calvary, Christ is also rising from the tomb. Once one stops trying to see things according to the man-made construct of time, much of the Bible falls into place.

    >”Here is a link I would recommend to you, or anyone else who would like further reading. http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html

    No, thanks. As popular as the aomin guys are, they h ave some significant errors. I just as soon avoid their ilk. For example, in his discussion of 1 Peter 3:21 and its reference to Noah, James White misses that God used water to cleanse and regenerate the earth. That’s what Peter was writing about in 1 Peter 3:21. I’m less than impressed with James White’s apologetic against baptismal regeneration.

    >”May The LORD open your heart to the error of works-regeneration, and give you the grace to shun it and embrace what is clearly emphasized in His Word.”

    In like charity, may The LORD open your heart to your errors, and give you the grace to shun them and embrace what is clearly emphasized in His Word.

    God bless…

    +Timothy

    October 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  4. commissioned2serve

    It matters not what you think, but what God’s Word says. Yes, God is free to by grace, regenerate a man however He chooses, but Scripture tells us how that happens, and it is clearly not by baptism, or any other work.
    As for your statement “God is just as free to point His “finger” at a pigmy in remotest jungle and remove all sine and regenerate the pigmy’s soul without baptism, faith, works, or even having heard of Jesus (Salvation is by grace alone).” God says it is by the preaching of the gospel that men are brought to Christ. That they cannot believe on Him whom they have not heard, read Romans. Your ideas are man made. You use the Bible to support your ideas, but you derive your ideas of God from outside the Bible.
    It is true that God can do whatever He wants, but God’s Word tells us what He does. For you to take the truth of God’s freedom to act, and then apply that in a directly contradictory way to Scripture is wrong. And then to use Scripture to attempt to support your heresy is Satanic. – see Matthew 4.

    In your initial post you said, “While I agree that decisional regenration is unbiblical, I disagree with the speaker on baptismal regeneration as I find that clearly supported by both the Old and New Testaments.” yet in your second post you said, “However, there is absolutely no limitation on God as to by what means God may impart that saving grace. God is free to use ordinary water to impart His grace and regeneration.” You contradict yourself.
    you are very kind in your communication to me, and I a appreciate that. As lovingly as i can I will say you are wrong, and from the evidence you have given, your views of soteriology are unscriptural.
    Your interpretation of the Noah account and I Peter 3 is incorrect. The water was the destroying judgement, the ark was they type of slavation for them. The ark is the typification of salvation, not the water.

    Grace is not bestowed by works, but by grace alone.
    You are wrong, sir. And in direct contradiction to Scripture.

    May The LORD be glorified.

    October 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s