"Dr. Iain Provan lectures on his book The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture. With responses by Christopher Cleveland, Steven Wedgeworth and Alastair Roberts,"
Many Protestants will say that John 3:5 is not about baptismal regeneration but rather regeneration in the sense of some sort of “born again” moment/experience. The Church Fathers unanimously understood John 3:5 as referring to baptismal regeneration. Many Protestants will deny that John 6 (eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood) is about Eucharist. The Church Fathers are nearly unanimous that John 6 is about the Eucharist. Why should I think that Calvin, Melanchthon, Luther, Zwingli, Simons etc. got scriptural interpretation/hermeneutics right but that the apostolic fathers, Irenaeus, Cyril, John Chrysostom, Basil, Nyssa, Photios, etc did not get it right (that for 1500 years they were just not correctly understanding scripture)?
You obviously didn't read the reformers on those text. They agree and quote the fathers on these. Calvin notes that "water" in John 3 refers to the work of purification as "fire" does for judgment. But the reformers agree with the fathers on this.
@@valentincolasMangeon Notice I said most Protestants. Other than Lutherans and High Church Anglicans, which Protestants believe in baptismal regeneration?
@@phillwithskill1364 Explain what you mean by baptismal regeneration ? If, by regeneration, you mean "ex opere operato infusion of an habitus" then neither the fathers, anglicans nor lutherans believe in this. If you mean that baptism is the visual sign of regeneration and that by that sign God truly confer by his Spirit the regeneration of the soul then almost all historical protestantism (lutheran, reformed and anglican) says that. The Westminster Confession says that. Origen and Augustine also. The main difference between protestants and catholics on baptism is not in baptismal efficacy but in the scope of this efficacy. Catholics believe that baptismal grace is efficacious AND that we can lose it by mortal sin. Protestants believe that baptismal grace is efficacious and endures all life long. See : www.reformation21.org/articles/infant-baptism-and-the-when-of-baptismal-grace.php
@@phillwithskill1364 I've written in French on this matter : parlafoi.fr/2018/11/14/regeneration-baptismale-et-presbyterianisme-reponse-au-bon-combat/ You can translate it with Deepl or Google
@@valentincolasMangeon So which Protestants would say all of the following: (a) One is “born again” at baptism. (b) Baptism is necessary for salvation (with few exceptions). (c) You must be baptized to enter into the Kingdom. Saying that baptism is the “visual sign of regeneration” is different from saying that baptism confers regeneration. I don’t know any Protestants who turn baptism into a “once saved always saved” sort of ritual
