PDA

View Full Version : Jo 3:5 - Born of Water and the Spirit



RogerW
May 13th 2007, 05:39 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

DSK
May 13th 2007, 06:11 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

It happens supernaturally, instantaneously, and monergistically. God alone is active in bringing it about. No one is able to assist in bringing forth any sort of birth. Thats why it's called being "born"

RogerW
May 13th 2007, 07:03 PM
It happens supernaturally, instantaneously, and monergistically. God alone is active in bringing it about. No one is able to assist in bringing forth any sort of birth. Thats why it's called being "born"

Certainly can't disagree with that! That explains being born of the Spirit. Could you comment on what it means to be born of water? I don't mean the obvious, which I assume would be physical birth, but what does Christ mean when He says we must be born of "water" as well as Spirit? I ask this to engage in discussion of baptism. Does water baptism save? Is this what Christ meant when He said you must be born of water?

RW

Souled Out
May 13th 2007, 07:06 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

Being born of water is talking about natural birth through the womb. You must be born of water and born of the Spirit.

Jesus makes this plain when He repeats it using different words "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised when I say you must be born again."

Through all of Scripture is this theme: first comes natural/flesh/dust then comes spirit/celestial/heavenly.

Such is the order of the things of God and this can be seen from Genesis to Revelation.

Lars777
May 13th 2007, 07:24 PM
"Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8 RSV)






Jesus is here answering Nicodemus' question, "How can a man be born when he is old?" "By water and by the Spirit," is Jesus' reply.

Many have been disturbed by the word "water" here. They do not know what it means. Some have thought it to be a reference to the bag of waters that breaks just before a baby is born; that it therefore refers to the physical life -- you must be born physically in order to be born spiritually.


That, of course, is tautology; it is obvious. But when Jesus answers the question, "How can a man be born when he is old?" he is not making a reference to physical birth.


It is clear from the context that Jesus is talking about baptism. John's baptism was the sensation of the nation at this time. Everyone was talking about it. The Pharisees had sent a delegation to John to ask him why he was baptizing. The meaning of John's baptism was the central theological question of the day in which our Lord speaks.


What Jesus means, then, is what baptism signifies. It is not the water that changes anybody. Many people superstitiously think that if they baptize their babies that will assure the children entrance into the kingdom of heaven; or if they themselves were to be baptized as adults that would guarantee them admittance into heaven.


That is rank superstition. Water does not change anybody that way. It may make you a little cleaner, you might even smell better, but it does not make you any different in God's eyes. What the baptism stands for is what is important.


Do not, like the many in John's gospel, miss the real meaning because of the symbol! The symbol behind baptism is repentance, an honest admission of need.


When a man, or a woman, boy or girl, admits he or she needs help and comes to Jesus, then the Spirit does something. God does what no man can do: he imparts his own life to that individual.


After all, what is a birth but an impartation, or transferral, of life? When a man and woman have a child, what have they done? In a most remarkable way they have transferred their lives to that child; they have imparted life.

As Jesus continues, he indicates there is a clear and radical difference between the old and the new birth. He says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." What do you get from your first, fleshly, birth? More flesh! You get a body, a living body.


Then what do you get from a new birth, a spiritual birth? You get a living spirit; your spirit is made alive. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians, "You has he quickened [made alive] who were dead in trespasses and sins," (Ephesians 2:1 KJV). Only God can make one alive in the spirit.


It is quite obvious that it does not make any difference how hard you try; if you do not have God's life you cannot live in a way that pleases him. There is no way to do that.


If you are trying, with an unchanged, fallen nature, to please God, you can reduce it to the most ridiculous applications and tedious spelling out of what this means, but you still will not be able to do it. You will only miss the point. That is what Jesus is telling Nicodemus.

RogerW
May 13th 2007, 07:40 PM
It is clear from the context that Jesus is talking about baptism. John's baptism was the sensation of the nation at this time. Everyone was talking about it. The Pharisees had sent a delegation to John to ask him why he was baptizing. The meaning of John's baptism was the central theological question of the day in which our Lord speaks.

What Jesus means, then, is what baptism signifies. It is not the water that changes anybody. Many people superstitiously think that if they baptize their babies that will assure the children entrance into the kingdom of heaven; or if they themselves were to be baptized as adults that would guarantee them admittance into heaven.

That is rank superstition. Water does not change anybody that way. It may make you a little cleaner, you might even smell better, but it does not make you any different in God's eyes. What the baptism stands for is what is important.

Do not, like the many in John's gospel, miss the real meaning because of the symbol! The symbol behind baptism is repentance, an honest admission of need.

If Christ is referring to what baptism signifies, i.e. acknowledgment of sin and repentance (recognizing our need of a Savior), wouldn't that make water baptism a necessary requirement for salvation?

RW

Kahtar
May 13th 2007, 08:02 PM
Tautology aside, the Word explains itself.
unless one is born of water ...........and the Spirit,
born of the flesh is flesh.........born of the Spirit is spirit

There is some merit to what Lars had to say, as well.
Add to that this: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Ephesians 5:26

RSiscoe
May 13th 2007, 09:13 PM
[FONT=Verdana]Being born of water is talking about natural birth through the womb. You must be born of water and born of the Spirit.


But Jesus doesn't say we must be born of water and again of the Spirit. He said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. This shows that the second birth is by water and the Spirit.

Living Water
May 13th 2007, 09:16 PM
He is referring to baptism by water, then baptism by fire (Holy Spirit). Repent and be baptized all ye in the name of Christ for the remission of sins! I don't think you have to be baptized in water to be saved though.

RSiscoe
May 13th 2007, 09:55 PM
I've put together a few quotes from the Bible that discuss Baptism as it relates to salvation, as well as some quotes from the Church Fathers to show what they all believed. No one claims that the Church fathers are infallible, as is the Bible, but their authority is certianly to be acknowledged. After all these were the leaders of the Church in the early years, and have been recognized since then by Christians for their orthodoxy. It will be interesting to see how they interpreted certain passages of the Bible pertaining to Baptism. We'll begin with a few quotes from the Bible.

From The Bible:

Prophecy of Ezekial: "And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleans you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and to do them." (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

1 Peter 3:21: “…they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also;”

Acts 2:38: “repent and be baptized all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"

Mark 16:15-16: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16)

“For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body…” (1 Cor 12:12).

“For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

Quotes From The Church Fathers:

Clement, AD 221: "But you will perhaps say, `What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the True Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: `Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognition's of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221])

Irenaeus: "For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: `Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190])

Justin Martyr: Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: 'In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,' they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'" (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61:14, 150 AD)
The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration." (St. Augustine, circa 400 ad)

Augustine: “baptism washes away all, absolutely all of our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought; whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted" (Against two letters of the Pelagians 3:3-5 [420AD]).

Augustine: "The Lord has determined that the kingdom of Heaven should be conferred only on baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only to those who have been baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death" (St. Augustine, circa 400AD)

Augustine: "The fault of our nature remains so deeply impressed in our offspring as to make them guilty even when the guilt of the self-same fault has been washed away in the parent by the remission of sin. The guilt, therefore, of that corruption will remain in the carnal offspring of the regenerated (i.e.. the baptized) until it also is washed away in them by the laver of regeneration [ Titus 3:5]. A regenerated man does not regenerate, but generates some according to the flesh. So his first birth holds a man in that bondage from which nothing but his second birth delivers him" (St. Augustine, "On Baptism of Infants", circa 400 AD).

"From Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, and those who are baptized are clothed in Him; for the Spirit keeps aloof from every one born of the flesh until they come to the new birth by water, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. (St. Aphraates - Treatise, 6:14 - 340AD).

Jesus’ Baptism: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to Him: and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3: 16-17; John 1: 32-33, Mark 1:10-11,Luke 3:22)

Aphraahat the Sage: "From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . in the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit." (Aphraahat the Persian Sage, Treatises 6:14:4 [inter A.D. 340])

Clement: "When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . 'and sons of the Most High' [Ps. 81:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation." (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191])

Tertullian: "Without Baptism, salvation is attainable by no one" (Tertullian - On Baptism circa 200AD).


Tertullian: “From that great pronouncement of Our Lord it is prescribed that salvation comes to no one without Baptism" (Tertullian - On Baptism, circa 200AD)

Ambrose: "Without Baptism, faith will not secure salvation, since only through Baptism comes the remission of sin and the special grace... When the Lord Jesus Christ was about to give us the form of Baptism, He came to John, and John said to Him: "I ought to be baptized by Thee, and comest Thou to me?" And Jesus, answering, said to him: "Suffer it to be so for now. For thus it becometh us to fulfill al justice" [Mt 3:14/15]. (St. Ambrose - "One the Sacraments" Bk 1 CSL 73)

Ambrose: "No one ascends to the kingdom of Heaven except by the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not infants nor anyone hindered by any necessity. (St. Ambrose of Milam, "On Abraham" Bk 4, Ch 11:79)

Martin Luther (not a Church Father, but it is worth considering what he believed): "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 4:6).

Tertullian: "No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, `Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life'." (Tertullian, Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203])

Cyril of Jerusalem: "If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism" (Mark 10:38). (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350])

Cyprian of Carthage: "While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart." (Cyprian of Carthage - To Donatus circa 251 AD)

Hippolytus: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

Origen: "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])

Origen: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248])

Cyprian: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born." (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:2 [A.D. 256])

St. Augustine (commenting on what Cyprian wrote): "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Augustine - Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

Cyprian: "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another." (Adam)" (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:5)

Ambrose: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (Ambrose of Milan - Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory of Nanzian"`Well enough,' some will say, `for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated." (Gregory Nazian - 40:28)

St. Chrysostom: "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ's] members" (John Chrysostom- Against Julian the Apostate 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Augustine - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine: "By this grace baptized infants too are engrafted into his [Christ's] body..., infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ's Body (the Eucharist) nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture" (Augustine - Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Jerome: "This much you must know, that baptism forgives past sins, but it does not safeguard future righteousness, which is preserved by labor and industry and diligence and depends always and above all on the mercy of God" (Jerome - Dialogue Against the Pelagians 3:1 [A.D. 415]).

