Trinity is not a translation of any word in the Bible.
I see you are already missing the point.
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.
You made it about this. As a tangent. But the conversation in this thread is about regeneration viz-a-viz God's word. You objected to baptism being brought up in relation to regeneration. Then you objected to the use of the word "sacrament" asking where "sacrament" was found in the Bible.
This introduced a tangent about you wanting to find the word "sacrament" in the Bible. Our friend
@Xeno.of.athens showed that the word is found in the Latin translation.
In response to this you have been hyper-focused on claiming that this is a mistranslation of the Greek word mysterion.
This tangent of yours about St. Jerome's translation choice is between you and Xeno, and your insistence that that Jerome is wrong.
I have not commented on the Vulgate, or St. Jerome's translation choices. So bringing that up with me, as though I have been having this tangential debate about Latin translation of the New Testament, is engaging in a straw man argument with me--I haven't commented on or addressed that topic.
The relevance of the argument is
first of all, correctness of language and concept, and
secondly, correctness of doctrine.
No, it is irrelevant. Because whether Jerome translated myterion as sacramentum or not wouldn't change anything as it pertains to the sacraments themselves, the concept which "sacrament" describes, and the theology and significance of God having tangible means of grace. It is, entirely irrelevant in that regard.
There is no sacramentalism in the NT.
There very much is. Not only is it all throughout the New Testament, it is all throughout the Old Testament as well.
That's because sacramentalism is the idea that God graciously works through tangible means. And that's EVERYWHERE in the Bible.
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.
Except, of course, that isn't what the Bible says. The Bible never mentions baptism as a "sign/symbol of what happened as a result of the believer's faith". You can't find a single place in the Bible that says that. Because it's not there.
There's what the Bible actually says, in its own words. Which isn't what you're saying here. This is irrefutable.
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).
Again, the Bible does not say that. You are adding your own opinions and doctrines to the word of God. There's what the Bible actually says, which isn't what you're saying here.
The Bible says that one is born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5). The Bible says that we are united to Christ's burial, death, and resurrection by baptism (Romans 6:3-4). The Bible says that we are clothed with Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27). The Bible says that we cleansed by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26). The Bible says that that baptism now saves us (1 Peter 3:21).
That's what the Bible actually says. And your hammering and hawing to the contrary isn't going to change a single jot or tittle of what is written in God's Holy Word.
-CryptoLutheran
