What does it mean, this birth from the word of God?

[Xeno.of.athens]

That makes it a translation from the Greek.

And the Latin "sacramentum" makes it an erroneous translation of the Greek mysterion.

Honestly, an eye-rolling emoticon is needed ...

How many times need it be said that we're talking about a Latin word?

 

[Clare73]

Honestly, an eye-rolling emoticon is needed ...

How many times need it be said that we're talking about a Latin word?

Agreed. . .we are talking about a Latin word (sacramentum) which is a mistranslation of the Greek (mysterion) it is translating.

The correct translation of the Greek mysterion into Latin is mysterium, not sacramentum, as Jerome translated it in the Latin Vulgate.

You are aware that Jerome translated the Greek Scriptures into Latin, correct?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed. . .we are talking about a Latin word (sacramentum) which is a mistranslation of the Greek (mysterion) it is translating.

Sure, sure, and you are better at Latin than saint Jerome was.

 

[Clare73]

Sure, sure, and you are better at Latin than saint Jerome was.

Jerome has a monopoly on Greek and Latin?

The koine Greek scholars of today are just window dressing?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jerome has a monopoly on Greek and Latin?

The koine Greek scholars of today are just window dressing?

Well, are you a koine Greek scholar then?

 

[Clare73]

Well, are you a koine Greek scholar then?

Are you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Those who would argue, "But baptism is performed by human beings" as an objection to it being God's work and power are implying that God does not, or cannot, work through visible, tangible, and even human agency involved. Case in point: Is the Gospel the word of the preacher, or the word of God? It is called the word of God in Scripture, because it is God who speaks in the Gospel. Yet by the same principle as to deny baptism as the work and power of God one denies that the Gospel is the word of God when it is preached by human beings. When Sts. Peter and John came upon the beggar who could not walk, they said, "Silver and gold we do not have, but what we have is this: In the name of Jesus Christ, get up and walk" Was the beggar healed by Peter and John, or was the power and work God's, who worked through Peter and John?

At best, this denial of the sacramental is a rejection that God works through means, which contradicts the whole of Sacred Scripture in which God, consistently, is at work through means to accomplish His purposes, through people, places, and things; His entire involvement throughout the history of redemption. From Moses' encounter with the burning bush, to the bronze serpent, to the miracles and words of the Prophets, etc.

But at worst this is a Gnostic or Manichaean rejection of the good material world, and God as Sovereign Creator and Sustainer, who works through His creation for the good He wills and purposes. It is a rejection and denial of the Incarnation, in which God Himself is united with material creation, becoming human in the womb of Mary, for our salvation, a denial of His atoning death, and the power of His resurrection to heal, restore, and save us. Taken in extremis, it becomes a denial of the Gospel, a denial of our salvation, a denial of the Incarnation, and a denial of the Good Creator God. Fortunately we rarely see it taken this far. But some, in history, certainly did.

But what remains is still a denial of the biblical testimony of God's work and power through means. A denial of the sacramental ultimately means a denial of Scripture, and Scripture itself being discarded as essentially worthless. After all, if God does not work through means, then what do we do with the Bible? A collection of writings written by human beings--if God does not work through means, then we cannot call the Bible the word of God, but only the words of men. It means we deny that Scripture is living and powerful, that it is only the inklings of men who have long since died. And, tragically, again, many have succumbed to this farce.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you?

No, I'm not attempting to correct Saint Jerome's Latin, either. It seems you've lost your way; I believe. Why not become a scholar of Latin and Greek and create a new Vulgate?

 

[Clare73]

Acts 8:37 textually is not in our earliest manuscripts. Therefore, not canonical Scripture. I will not comment.

I see where this conversation is going.....well, what about this and what about that......and more what about this and that.... and more and more and more about what about this and that. What did Paul say to Timothy...."study and show yourself approved unto God." Work the problem.

Looks pretty much like what we are doing. . .which process you seem to reject.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Looks pretty much like what we are doing. . .which process you seem to reject.

Well, if you want verse 37 to be inspired scripture okay, get ye to a KJV!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Amen.

God commands His Church to baptize. (Law)
God works through baptism to accomplish His gracious power and give His gifts. (Gospel)

It is because God works through baptism to accomplish His gracious power and give His gifts that it is a sacrament, not a mere ordinance. To call it an ordinance is to deny God's sacrament of its grace and power.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes. Baptism is a Christological event from start to finish. Today I will work on an apologia on Romans 6 for Baptists and American Evangelicals and publish tomorrow.......meanwhile I'll watch the fireworks

 

[Clare73]

Those who would argue, "But baptism is performed by human beings" as an objection to it being God's work and power

That is not the argument here.