Toolapc
May 13th 2007, 10:18 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

wow thanks for posting that scripture

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

your corruptible body is mostly made of water Right.:idea:
except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of GOD.

i think this is going over the corruptible body and mankind cannot enter heaven with a corruptible body.

So this scripture proves that all of mankind is not born again untill Jesus returns and we are resurrected with a NEW Christ like body.

When Jesus returns this is the moment when you are literally born again Now you put on the inccoruptible and because of your new body you can literally see the kingdom of GOD.

so the scripture you posted to me its taking about the Corruptible body.Born again in the bible is when you recive your Christ like body but its ok to teach the new belivers that when they find christ there bornagain its ok to teach this even if its really a baptism.

The truth is your not born again untill Jesus returns and now you to are christ like and can see the kingdom of God this is the moment when your born again.

when manfinds Chrst this is a baptism. Born again is when your baptism is completed and now you to are Chrst like with a new spirtual body that doesnt decay. your not born again untill you put on the inccoruptible body very simple. but its ok i guess to teach the new
believers
that there born again, the truth is they have been baptised and when Jesus returns they will be born again when they put on the imperishable.

Souled Out
May 13th 2007, 11:11 PM
But Jesus doesn't say we must be born of water and again of the Spirit. He said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. This shows that the second birth is by water and the Spirit.

RSiscoe, please read John 3:5 again.

deaconrick
May 14th 2007, 12:00 AM
Although I am not Catholic (I'm Lutheran) I have to agree with RSiscoe. Baptism was instituted in the early church as he stated and was looked at as imparting faith. Peter tells us that baptism now saves. The Nicene Creed tells us that we believe ".. in one baptism for the remission of sins." This creed was written about AD 325 originally, giving that beleif a very early origin. There are many other reasons I bleive this as well. I put the following together based on a book called "The Fire and the Staff" by Klemet Preuss. I copy and pasted it here, so forgive the inconsistencies in font, etc.

1. Baptism imparts forgiveness of sins. "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, ESV). In addition, the Nicene Creed, accepted by all Christian churches, states in part “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This seems to make the point that one is forgiven of sins through baptism.

2. You are washed clean of your sins. "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’" (Acts 22:16, ESV).” This is not just a general statement, it is specific to you.
3. Baptism cleanses the invisible church. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27, ESV).”

4. God’s name is placed on you. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19, ESV). In addition, "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5, ESV). If God’s name is placed on you at baptism, then it is not necessarily something you do as an
acknowledgement of your faith.

5. We were baptized into Jesus’ death. "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:3-4, ESV).

6. Justification takes place in baptism. "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7, ESV).

7. Baptism brings the Holy Spirit into your life. "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, ESV).

TEITZY
May 14th 2007, 12:46 AM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

Well the only other reference outside John 3 to being "born again" is 1 Pet 1:23:

having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever

I don't think it is without significance that "water" is used as a symbol of the Word in the NT (John 15:3; Eph 5:26). Paul says that "faith comes by hearing...the word of God" (Rom 10:17). In Titus 3:6 Paul uses the same combination as John 3:5 in describing salvation:

not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Now it may be that the two terms are synonymous (since water is also symbolic of the Spirit - John 7:38-39) and therefore "water" is added to emphasize the work of the Spirit in salvation. It is also true that the Word is synonymous with the Spirit, since He is the author of the Word (2 Pet 1:20-21).

In the case of Nicodemus I'm sure (being the master teacher in Israel) that when Jesus spoke of water he would have associated this with cleansing and perhaps his mind would have went to passages like Ezek 36:25-27:

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

As a boy I'm sure Nicodemus would have learnt Ps 119:9 which says:

How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word.


Cheers
Leigh

RogerW
May 14th 2007, 01:08 AM
Well the only other reference outside John 3 to being "born again" is 1 Pet 1:23:

having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever

I don't think it is without significance that "water" is used as a symbol of the Word in the NT (John 15:3; Eph 5:26). Paul says that "faith comes by hearing...the word of God" (Rom 10:17). In Titus 3:6 Paul uses the same combination as John 3:5 in describing salvation:

not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Now it may be that the two terms are synonymous (since water is also symbolic of the Spirit - John 7:38-39) and therefore "water" is added to emphasize the work of the Spirit in salvation. It is also true that the Word is synonymous with the Spirit, since He is the author of the Word (2 Pet 1:20-21).

In the case of Nicodemus I'm sure (being the master teacher in Israel) that when Jesus spoke of water he would have associated this with cleansing and perhaps his mind would have went to passages like Ezek 36:25-27:

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

As a boy I'm sure Nicodemus would have learnt Ps 119:9 which says:

How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word.
Cheers
Leigh

Amen Leigh, I agree completely.

I don’t believe the “water” has any reference to baptism. I believe the “water” symbolizes the Word of God. The Word is always the means used by God in regeneration.

Ps 119:50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.

1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

The Holy Spirit quickens, and the Word of God is the seed.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

When we are physically born we enter the world with a sin nature that separates us from God. When we are born again by the Spirit through the Word of God we enter into the family of God and receive a new nature in Christ Jesus.

The new birth is the impartation of a new nature. When we were physically born we received from our parents their nature; so when we are born again, we receive from God His nature. The Spirit of God begets within us a spiritual nature.

Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

That which is born of man is human; that which is born of God is divine and spiritual.

Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Joh 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

RW

RogerW
May 14th 2007, 01:14 AM
RSiscoe & deaconRick,

Water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by grace, through faith, nothing from us all through Christ.

RW

RSiscoe
May 14th 2007, 01:38 AM
Amen Leigh, I agree completely.

I don’t believe the “water” has any reference to baptism. I believe the “water” symbolizes the Word of God. The Word is always the means used by God in regeneration.

RW

You said the "Word is always the means used by God in regeneration". I would say the Word is the efficient cause of regeneration, whereas baptism is the means used.

The point is, by saying that baptism regenerates, it does not exclude the fact that we are born again by the operation of the Word. It is just that baptism is the means He instituted to bring this about. The Word is the efficient cause of regeneration, whereas baptism is the means used.

That would explain why Jesus Himself said those who beleive and are baptized shall be saved".

Mark 16:15-16: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

Jesus Himself said that to be saved a person must believe and be baptized. That statement makes perfect sense if, as all the Church Fathers taught, baptism is the means by which a person is born again and regenerated.

At least give it some thought.

RSiscoe
May 14th 2007, 01:40 AM
RSiscoe & deaconRick,

Water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by grace, through faith, nothing from us all through Christ.

RW

I'm sure this is what you have been taught, but it is not what the Bible says. Jesus Himself said that a person must believe and be baptized. (See above post). And Peter said that baptism "saves us".

Again, this may not be what you have been taught, but if you "search the scriptures" you will see that it is so.

deaconrick
May 14th 2007, 03:32 AM
RSiscoe & deaconRick,

Water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by grace, through faith, nothing from us all through Christ.

RW
I did not say that it was required. The thief on the cross proves that. However, it is a means of grace. It is a way in which God gives the gift of salvation.

ravi4u2
May 14th 2007, 03:32 AM
When Jesus said that unless one is born again, Nicodemus was puzzled. He wondered how a man when he is old, enter into his mother's womb and be born again? Was Nicodemus not too bright that he did not understand what Jesus was actually saying? On the contrary, he was perhaps (not counting Jesus) one of the smartest person in Israel at that time. Jesus did not answer him directly to his question but replied, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Was he speaking about baptisms? I think not. What is water? If we examine Ephesians 5:25 - 26, it says,"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," Christ is the husband who sanctifies and cleanses His wife the Church, by the washing of the water, which is the Word." From this scripture we see that the Word is compared to water. So what was Jesus saying? One can only be born again by the Word. That is what 1 Peter 1:23 also says,"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." But not just the Word as in Logos but the revealed Word as in hRHMA. The hRHMA is the revelation of the Word (who is Christ Jesus) by the Spirit (Holy Spirit), without which you cannot be born again.

DSK
May 14th 2007, 11:14 AM
Certainly can't disagree with that! That explains being born of the Spirit. Could you comment on what it means to be born of water? I don't mean the obvious, which I assume would be physical birth, but what does Christ mean when He says we must be born of "water" as well as Spirit? I ask this to engage in discussion of baptism. Does water baptism save? Is this what Christ meant when He said you must be born of water?

RW

In Jesus discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus never once mentioned baptism. Jesus spoke about a birth, not baptism. And baptism never produces a birth Jesus mentions birth at least 7 times in His discussion with Nicodemus, but people tend to focus on the one mention of "water" which is a mistake. We should rather focus on the numerous mention of the word "born"

John 3:5: Concerning this passage, my first observation is that Christian baptism is not mentioned directly anywhere in this passage. In fact, it would be unusual for it to be mentioned, since Christian baptism hasn’t even be instituted at this point. Many incorrectly assume that "born of the water" means baptized. However, the context makes it much more likely that "born of the water" is a reference to natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth. Notice the flow of the passage. Jesus says in Jn. 3:3 that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. In verse 4, Nicodemus immediately assumes that Jesus must means that we have to re-enter the womb and be physically born again. Verse 5 is Jesus’ attempt to correct Nicodemus’ false assumption. In it, He says that we must be born of water and of Spirit. Is Jesus talking about baptism when He says "born of water" or is He talking about natural birth. I believe the later. Why? Because in verse 6, Jesus directly contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth by stating that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

uric3
May 14th 2007, 11:28 AM
I read through these post and the water mentioned in John 3:5 is that of baptism, notice throughout the entire NT no one got the gift of the holy spirit until after they were baptized ready Acts 2:37-38 he tells them that they need to repent and be baptized and they shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the only people who get it before water baptism is the house of are the first Gentiles that Peter preaches to because they didn't know the gospel of Christ was for all yet... here read below if you have any questions feel free to ask. Oh and I saw someone mention the thief on the cross I will explain that as well.

The theif on the cross was not under NT order and the purpose of Baptism is to wash away our sins, its how we come in contact with the blood of christ. We can read in Heb 9:15-18 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." We see clearly by verse 16-17 that the NT wasn't in effect because Chrit wasn't dead, we know Baptism is for washing away sins and answering in a good conscience to God. Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." We know when Christ was on earth he could do that, and after all hes God who are we to question him. Anyway Mark 2:9-10 points that out so he could clearly wash away the theifs sins for God knows the heart. ""Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)..."



How can we forget passages like 1st Peter 3:20-21 "
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"



Of course its not baptism that saves us I know that its because Christ died on the cross how ever its a condition that we must meet.

Baptism is a condition just like faith is a condition, just like repentance is a condition. Its something God ask of us and we should not deny it... I have had some mention the house of Cornelius but even they were baptized with water. The only reason they got the Holy Spirit first was because God did it to prove to Peter that Gentiles could be saved that it wasn't for Jews only. If you study before that we can see how reultant Peter is to go to a Gentiles house and how God had to show him a vision to try and let him know they were not common and unclean any more. If you read in Acts 10:47-48 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." We can clearly see it was of water and he commanded them, there is no other account in the NT of anyone getting the Holy Spirit before being baptized God did it just this once to prove to Peter and the attending Jews that Gentiles could be saved. Acts 11:18

Also the story of the Richman and Lazuraus the story wasn't to prove anything about baptism is was for other reasons. You asuming Christ didn't add baptism in there would be like me saying that he was baptized before hand but Christ didn't tell you that...

We know Christ told us to be baptized and told the apostles to baptized in Matt 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Also things like John 3:1-5 have already been brought up as well as other passages but we can clearly see that everyone under NT was baptized and it wasn't a waiting period they done it ASAP and if they were not baptized correctly they were rebaptized Acts 19:1-7 We see the 12 who was never baptized under the name of Christ and were rebaptized and then Paul laid his hand on them and they got the Holy Spirit Acts 8:26-40 the enuch was baptized while going down the road. The Jailer in Acts 16 was baptized in the middle of the night, etc...


If you are to stubborn to be baptized and think its not needed then you are just ignoring what the scriptures teach...

When you read Acts 16:30-31 why did you stop? If you continue on you'll find out what happened he was baptized that night, they wasn't tell him all they have to do is believe... its an obedient faith so when you read vs 32-34 "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

We can clearly see that after they made that statement they went to his house and preached Christ... what was preached? Its apparent baptism was preached and that it was something they needed to do ASAP so they done it that night...

Also when you look at Luke 10:25-28 they are talking about the law. They wasn't under NT order then. reason I say this is because the Baptism of John is promoted by even Christ himself and he is baptized by him, however we see later after Christ death Johns Baptism wasn't good enough any more. Acts 19:1-7 we see 12 men who were under that baptism and then they are told what Christ did and Paul tells them to be rebaptized and they did so.

1st Peter 3:20-21 we see there that baptism is a part of being saved, it washes away our sins Acts 22:16. Baptism is a condition that has been set before us, its a step of faith it might not make logical sense to us... but its what God ask. Look at 2nd Kings 5:1-15 when he was told to dip in the water he was mad because it seemed silly and didn't make sense but what happened when he obeyed it was just as the prophet had said. When we look at salvation we have to met certain conditions God has set for us. Faith is a condition Heb 11:6 without it its impossible to please God. Repentance is a condition Acts 17:30 ...now commands all men to repent. Confession is a condition Roms 10:10 with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Baptism is a condition 1st Peter 3:21 Baptism doth now also save us.

As stated before in my earlier post no one under NT order was saved without water baptism you can't find one example of it. If you read my earlier post I explain the theif on the cross by reading Heb 9:15-18 that the NT wasn't in effect because Christ was alive and that Baptism is for washing away sins Acts 22:16 and that Christ had that ability while on earth Mark 2:9-10

Also in the house of Cornielous in Acts 10 read vs 47-48 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Note that Peter commanded them to be baptized with water... he didnt' give it as an option, and the only reason they got the Holy Spirit before it was to prove to Peter and the Jews present that Gentiles could be saved.. read earlier post on page 3 for more detail.

Hope this helps but as you can see when studying the Bible no onder under NT order "after the death of Christ" was ever saved without water baptism its how we come in contact with the blood. Rom 6:3 "When we are baptized we are baptized into his death. Its also how we become a part of the saved body... 1st Cor 12:13 so what is the body Eph 1:22-23 that the body is the church.

DSK
May 14th 2007, 11:31 AM
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

The HCSB worded those verses in the following manner:
The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

After reading some of the replies, some in here believe the new birth comes about at ones baptism. The above verses disprove those who believe such is the case. If the new birth came about at baptism, then we would know from "whence it cometh" But Scripture clearly tells us thou, "knowest not whence it cometh" Therefore I conclude that baptism is not being referred to as the means which produces the new birth.

Theophilus
May 14th 2007, 11:57 AM
The theif on the cross was not under NT order...

Please comment on this point...Why was the thief not under NT order?

Whispering Grace
May 14th 2007, 12:03 PM
Please comment on this point...Why was the thief not under NT order?

After having gone rounds with Matt14 on the subject of baptism, if I recall it's because Jesus Christ had not died, resurrected, and ascended yet.

uric3
May 14th 2007, 12:35 PM
Please comment on this point...Why was the thief not under NT order?

The thief on the cross wasn't under NT order according to Hebrews 9:15-17 which states "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

As mentioned above Christ had the ability to forgive sins on earth Mark 2:9-10 however we see now that hes on the right hand of God he gave us baptism to wash away sins Acts 22:16, etc...

We see here the NT didn't come into affect until after the death of Christ, while Christ was alive he lived under the OT and followed the Jewish laws to a Tee without sin, however once he died he built his church and the apostles started preaching in his name after his death in Acts, and in Acts is where the church gets started and saints start assembling together... I had posted on this topic before and copy pasted my post I must have missed the one I went into detail about that one sorry about that... I would go into more detail but I have to get back to work.

Whispering Grace
May 14th 2007, 12:50 PM
The thief on the cross wasn't under NT order according to Hebrews 9:15-17 which states "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

Didn't Jesus die before the thief?

Theophilus
May 14th 2007, 01:15 PM
The thief on the cross wasn't under NT order according to Hebrews 9:15-17 which states "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

As mentioned above Christ had the ability to forgive sins on earth Mark 2:9-10 however we see now that hes on the right hand of God he gave us baptism to wash away sins Acts 22:16, etc...

We see here the NT didn't come into affect until after the death of Christ, while Christ was alive he lived under the OT and followed the Jewish laws to a Tee without sin, however once he died he built his church and the apostles started preaching in his name after his death in Acts, and in Acts is where the church gets started and saints start assembling together... I had posted on this topic before and copy pasted my post I must have missed the one I went into detail about that one sorry about that... I would go into more detail but I have to get back to work.

Just wanted to make sure I understood why you state this, because I've had something on my mind for awhile, and would appreciate yours...and any others'...commentary.

From John 19:31-33, KJV:


31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

Jesus died, if I understand the Gospel accounts correctly, before the thieves. Why do I believe that? Well, we know that according to Roman crucifixion practices, those being crucified had their legs broken at some point to speed up the dying process. Without leg support, you couldn't keep holding yourself up to breath, and so you suffocated.

Christ's legs were not broken, because He was already dead...but the legs of the thieves were broken...and therefore, died after Jesus did.

In light of that, does it change anything? If the Testator had died, and the (New) Testament was in effect, what do we do the with thief?:hmm:

uric3
May 14th 2007, 01:15 PM
This is true, however Christ him self our Lord told him that he would see him in paradise and as mentioned earlier Christ could forgive sins Mark 2:9-10 so are you saying Christ lied to him when he made that statement that he would see him there? Who are we to question God... if Christ said everyone with the name Tim is saved via eating pudding and everyone else needs to stand on there head what is that to us? Clearly Christ realized the thief's repentance told him he would see him in paradise however as for the rest of us its clearly laid out what we must do.

Theophilus
May 14th 2007, 01:26 PM
This is true, however Christ him self our Lord told him that he would see him in paradise and as mentioned earlier Christ could forgive sins Mark 2:9-10 so are you saying Christ lied to him when he made that statement that he would see him there? Who are we to question God... if Christ said everyone with the name Tim is saved via eating pudding and everyone else needs to stand on there head what is that to us? Clearly Christ realized the thief's repentance told him he would see him in paradise however as for the rest of us its clearly laid out what we must do.

No, I'm not saying that Christ lied to Him...and I am not questioning God...Where did you get that? I asked for commentary, my friend, to my question...

We believe that scripture doesn't contradict itself, correct? And I'm full aware of the passage in Hebrews that you speak of, regarding the testator and testement. As I've said, this has been kicking around in my mind for some time...and I truly just wanted your take on something that seems as if it could be a contradiction. I know there isn't one, because, as I've said, scripture doesn't contradict itself. I also know that we interpret scripture with other scripture...so how do we interpret this event?

Jesus forgives a man of his sin, tells the man that he'll be with Him in paradise...and dies. Is the thief under the NT order, or not? Talk to me...

Tell you what...we're getting a bit away from the OP's question. I'm going to start a new thread about what we're starting to discuss....chime in there, too, if you wish.

Kahtar
May 14th 2007, 02:08 PM
In Egypt, the Israelites were in bondage. God sent 10 plagues upon Egypt, the last being the plague of death of the firstborn.
The Israelites who were obedient to God's instruction through Moses painted the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. When the destroyer came, wherever he saw the blood, he passed over that house.
The Israelites were not instructed to get baptized as part of their salvation from the destroyer. The only thing they needed to do was trust in the Blood of the Lamb for their salvation from the curse of death.
Later on, when God had already saved them from that curse of death, they came to the Red Sea, and passed through it. That separated them from Egypt, and when they came up from the water, they were a new nation.
That action separated them from Egypt, their old life, and the possibility of going back into bondage. But it did not save them from the curse of death, because that had already been taken care of by the blood of the lamb.
After that, they came to Sinai, where they received the law, written on stone tablets, and were commanded to be obedient. Notice they had already been saved by the blood of the lamb, already separated and raised up a new nation. Their obedience was not for salvation, but because they'd been saved, they were called to be obedient.
They were obedient to God's instruction with the blood of the lamb, they were obedient when instructed to pass through the waters, and now they were to be obedient to the written law. But their salvation took place because of the blood, not for any other reason.