The argument is the correct translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin, which is mysterium, it is not sacramentum.

 

[Clare73]

Well, if you want verse 37 to be inspired scripture okay, get ye to a KJV!

Verse 37 is not in my Bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jerome has a monopoly on Greek and Latin?

It is appearing more and more that your problem is that you just don't like the word "sacrament".

I mentioned the word "Trinity" earlier. A word not found at all in the Bible. You don't have a problem with it.

Regardless of what Jerome did or didn't do, the Latin-speaking Christians have been using the word "sacramentum" to speak of certain things. The ideas contained in the word and concept of "sacrament" are entirely biblical. The presence of the word in the New Testament is simply irrelevant.

The sort of argument you are trying to make is fundamentally no different than when a Jehovah's Witness thinks they are being clever by saying, "Show me the word 'Trinity' in the Bible".

The word "sacrament" has historic theological meaning, and that meaning is is biblical and apostolic. God works through means.

That you, personally, don't like that is irrelevant. And that is really the only argument you have, you've simply been dressing it up to make it appear like it's something else.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is not the argument here.

The argument is the correct translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin, which is mysterium, it is not sacramentum.

That's something you want to linger on. But it is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

No, I'm not attempting to correct Saint Jerome's Latin, either. It seems you've lost your way; I believe. Why not become a scholar of Latin and Greek and create a new Vulgate?

Lost my way because of what Jerome did--mistranslated the Greek mysterion as sacramentum, instead of mysterium?

Who lost their way?

I'm still on the way of the meaning of the Greek in the Latin, where sacramentum is not the meaning of the Greek mysterion.

 

[Clare73]

It is appearing more and more that your problem is that you just don't like the word "sacrament".

I mentioned the word "Trinity" earlier. A word not found at all in the Bible. You don't have a problem with it.

Trinity is not a translation of any word in the Bible.

The issue here is translation. . .of the Greek mysterion into Latin,
where Jerome made an error in his translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin sacramentum,
when the correct translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin is mysterium.

The relevance of the argument is
first of all, correctness of language and concept, and
secondly, correctness of doctrine.

There is no sacramentalism in the NT.
There are outward signs/symbols of actual spiritual facts; e.g.,
baptism being a sign/symbol of what happened as a result of the believer's faith; i.e.,
through rebirth and faith we are united with Christ, just as through our natural birth we are united with Adam.
And as we fell into sin and became subject to death in Father Adam,
so now through faith we have died to sin and been raised again to live a new life in Christ--which baptism symbolizes.

Baptism does not effect one's spiritual death to sin and resurrection to new life--saving faith does that,
rather baptism illustrates, symbolizes these spiritual realities effected by saving faith.
True faith is not denied spiritual death and resurrection in Christ because one is not baptized.
As circumcision was the sign which identified one as in God's people, so baptism is the sign which identifies one as in the body of Christ (Col 2:11-12).

 

[Clare73]

That's something you want to linger on. But it is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

And therein is the problem. . .

The NT Scriptural existence of "sacrament" is the discussion.

"Sacrament" is an addition to the NT text, nowhere found in the Greek manuscripts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Sacrament" is an addition to the NT text, nowhere found in the Greek manuscripts.

That might be because it is a Latin word and not a Greek word.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Trinity is not a translation of any word in the Bible.

The issue here is translation. . .of the Greek mysterion into Latin,
where Jerome made an error in his translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin sacramentum,
when the correct translation of the Greek mysterion into the Latin is mysterium.

The relevance of the argument is
first of all, correctness of language and concept, and
secondly, correctness of doctrine.

There is no sacramentalism in the NT.
There are outward signs/symbols of actual spiritual facts; e.g.,
baptism being a sign/symbol of what happened as a result of the believer's faith; i.e.,
through rebirth and faith we are united with Christ, just as through our natural birth we are united with Adam.
And as we fell into sin and became subject to death in Father Adam,
so now through faith we have died to sin and been raised again to live a new life in Christ--which baptism symbolizes.

Baptism does not effect one's spiritual death to sin and resurrection to new life--saving faith does that,
rather baptism illustrates, symbolizes these spiritual realities effected by saving faith.
True faith is not denied spiritual death and resurrection in Christ because one is not baptized.
As circumcision was the sign which identified one as in God's people, so baptism is the sign which identifies one as in the body of Christ (Col 2:11-12).

If the HS uses ink and paper to bring a person to faith, He can use water, ink and paper to bring a person to faith.