RogerW
May 14th 2007, 03:34 PM
Wow, this topic has generated a good deal of interest. It's important to look at this passage from Scripture, and not rely on tradition. Tradition becomes especially suspect after the third century. Instead of focusing our understanding on the teachings of the early church fathers, I want to try to understand beginning with Mark 16:15,16.

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

If you have faith (salvation), you will obey the Lord’s command and be baptized.

“And be baptized” does not teach a requirement for salvation. The last part of the verse shows us that “he that believeth not, shall be damned.” Look at the verse in light of Mt 28, and you can better see that “and be baptized” is not a requirement for salvation, it is a command that those who profess belief are to be baptized as a sign of covenantal inclusion, as being set apart unto the Lord, just as the sign of circumcision was in the Old. He who believes shall be saved, and since he professes belief he shall be baptized as commanded by the Lord.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The believing MUST be the essential ingredient that brings one to repentance and salvation. That is why John the Baptist was sent to baptize with the baptism of repentance. None of those whom he baptized with water had yet received the Holy Spirit. Granted there are those like Simon (Acts 8) whose belief is merely external, they never possess the Holy Spirit and are therefore included with the group in the last part of the verse, “he that believeth not,” it does not say, “he who is not baptized.”

We try so hard to show that water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation, that we fail to see this is exactly what Mark is telling us. Part of the problem, I believe, is a lack of understanding the importance of water baptism, and what is truly signifies. Why was John sent to baptize? Why did Christ instruct His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? We cannot see baptism of the Holy Spirit. We know it exists because Christ tells us so, and the Spirit testifies to our Spirit that we are a child of God. But we can see obedience to the command when we baptize. This is why some baptize infants and young children. Not saying they are born again, but obedient to the command to baptize because Christ has given us this sign (water baptism) to set us apart from the world. Some see this as having their children to be set apart unto the Lord. It is the sign (water baptism) that we want to be obedient to the Lord’s commands, and take very seriously the responsibility of baptizing not only those who profess faith, and belief, but also our offspring. This is the sign of covenantal identity, just as circumcision was in the Old.

So, “he that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” There is no way of denying water baptism here. Unless one wishes to throw away the Lord’s command to baptize, thinking it is no longer relevant. What are the results for those who believe and are obedient to the command of the Lord?

For without belief what do we have? Scripture tells us “faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.” Faith in what? In the belief that Christ is the Savior, and there is none other. This is what John the Baptist came professing and baptizing, and what we profess when we are baptized.

Exactly the same as Mark 16:16. We proclaim the gospel of salvation, and some believe, while others belief is superficial, and will not last. But there is no difference made, they both receive the sign; water baptism. We do not have the privilege of knowing who among the hearers are true believers or not. That’s what Mark 16 is teaching. The one hearing believes, we believe them, so we baptize them. Only time will tell whether they are like Simon in Acts 8 who received the sign upon a false profession, and was later found to be in unbelief, or whether they have belief which endures to the end.

Ac 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Ac 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Ac 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Ac 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Ac 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Ac 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Ac 8:24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

We must accept the words of Christ in Mark. He says, “He who believes, and is baptized, shall be saved.” We cannot second guess, and think we have the ability to know whether or not this believing is unto salvation. We simply accept the belief, and leave the salvation to the Lord.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thous shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Would Christ teach, He that believeth (hath the Holy Spirit), and is baptized (receives the Holy Spirit) shall be saved? Christ says, “He that believeth and is baptized (in water) shall be saved.” If Christ had stopped there, and not added, “but he that believeth not shall be damned” then we would think that water baptism is a requirement for salvation. But, Christ explains by telling us that baptism (water) will not save us if we were baptized (water) in unbelief. Christ is saying the sign is meaningless without belief.

Mark 16:16 does not give two conditions for salvation. The text simply states the Great Commission. Christ tells His disciples to teach others and baptize them as a sign of being set apart from the world. We know from many other verses of Scripture that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation, but it is nonetheless a command!

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The only requirement for salvation is being in Christ. There is nothing required of the one chosen unto salvation that we must do in order to be saved.

Mark 16 is not teaching any requirement that comes from us for salvation. Even believing is from Christ, not from us. The text might be written thus: “He who believes and is baptized in water shall be saved, but if you are baptized in water in unbelief, then water baptism will not save you.” In other words it’s a warning for us not to begin to think that there is some saving merit in an act (baptism in water) we must do in order to be saved.

Unless one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that baptism that Christ alone gives then they are not born again. Christ is speaking to His disciples, and He tells them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Believing is the importance here, and then obedience to the command of Christ to be washed in water, signifying union into the covenant body. This is exactly what we see in the baptism of John the Baptist. Christ is not telling His disciples to administer the baptism which only He can give. We are called to perform the same baptism that John baptized with, the baptism of repentance. If the one having been baptized shows himself to be in unbelief then his water baptism will not keep him from being damned.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

John the Baptist baptized in water, and his baptism came before the Holy Spirit.

Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

All who heard, having received the baptism of John justified God. But those Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, by not being baptized of him. If they received the sign they showed God just or righteous, but those not receiving the sign rejected God. Thus we can see the importance of obeying the command of receiving the covenant sign.

Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being NOT baptized of him.

We see the same order of water baptism first for remission of sins, then the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

While baptism of the Holy Spirit is the only baptism by which one is born again, there is a baptism which man can give through water which may or may not precede that baptism of the Holy Spirit. This water baptism is commanded by the Lord as a sign of being set apart from the rest of the world. It is the sign given to show inclusion into the covenant body, and this command has never been done away.

It is not the baptism (water) that saves, it is the believing. If you receive the sign (water baptism) in unbelief, then that baptism will not save you. It is not that water baptism is a requirement for salvation, belief is the requirement. But we are baptized in water because the Lord commanded it. So if we are to be obedient to the commandment of the Lord then we will be baptized in water, not as a sign of salvation, but as a sign of being set apart from unsaved man, the same way that circumcision in the Old set apart the people of God from the unbelieving world around them.

RW

uric3
May 14th 2007, 04:03 PM
How can you say that its just a sign... please give me a scripture that states that its only a sign to others?

Lets note some of the people that are baptized such as the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-ff we can see Phillip preached Jesus so what was preached well it would be inferred that Baptism was or else the Eunuch would not have ask to do so, it was just him and Phillip on a road out in the middle of no where no one else was around so who was there to witness this sign of his salvation? Also you noted several verses about believe and you will be saved if you take the one verse and exclude all the other ones yeah I can see that... however with that I could just state 1st Peter 3:21 and say believe isn't even needed or I could states passages that show repentance unto salvation and use that only...

we have to take everything as a whole... 1st peter 3:20-21 tells us its a part of salvation that it saves us... no its not it alone via any means but its being a doer of the word we are doing what we were ask to do...


I saw you mentioned Acts 16:31-32 about how the jailer should believe and he and his house would be saved... this believe that is spoken of is a obedient faith we have to do something we have to act on it. We can see in the following verses they went to his house preached Jesus and guess what in the middle of the night as soon as it was preached they were baptized... if its just a sign why not wait till the day and have a lot of people watch? No it was done that night because it was urgent something they had to have done...

Not in Acts 10 when Cornelius house was saved why did they get the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? It was because God had to prove to Peter that Gentiles could be saved, because you can see at first it was only offered to the Jews and Peter was even hesitant to even go because he didn't know Gentiles could be saved so this was God's sign... so what did Peter do after that happen tell them they was saved forget about it... NO he certainly did not look at verses 47-48 of Acts 10 he commanded them to be baptized in water.. didn't give them a choice told them it had to be done...

As I noted earlier Christ is the savior of the Body we see that in Eph 5:
23 So what is the Body we see in Eph 1:22-23 that its the church so how do we become a part of this saved body? 1st Cor 12:13 tells us that we are baptized into that saved Body...

Not once after the NT came into affect was anyone not baptized for forgiveness of sins and to be added to the church... if so please provide a verse that has an example of it or something...

RogerW
May 14th 2007, 07:18 PM
How can you say that its just a sign... please give me a scripture that states that its only a sign to others?

The covenant promise is that God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants. Abraham was, of course, looking for a city made without hands (Heb 11). The covenant promise surrounds salvation. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant, and symbolizes a circumcised heart.

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

These text say that circumcision is a symbol of a circumcised heart. So, circumcision is a sign of the covenant of promise, and it symbolizes regeneration. It is a bloody act that demonstrates the regenerate life – the tearing away of the flesh is the tearing away of the sinful nature.

There is a tendency to think that the “Covenant sign” and salvation, or election, are the same thing. In other words, a belief that those in the Covenant have to be saved to be in covenant with God. The covenant with Abraham, included unbelievers (Ishmael, Esau). Both those who are unregenerate and those who are regenerate received the Covenant sign.

Unregenerate people were included in the covenant God made with Abraham. Now it would be wrong to say that Psalm 110:4, the passage about the Covenant of Redemption, includes the unregenerate. That is the eternal predestination and election of God in Christ; by oath consigned. Jesus will have his bride.

The sign of the covenant in the Old Testament is circumcision. It is a sign of the promise of salvation. It is also a symbol of regeneration. It is given to 8-day-old children who have no faith. The covenant brings either curse or blessing depending upon what one does with it. If Jacob is granted true regeneration, he will keep covenant with God. If Esau is not granted regeneration, he will break the covenant – and it will be the worse for him.

So the covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, one that Messiah will bring in, is the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled. The Old Covenant of Sinai, all those ceremonial laws, are now finished in the Messiah.

Circumcision (which was only an outward sign) is replaced in the new covenant according to Peter, the sign signifying being in the covenant body is now baptism. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation because the Holy Spirit, signifying salvation came after the water baptism, not before.

Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Ac 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Lets note some of the people that are baptized such as the Eunuch in Acts 8:26-ff we can see Phillip preached Jesus so what was preached well it would be inferred that Baptism was or else the Eunuch would not have ask to do so, it was just him and Phillip on a road out in the middle of no where no one else was around so who was there to witness this sign of his salvation? Also you noted several verses about believe and you will be saved if you take the one verse and exclude all the other ones yeah I can see that... however with that I could just state 1st Peter 3:21 and say believe isn't even needed or I could states passages that show repentance unto salvation and use that only...

Philip explained to the eunuch what was written concerning Christ by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah 53). The eunuch did not understand whether the prophet spoke of himself or another. So Philip preached Christ to him, and told the eunuch that if he believed with all his heart, he should be baptized. So when they came to some water, the eunuch asks, "what doth hinder me to be baptized"? By receiving the sign the eunuch showed God was just or righteous, but if he had not received the sign, like the Pharisees it shows he rejected God. This is why it was so importance for the eunuch to receive the sign. Who knows if this Ethiopian eunuch would ever have been able to receive the sign, if he did not receive the sign right then through Christ's disciple? He understood the importance of the sign through the preaching of Philip.

Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being NOT baptized of him.



we have to take everything as a whole... 1st peter 3:20-21 tells us its a part of salvation that it saves us... no its not it alone via any means but its being a doer of the word we are doing what we were ask to do...

Peter is not here speaking of water baptism. He is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which only Christ can perform. That's why he says not putting away of filth of the flesh (washing away sins, that water baptism signifies), but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the anwer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:



I saw you mentioned Acts 16:31-32 about how the jailer should believe and he and his house would be saved... this believe that is spoken of is a obedient faith we have to do something we have to act on it. We can see in the following verses they went to his house preached Jesus and guess what in the middle of the night as soon as it was preached they were baptized... if its just a sign why not wait till the day and have a lot of people watch? No it was done that night because it was urgent something they had to have done...

How is one able to believe? Who imparts faith, making it possible for us to believe?



Not in Acts 10 when Cornelius house was saved why did they get the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? It was because God had to prove to Peter that Gentiles could be saved, because you can see at first it was only offered to the Jews and Peter was even hesitant to even go because he didn't know Gentiles could be saved so this was God's sign... so what did Peter do after that happen tell them they was saved forget about it... NO he certainly did not look at verses 47-48 of Acts 10 he commanded them to be baptized in water.. didn't give them a choice told them it had to be done...

If water baptism is part of salvation, then why do we find some who receive the Holy Spirit before they are water baptized, and some who don't receive the Holy Spirit until after water baptism?

If water baptism is the requirement for salvation, why do these disciples in Ephesus need to be re-baptized to receive the Holy Spirit?

In the following passage Paul was speaking to some of the disciples in Ephesus. He asks if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed, but they told him they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit. So Paul asks them what baptism they had received, and they said they had received John's baptism (water baptism). Paul tells them that John's baptism was of repentance, and pointed to Christ, in whom they should believe. After they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord, and after Paul laid his hands on them they received the Holy Ghost.

Ac 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there by any Holy Ghost.
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac 19:6 And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.



As I noted earlier Christ is the savior of the Body we see that in Eph 5:
23 So what is the Body we see in Eph 1:22-23 that its the church so how do we become a part of this saved body? 1st Cor 12:13 tells us that we are baptized into that saved Body...

Do you believe that every baptized member of the church is saved?

Mt 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Mt 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.



Not once after the NT came into affect was anyone not baptized for forgiveness of sins and to be added to the church... if so please provide a verse that has an example of it or something...

Can you show through Scripture that every baptized member in the universal church is saved?

RW

bergie38
May 15th 2007, 03:07 PM
Boy, after reading all of these posts I almost started to cry. I, too, am always searching for answers. I read my Bible, but half the time I can't understand it. I come to these boards and realize that NOTHING seems to be the EXACT answer! Look at how most of you are divided on water baptism! Some say you NEED IT to get into Heaven. Some say it's the water of being physically born. Some say it's something completely different. Talk about being confused again! I dunno. Maybe I should just stick with praying to God about helping me understand the Bible more and leave it at that. :giveup:

Souled Out
May 15th 2007, 03:20 PM
Maybe I should just stick with praying to God about helping me understand the Bible more and leave it at that. :giveup:

Bergie, that would be the wisest decision.

John146
May 15th 2007, 05:00 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

I think it's pretty clear that being born of water is being born of the flesh. In verse 6 He is explaining what He was talking about in verse 5. Notice that in verse 6 He does not say that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of water and the Spirit is spirit. He just says that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Both verses are contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. So, in verse 5 I believe He is saying that you cannot enter into the kingdom of God just by being born of the flesh. You must also be born of the Spirit.

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 11:47 AM
I think it's pretty clear that being born of water is being born of the flesh. In verse 6 He is explaining what He was talking about in verse 5. Notice that in verse 6 He does not say that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of water and the Spirit is spirit. He just says that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Both verses are contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. So, in verse 5 I believe He is saying that you cannot enter into the kingdom of God just by being born of the flesh. You must also be born of the Spirit.

It seems that Christ is using being born of flesh in the same way He says, "He who has ears let him hear." Christ is not saying we must have physical ears to hear, but that unless we are able to hear with spiritual ears we will not understand. I believe it is the same here. It's obvious that we have physical life, physical ears, so what Christ is saying is that it isn't being born physically that saves us, we must be born again through both the Word (water) i.e. "faith comes by hearing" and the Spirit (the Holy Spirit). The Word is the means the Holy Spirit uses to impart saving faith to the one who is given ears (spiritual) to hear.

RW

Centurionoflight
May 16th 2007, 09:11 PM
Born of water; is a referance to the water of the womb.

John 3


5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;


6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
The gospel is simple;
Commentaries make it complex.


It is really simple; we are born of the flesh, of water.
The womb is full of water; which flows forth at time of birth; hence born of water.

To enter heaven we need another birth.

We have to be born 2x to enter heaven;

One of the flesh and one of the spirit.


7`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

He needs to be born of above; for Nicodemus was all ready born of the water; of the flesh, now he needs another birth.


To throw baptism in here really does nothing more than distort the context and ignores the question addressed to Christ.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'

Sold Out
May 16th 2007, 11:42 PM
But Jesus doesn't say we must be born of water and again of the Spirit. He said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. This shows that the second birth is by water and the Spirit.


Eph 5:26, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 02:15 AM
Wow, this topic has generated a good deal of interest. It's important to look at this passage from Scripture, and not rely on tradition. Tradition becomes especially suspect after the third century.
RW

What was taught in the 3rd century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 2nd century; what was taught in the 4th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 3rd century, and what was taught in the 5th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 4th century. There was no dispute with regard to the doctrine of baptism from the time of the apostles up until relatively recently in the history of Christianity. All Christians realized that baptism is the means instituted by God to communicate grace to believers (as all the quotes I provided show).

That is why Peter himself said that baptism "saves us".

I provided quotes from Church Fathers beginning with St. Justine Martyr (AD 150 - 2nd century) up to St. Augustine, (circa AD 400 - 5th century) all of whom agree with each other, and none of whom agree with your position.

I challenge you to find any Church Father that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible with regard to Baptism. If you can't, why in the world should anyone accept your opinion, which is contrary to the unanimous consent of ALL the early Christian.

Novelty has always been a sign of heresy; and a teaching that is no where to be found for the first 1,000 + years of Christianity is a novelty (to say the least).

I will leave you with this. In Thesselonians, when Paul speaks of the great "falling away" that preceeds the arrival of the Antichrist, he gives the "antidote", so to speak, for being not deceived. What is that antidote?

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 02:39 AM
But Jesus doesn't say we must be born of water and again of the Spirit. He said we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. This shows that the second birth is by water and the Spirit.


Eph 5:26, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

That fits in perfectly with what I said in post #17:


"The point is, by saying that baptism regenerates, it does not exclude the fact that we are born again by the operation of the Word. It is just that baptism is the means He instituted to bring this about. The Word is the efficient cause of regeneration, whereas baptism is the means used..

The Word is the is the cause of being born again, while Baptims is the means used, which is exactly what the verse you quoted says.

It says "that he might sanctified and cleanse it with the washing of the water [baptism] by the of the Word [who is the efficient cause]".

The washing of the water (baptism) is the means, while the word (Jesus) is the cause.

BlessedMan
May 17th 2007, 03:05 AM
Well I think born of water and spirit may refer to giving public testimony to your beliefs as well as getting private proof of your belief. Born of water may refer to being baptized thereby giving public testimony to your belief. Born of spirit may mean that your actions are guided by a higher purpose or by God in the end analysis.

deaconrick
May 17th 2007, 03:12 AM
Well I think born of water and spirit may refer to giving public testimony to your beliefs as well as getting private proof of your belief. Born of water may refer to being baptized thereby giving public testimony to your belief. Born of spirit may mean that your actions are guided by a higher purpose or by God in the end analysis.
What do you base this interpretation on?

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 03:16 AM
RSiscoe



That is why Peter himself said that baptism "saves us".
Salvation is not in baptism; it is in Christ.

Paul in the first part of 1 Cor; was glad he had not baptised many; and stated he was sent to preach the gospel. Not Baptize.

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Not if baptism was so all mighty important; then Christ would have sent Paul to do that.


I provided quotes from Church Fathers beginning with St. Justine Martyr (AD 150 - 2nd century) up to St. Augustine, (circa AD 400 - 5th century) all of whom agree with each other, and none of whom agree with your position.

I challenge you to find any Church Father that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible with regard to Baptism. If you can't, why in the world should anyone accept your opinion, which is contrary to the unanimous consent of ALL the early Christian.
Just a note;

"Church fathers" have little credit in most protastant circles.

In fact the words of so-called "Church fathers" are rejected in a most rude manner; for they are not scripture. nor should they be taken as such.

There is only one head of the church body; and that is Christ.

ravi4u2
May 17th 2007, 03:20 AM
What was taught in the 3rd century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 2nd century; what was taught in the 4th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 3rd century, and what was taught in the 5th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 4th century. There was no dispute with regard to the doctrine of baptism from the time of the apostles up until relatively recently in the history of Christianity. All Christians realized that baptism is the means instituted by God to communicate grace to believers (as all the quotes I provided show).

That is why Peter himself said that baptism "saves us".

I provided quotes from Church Fathers beginning with St. Justine Martyr (AD 150 - 2nd century) up to St. Augustine, (circa AD 400 - 5th century) all of whom agree with each other, and none of whom agree with your position.

I challenge you to find any Church Father that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible with regard to Baptism. If you can't, why in the world should anyone accept your opinion, which is contrary to the unanimous consent of ALL the early Christian.

Novelty has always been a sign of heresy; and a teaching that is no where to be found for the first 1,000 + years of Christianity is a novelty (to say the least).

I will leave you with this. In Thesselonians, when Paul speaks of the great "falling away" that preceeds the arrival of the Antichrist, he gives the "antidote", so to speak, for being not deceived. What is that antidote?

Let's not rely on traditions to interpret scriptures. Scripture has to interpret Scripture. There has always always been churches that have stood outside the "Protestant-Catholic" tradition. These Christian groups have remained outside formalised religion down through the ages. And they have always proclaimed 'sola scriptura'. A good read would be "The Torch of the Testimony" by John W Kennedy.

uric3
May 17th 2007, 03:26 AM
RSiscoe

Salvation is not in baptism; it is in Christ.

Paul in the first part of 1 Cor; was glad he had not baptised many; and stated he was sent to preach the gospel. Not Baptize.

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Not if baptism was so all mighty important; then Christ would have sent Paul to do that.
Just a note;

"Church fathers" have little credit in most protastant circles.

In fact the words of so-called "Church fathers" are rejected in a most rude manner; for they are not scripture. nor should they be taken as such.

There is only one head of the church body; and that is Christ.


I read your post and I have to disagree with it, because that would make the Bible contradict itself which isn't possible. What you mention for your grounds as to Baptism not being needed in 1st Cor 1:17-18 is being taken out of context.

What happened here if you read prior to that is people were starting to become divided look at verses 11-ff which states

"
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

They were making a big deal out of who baptized them or who they were in favor of and Paul is happy he didn't baptism that that someone else did in regards that someone might have tried to say they were baptized in the name of Paul... (vs15) Not that is wasn't necessary he was just saying that its not baptism itself that saves you but Christ people was putting certain things on a higher platform than they should have been.

However we are commanded to be baptized notice in Acts 10 we see Peter teaching to the 1st of the Gentiles and he commands them in verse 47-48 this is the inspired apostle commanding them to do so.

Also in Mark 16:16 Christ didn't say if you believed and wasn't baptized you'd be lost... if you have ever had math or english you know and is a must or is an option. So if you are told to go get bread and milk you do both you don't have a choice. Same here Christ stated believe AND is baptized shall be saved. We weren't give the option to not be baptized.


As mentioned before in my previous post in there is not one example, command, or inference where no one under NT order was not baptized. Also something else you'll notice it was with an urgency its done right then or that hour, its not wait a while they do it asap in every case. Read my other post in this thread and the ones posted in topic of Baptist Preachers and Divorce and let me know if you can come up with a person or event in the NT with someone who is under NT order that wasn't baptized for forgiveness of sins(Acts 22:16) and to do as Christ commanded. Also please explain 1st peter 3:20-21 which compares water baptism to salvation. It relates it to the water that saved Noah.

BlessedMan
May 17th 2007, 03:30 AM
What do you base this interpretation on?
Since I have been asked what my interpretation of what born of water and spirit is based on I would say it is just my opinion based on the limited knowledge I have of the subject. It's not like God spoke to me and told me what to write unless as I suspect he interacts with my thought processes.

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 04:37 AM
uric3



However we are commanded to be baptized notice in Acts 10 we see Peter teaching to the 1st of the Gentiles and he commands them in verse 47-48 this is the inspired apostle commanding them to do so.
We wasnt the ones being addressed there;

Rather more directed at the early Church which still used shadows of ritual to teach doctrines.

They was baptised because of something that occured; not for something to occur.

That being they was ALL READY SAVED BEFORE even thier little toes even got damp in the water.
AS stated in acts

47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?


They was saved, spirit filled believers BEFORE they entered the water.

Therefore;

In relation to John 3, this cant refer to baptism, for a person is saved or born again BEFORE they enter the water.

Thus it must refer to the water of the womb.

Which is the point.

Kahtar
May 17th 2007, 04:57 AM
Novelty has always been a sign of heresy; and a teaching that is no where to be found for the first 1,000 + years of Christianity is a novelty (to say the least).The teaching of Jesus was quite a novelty in His day. By your reasoning, He must have been a heritic. Much of His teaching was nowhere to be found for the first 4000 years.

Just a point of logic.

DSK
May 17th 2007, 10:21 AM
The Word is the is the cause of being born again, while Baptims is the means used, which is exactly what the verse you quoted says.

It says "that he might sanctified and cleanse it with the washing of the water [baptism] by the of the Word [who is the efficient cause]".

The washing of the water (baptism) is the means, while the word (Jesus) is the cause.

Titus 3:5 - He saved us--not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

"They who think baptism to be regeneration, neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God; therefore they do greatly err." - Adam Clarke

"If we accept the erroneous idea that baptism is a means of regeneration, then it would follow that all baptized persons are regenerated. But are they?" - Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S.
Simon Magus was baptized, and yet not regenerated; - Acts 8:9-24

W E Vine writes that in Titus 3:5...
"the word paliggenesia signifies new birth (“birth again”), i.e., spiritual regeneration. This involves the impartation of a new life, and the operating powers which effect this are “the word of truth,” James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John 3:5, 6. The “washing” does not refer to baptism"

deaconrick
May 17th 2007, 11:45 AM
The teaching of Jesus was quite a novelty in His day. By your reasoning, He must have been a heritic. Much of His teaching was nowhere to be found for the first 4000 years.

Just a point of logic.
As far as the pharisees were concerned, He was a heretic. However, your logic is somewhat flawed. Jesus was a "new revelation" of God, He came to fulfill the law. This, then did change things. There was no new revelation of God that came to fulfill anything that led to the change in the doctrine of baptism.

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 11:56 AM
Titus 3:5 - He saved us--not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

"They who think baptism to be regeneration, neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God; therefore they do greatly err." - Adam Clarke

"If we accept the erroneous idea that baptism is a means of regeneration, then it would follow that all baptized persons are regenerated. But are they?" - Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S.

Then you should remove that quote from Augustine from the bottom of you posts, because he, as did all other early Christians, taugh that baptism was the means of regeneration.

"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration." (St. Augustine).


Simon Magus was baptized, and yet not regenerated; - Acts 8:9-24

Where does the Bible say he was not regenerated?

Faith is necessary for being regenerated (for a person capable of having faith - an adult, for example), so it may be that his baptism did not result in regeneration, but I am curious where the Bible teaches what you claim? And if the Bible doesn't teach it, why do you say it is so? It is certainly possible that Simon the Magician converted, was regenerated, and then later fell away.

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 12:10 PM
Let's not rely on traditions to interpret scriptures. Scripture has to interpret Scripture. There has always always been churches that have stood outside the "Protestant-Catholic" tradition. These Christian groups have remained outside formalised religion down through the ages. And they have always proclaimed 'sola scriptura'. A good read would be "The Torch of the Testimony" by John W Kennedy.

Then surely you should be able to quote some of these people from the first 1,000 years. And if you can't, why would you believe they existed?

And how did these people who believed in sola scriptura know which books belonged in the Bible? The Bible itself does not provide us with a list of books that are inspired; and it is a proven fact that the early Christians were not in complete agreement on which books belonged in the Bible. Many of the books in our New Testament were disputed in the early years; and several books that we now reject (the apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) were accepted by many of the early Christians, and even inclulded in one of the early Canons.

You can verify this by looking at the list of books accepted by Christians provided by by St. Irenaues (around 189AD), and by looking at the books contained in the The Muratorian Canon, from 177AD.

And how did these sola scriptura Christians get their Bibles? Without the printing press Bibles were few and far between. In those days, when the Bibles were copied on sheep skin, it took over 200 sheep to make one Bible, and it cost approximately 2 years wages.

Sola scripture has only been possible (on a practical level) for the past 500 years or so, since the time of the invention of the printing press.

And lastly, if Sola Scriptura is true, why did God, through the apostle Paul, tell us to hold fast to oral Traditions - those handed down by word of mouth?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle" (2 Thes. 2:15).

In your opinion, should I reject that part of the Bible? If so, what other part of the Bible can I ignore? And on what authority do you claim that portions of the Bible can be completely rejected?

uric3
May 17th 2007, 12:17 PM
uric3

We wasnt the ones being addressed there;

Rather more directed at the early Church which still used shadows of ritual to teach doctrines.

They was baptised because of something that occured; not for something to occur.

That being they was ALL READY SAVED BEFORE even thier little toes even got damp in the water.
AS stated in acts

47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?


They was saved, spirit filled believers BEFORE they entered the water.

Therefore;

In relation to John 3, this cant refer to baptism, for a person is saved or born again BEFORE they enter the water.

Thus it must refer to the water of the womb.

Which is the point.

Once again we have to take Acts 10 into context, the only reason that this happened to the Gentiles Peter was preaching to was because it was a sign from God to let Peter and the Jews present that Gentiles was accepted and could/can be saved now. There is only two times in the entire NT that anyone gets the HS in this fashion. We see that anyone else who got it, recieved it via the laying on of the hands of the apostles.

Acts 8:9-18 We also see in Acts 19:1-7 that after they were baptized Paul laid his hand on them etc... So we see it happen once to the apostles on Pentecost and once to show Peter and the Jews that Gentiles could be saved other than that it was given by the laying on of hands of the apostles.

Then the age of those things past away you can read that in 1st Cor 12-14 it tells them about spiritual gifts how they are to be used, then in chapter 13 hes like they are going away so don't worry about it there is a better way which is love, then 14 he goes into a little more detail about them.

They were only used as a sign to show people that what they were preaching was true and here is the proof this man could never walk now he can, notice those things only happened around a lot of unbelievers never once is there an example for those powers to be used in the church just to heal someone for just the sake of healing them it was always done in public so unbelievers could see and believe. Or else why would Paul have left Trophimus sick in 2nd Tim 4:20 because we both know Paul and him were faithful believers so that wasn't their use it was a sign to the unbelieving. Now that we have the Bible we don't need those signs, notice in John 20:30-31 there were a lot more things done via Christ himself as well as the apostles but not every waking moment was recorded just enough for what we needed unto salvation and to believe.

When Peter commanded them it was because it was important not a shadow of things to come, the OT was the shadow of things to come as was the baptism of John, but once Christ died then it was unveiled look at Acts 19:1-7 those who were baptized via John had to be rebaptized into Christ before they could get the HS. So the event in Acts 10 was a one time deal for God to prove to the Jews that Gentiles to could be saved because every other account people get the HS via the laying on of hands, if you can show otherwise please do.

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 12:41 PM
Let's not rely on traditions to interpret scriptures. Scripture has to interpret Scripture.

The Gospel was handed down to use by oral Tradition before any word of the New Testament was written. Oral Tradition is simply the Gospel as it was preached by the apostles.

"Holding fast to Tradition" as the Bible tells us to do, is not to ignore the scriptures, but to understand them according to the teaching of the apostles. Have you ever noticed how many different interpretations there are of the Bible - even on very important points? If a person holds fast to what Christians have always believed (and interpret the passages as Christians always have), then they will be united in their believe - since the early Christians were united in their belief (with very slight differences on minor points).

Consider the US Constitution. The liberals interpret it out of its historical context, and make it say what the founders never intended for it to say. The same is true today with regard to the Bible. People interpret it to mean what no Christian for the first 1500+ years ever believed.

Holding fast to Tradition is holding fast to what Christians have believed since the beginning. In so doing, you will find that all of the Bible fits together very nicely.

For example I am going to end with a quote from the Bible that you think is heresy. You reject this quote, yet it is written in the Bible you claim to base your belief on. Here is the quote from the Bible that you reject.

1 Peter 3: "being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. [/u]Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also;[/u]"

That inspired and infallble passage of scripture tell us that, just as those in the days of Noah were saved by water, so too baptism now saves us. Why don't you believe that Baptism saves us? If you "held fast to Tradition", as the Bible tells you to do, you would accept that verse. But since you do not "hold fast to Tradition" you do not believe that passage.

You can always trust the Bible, but you cannot always trust man. Therefore, accept the Bible, "hold fast to Tradition", and turn a deaf ear to any man that would have you do the contrary - "for God is true and every man a liar".

Pilgrimtozion
May 17th 2007, 01:03 PM
I believe a proper understanding of the concept of salvation is necessary to fully understand the role of baptism in salvation. Looking at the book of Acts, we see four reoccurring aspects in every account of somebody coming to Christ. In most cases they are mentioned directly, in some cases implied, but in all cases you will find them there:

1. Repenting
2. Believing
3. Being Baptized in Water
4. Being Baptized in the Spirit

We see that 3-4 do not happen somewhere after the person has repented, but rather that the person is baptized in water and the Spirit ASAP after having repented and believed. These four aspects, though we can distinguish between them, were never meant to be pulled apart the way we have done in Christianity. Acts shows us that in order to get a proper start to their spiritual life, people need to go through step 1-4 as soon as they can and not wait months or even years. In other words, the concept of being born again encompasses all those 4 steps. Many today have not gone through all four steps and have thus not had a healthy start to their spiritual life.

But coming back to the OP and the issue of John 3:5, I consider it to be a clear reference to step 3 and 4 in the above post. Romans 6 links baptism to the new birth as does 1 Peter 3, so there is sufficient Biblical support for such a position. Moreover, if we look at the verse itself, we see that Christ is giving two conditions for entering into the Kingdom of God:
1. Being born of water
2. Being born of the Spirit
Now why quote natural birth as a condition when everybody is born naturally anyway? No, both baptism in water (burial of the old) and Spirit baptism (empowerment with the new) are crucial aspects of being born again.

Though this may be difficult to accept for some, I see no other way of interpreting these Scriptures from a hermeneutical and exegetical perspective.

jiggyfly
May 17th 2007, 01:32 PM
Here is an excerpt from "The Mystery Of God, Christ All And In All" by Manfred Haller.

"When Christ is proclaimed by the anointing of the HolySpirit, people will repent, even if the word repentance is never mentioned. The emphasis must be on Jesus Christ. The one accepting Christ will see what state he is in; he will regret his sins and turn from them. He will receive forgiveness and be freed from the things which enslaved him; the Son makes him free. Repentance, forgiveness and freedom are consequences of submitting to Christ, the Lord. We should be careful not to turn the concequences into conditions for receiving Him."

Sold Out
May 17th 2007, 01:40 PM
I read your post and I have to disagree with it, because that would make the Bible contradict itself which isn't possible. What you mention for your grounds as to Baptism not being needed in 1st Cor 1:17-18 is being taken out of context.

What happened here if you read prior to that is people were starting to become divided look at verses 11-ff which states

"
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

They were making a big deal out of who baptized them or who they were in favor of and Paul is happy he didn't baptism that that someone else did in regards that someone might have tried to say they were baptized in the name of Paul... (vs15) Not that is wasn't necessary he was just saying that its not baptism itself that saves you but Christ people was putting certain things on a higher platform than they should have been.

However we are commanded to be baptized notice in Acts 10 we see Peter teaching to the 1st of the Gentiles and he commands them in verse 47-48 this is the inspired apostle commanding them to do so.

Also in Mark 16:16 Christ didn't say if you believed and wasn't baptized you'd be lost... if you have ever had math or english you know and is a must or is an option. So if you are told to go get bread and milk you do both you don't have a choice. Same here Christ stated believe AND is baptized shall be saved. We weren't give the option to not be baptized.


As mentioned before in my previous post in there is not one example, command, or inference where no one under NT order was not baptized. Also something else you'll notice it was with an urgency its done right then or that hour, its not wait a while they do it asap in every case. Read my other post in this thread and the ones posted in topic of Baptist Preachers and Divorce and let me know if you can come up with a person or event in the NT with someone who is under NT order that wasn't baptized for forgiveness of sins(Acts 22:16) and to do as Christ commanded. Also please explain 1st peter 3:20-21 which compares water baptism to salvation. It relates it to the water that saved Noah.

One question for you...do you believe there is only one Gospel?

RogerW
May 17th 2007, 01:44 PM
The Gospel was handed down to use by oral Tradition before any word of the New Testament was written. Oral Tradition is simply the Gospel as it was preached by the apostles.

For example I am going to end with a quote from the Bible that you think is heresy. You reject this quote, yet it is written in the Bible you claim to base your belief on. Here is the quote from the Bible that you reject.

1 Peter 3: "being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. [/u]Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also;[/u]"

That inspired and infallble passage of scripture tell us that, just as those in the days of Noah were saved by water, so too baptism now saves us. Why don't you believe that Baptism saves us? If you "held fast to Tradition", as the Bible tells you to do, you would accept that verse. But since you do not "hold fast to Tradition" you do not believe that passage.

You can always trust the Bible, but you cannot always trust man. Therefore, accept the Bible, "hold fast to Tradition", and turn a deaf ear to any man that would have you do the contrary - "for God is true and every man a liar".

When we look at the passage from 1Pe 3:20,21 in full we get a different perspective then the one you've presented in qouting only part of the passage. Look at this passage from the Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture.

He proclaims to those stubborn at one time, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is eight souls were conveyed safely through the water, the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also - not putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Clearly here we see that the water that saved Noah through the flood represented/symbolized the baptism that now saves. What is the symbolism pointing to? It cannot be literal water because clearly it says NOT putting off the filth of the flesh, BUT the inquiry of a good conscience to God....HOW? through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Noah was delivered from death and judgment which claimed all others (except 8 souls). When we are baptized, it symbolizes Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and our own death to sin and self. It is not baptism that saves but the ONE whom baptism symbolizes! It is NOT the cleansing of the flesh, but a living union with Christ in the heart (a good conscience to God).

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

RW

jiggyfly
May 17th 2007, 02:09 PM
When we look at the passage from 1Pe 3:20,21 in full we get a different perspective then the one you've presented in qouting only part of the passage. Look at this passage from the Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture.

He proclaims to those stubborn at one time, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is eight souls were conveyed safely through the water, the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also - not putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Clearly here we see that the water that saved Noah through the flood represented/symbolized the baptism that now saves. What is the symbolism pointing to? It cannot be literal water because clearly it says NOT putting off the filth of the flesh, BUT the inquiry of a good conscience to God....HOW? through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Noah was delivered from death and judgment which claimed all others (except 8 souls). When we are baptized, it symbolizes Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and our own death to sin and self. It is not baptism that saves but the ONE whom baptism symbolizes! It is NOT the cleansing of the flesh, but a living union with Christ in the heart (a good conscience to God).

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

RW
Excellent post RogerW, I was just reading 1Corinthians chapter 1. Water baptism does not save anyone, the Jewish religion and culture was full of ceremonial washings and baptisms. The pharisees participated in them often and Jesus told them that they were still full of filth clean on the outside but full of scum on the inside. I think it should also be stated that the symbolic water baptism in the name of Christ is not symbolic of something about to happen. It is symbolic of what has already happen.

Pilgrimtozion
May 17th 2007, 03:19 PM
Excellent post RogerW, I was just reading 1Corinthians chapter 1. Water baptism does not save anyone, the Jewish religion and culture was full of ceremonial washings and baptisms. The pharisees participated in them often and Jesus told them that they were still full of filth clean on the outside but full of scum on the inside. I think it should also be stated that the symbolic water baptism in the name of Christ is not symbolic of something about to happen. It is symbolic of what has already happen.

I want to ask you where it says that baptism is symbolic of something, but I will not derail the thread.

jiggyfly
May 17th 2007, 03:43 PM
I want to ask you where it says that baptism is symbolic of something, but I will not derail the thread.
Ok , I can respect that, if you want to start another thread, I will try and answer you question.

uric3
May 17th 2007, 03:44 PM
One question for you...do you believe there is only one Gospel?

The only thing I follow is the Bible nothing more nothing less, OT is good for studying and understanding God and how the NT came to be about. Everything in the NT we are to follow what we learn via example, command and whats inferred. I will not go outside of the NT to get my authority so yes the NT gospel that was preached via Christ and his disciples is all there is to me, and OT for reference and learning from for it is inspired of God as well but I don't have to follow the Jewish laws that lie within because I am under a better testament.

RogerW
May 17th 2007, 03:51 PM
What was taught in the 3rd century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 2nd century; what was taught in the 4th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 3rd century, and what was taught in the 5th century is exactly the same as that which was taught in the 4th century. There was no dispute with regard to the doctrine of baptism from the time of the apostles up until relatively recently in the history of Christianity. All Christians realized that baptism is the means instituted by God to communicate grace to believers (as all the quotes I provided show).

That is why Peter himself said that baptism "saves us".

I provided quotes from Church Fathers beginning with St. Justine Martyr (AD 150 - 2nd century) up to St. Augustine, (circa AD 400 - 5th century) all of whom agree with each other, and none of whom agree with your position.

I challenge you to find any Church Father that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible with regard to Baptism. If you can't, why in the world should anyone accept your opinion, which is contrary to the unanimous consent of ALL the early Christian.

Novelty has always been a sign of heresy; and a teaching that is no where to be found for the first 1,000 + years of Christianity is a novelty (to say the least).

I will leave you with this. In Thesselonians, when Paul speaks of the great "falling away" that preceeds the arrival of the Antichrist, he gives the "antidote", so to speak, for being not deceived. What is that antidote?

What is this tradition Scripture speaks of?

2Th 3:6
¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of US.

What tradition, who is US? "Tradition" means inspired instructions from the lips of those who received them from God, and were authorized to dispense them in His name. These apostolic sayings were obligatory only on those who received them as inspired directly from the apostles. Had any of them come down to our times, the only means of endorsing them must be by showing their agreement with the word of God.

In AD 312 Constantine the Great made it not only safe (could profess faith without being killed), but also lucrative to profess Christ. His favor toward those who professed to be Christians included placing some in postitions of honor, and authority in his government. What seemed like something good for Christianity instead served to invite the world into the Church because now it was not only safe, but also profitable. With the world now actively engaged in the Church is it any wonder her doctrines became unbiblical?

From Sketches of Church History: From AD 33 to the Reformation by the late Rev. J.C Robertson (1904), M.A., Canon of Canterbury.

In the year 312, Constantine marched against Maxentius, who had usurped the government of Italy and Africa. Constantine seems to have been brought up by his father to believe in one God, although he did not at all know who this God was, nor how He had revealed Himself in Holy Scripture. But as he was on his way to fight Maxentius, he saw in the sky a wonderful appearance, which seemed like the figure of a cross, with words around it-"By this conquer!" He then caused the cross to be put on the standards (or colours) of his army; and when he had defeated Maxentius, he set up at Rome a statue of himself, with a cross in its right hand, and with an inscription which declared that he owed his victory to that saving sign. About the same time that Constantine overcame Maxentius, Licinius put down Maximin in the East. The two conquerors now had possession of the whole empire, and they joined in publishing laws by which Christians were allowed to worship God freely according to their conscience (AD 313).

(As for how water baptism was viewed during this period, Rev Robertson tells us)

Constantine declared himself a Christian, which he had not done before; and he used to attend the services of the Church very regularly, and to stand all the time that the bishops were preaching, however long their sermons might be. He used even himself to write a kind of discourses something like sermons, and he read them aloud in the palace to all his court; but he really knew very little of Christian doctrine, although he was very fond of talking part in disputes about it. And, although he professed to be a Christian, he had not yet been made a member of Christ by baptism, for in those days, people had so high a notion of the grace of baptism that many of them put off their baptism until they were on their deathbed, for fear lest they should sin after being baptized, and so should lose the benefit of the sacrament. This was of course wrong; for it was a sad mistake to think that they might go on in sin so long as they were not baptized. God, we know, might have cut them off at any moment in the midst of all their sins, and even if they were spared, there was a great danger that, when they came to beg for baptism at last, they might not have that true spirit of repentance and faith without which they could not be fit to receive the grace of the sacraments. And therefore the teachers of the Church used to warn people against putting off their baptism out of love for sin; and when any one had received "clinical" baptism, as it was called (that is to say, baptism on a sick-bed), if he afterwards got well again, he was thought but little of in the Church.

It is apparent from this history that the sacrament of baptism was very poorly understood by many in the early church.

RW

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 04:01 PM
uric3


Once again we have to take Acts 10 into context, the only reason that this happened to the Gentiles Peter was preaching to was because it was a sign from God to let Peter and the Jews present that Gentiles was accepted and could/can be saved now. There is only two times in the entire NT that anyone gets the HS in this fashion. We see that anyone else who got it, recieved it via the laying on of the hands of the apostles.


Excuse me?

Then is your position is one that gentiles could not be saved before, thus race based salvation.
Race based salvation is not biblical.

All this just to defend baptism?



Acts 8:9-18 We also see in Acts 19:1-7 that after they were baptized Paul laid his hand on them etc... So we see it happen once to the apostles on Pentecost and once to show Peter and the Jews that Gentiles could be saved other than that it was given by the laying on of hands of the apostles.

Then the age of those things past away you can read that in 1st Cor 12-14 it tells them about spiritual gifts how they are to be used, then in chapter 13 hes like they are going away so don't worry about it there is a better way which is love, then 14 he goes into a little more detail about them.

They were only used as a sign to show people that what they were preaching was true and here is the proof this man could never walk now he can, notice those things only happened around a lot of unbelievers never once is there an example for those powers to be used in the church just to heal someone for just the sake of healing them it was always done in public so unbelievers could see and believe. Or else why would Paul have left Trophimus sick in 2nd Tim 4:20 because we both know Paul and him were faithful believers so that wasn't their use it was a sign to the unbelieving. Now that we have the Bible we don't need those signs, notice in John 20:30-31 there were a lot more things done via Christ himself as well as the apostles but not every waking moment was recorded just enough for what we needed unto salvation and to believe.


When Peter commanded them it was because it was important not a shadow of things to come, the OT was the shadow of things to come as was the baptism of John, but once Christ died then it was unveiled look at Acts 19:1-7 those who were baptized via John had to be rebaptized into Christ before they could get the HS. So the event in Acts 10 was a one time deal for God to prove to the Jews that Gentiles to could be saved because every other account people get the HS via the laying on of hands, if you can show otherwise please do.



A start of musical verses; jumping here and there.

I dont really see a need to jump around.

The point was in acts 10:47 he had the spirit {salvation} before the water.

This refutes the point that baptism is required for salvation.
And refutes the point that baptism is the birth of water in John 3.
For it occured AFTER the spiritual birth; not before.

DSK
May 17th 2007, 04:20 PM
Then you should remove that quote from Augustine from the bottom of you posts, because he, as did all other early Christians, taugh that baptism was the means of regeneration.

"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration." (St. Augustine).

Augustine said a lot of good things, but not everything he said was good, or believable.


Where does the Bible say he (Simon Mangus) was not regenerated?

The following verses give evidence that he never was regenerated.

Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,
Acts 8:19 saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.
Acts 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God.
Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.
Acts 8:23 For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.


Faith is necessary for being regenerated (for a person capable of having faith - an adult, for example), so it may be that his baptism did not result in regeneration, but I am curious where the Bible teaches what you claim? And if the Bible doesn't teach it, why do you say it is so? It is certainly possible that Simon the Magician converted, was regenerated, and then later fell away.

If faith is necessary for regeneration as you insist, and if regeneration comes about through baptism as the Catholic Church believes, then how does an infant, who is unable to exercise faith at it's baptism become regenerated? There is a problem there isn't there? The other problem is that Scripure says,
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If regeneration, or the new birth came about at ones baptism, then we would "know from whence it cometh" But Scripture is clear that we don't know, therefore baptism cannot possibly take place at baptism. It would appear that you have Scriptural contradictions in your belief system.

RogerW
May 17th 2007, 04:31 PM
I want to ask you where it says that baptism is symbolic of something, but I will not derail the thread.

I had already made the link with what water baptism and circumcision symbolize in post #34, but perhaps you missed it. If you are looking for a passage that specifically says water baptism symbolizes 1Pe 3:20,21 is probably as close as you will get. Like the doctrine of paedo baptism, and the doctrine of the trinity it is explicitly implied without being explictly stated.

He proclaims to those stubborn at one time, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is eight souls were conveyed safely through the water, the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also - not putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The covenant promise is that God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants. Abraham was, of course, looking for a city made without hands (Heb 11). The covenant promise surrounds salvation. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant, and symbolizes a circumcised heart.

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

These text say that circumcision is a symbol of a circumcised heart. So, circumcision is a sign of the covenant of promise, and it symbolizes regeneration. It is a bloody act that demonstrates the regenerate life – the tearing away of the flesh is the tearing away of the sinful nature.

There is a tendency to think that the “Covenant sign” and salvation, or election, are the same thing. In other words, a belief that those in the Covenant have to be saved to be in covenant with God. The covenant with Abraham, included unbelievers (Ishmael, Esau). Both those who are unregenerate and those who are regenerate received the Covenant sign.

Unregenerate people were included in the covenant God made with Abraham. Now it would be wrong to say that Psalm 110:4, the passage about the Covenant of Redemption, includes the unregenerate. That is the eternal predestination and election of God in Christ; by oath consigned. Jesus will have his bride.

The sign of the covenant in the Old Testament is circumcision. It is a sign of the promise of salvation. It is also a symbol of regeneration. It is given to 8-day-old children who have no faith. The covenant brings either curse or blessing depending upon what one does with it. If Jacob is granted true regeneration, he will keep covenant with God. If Esau is not granted regeneration, he will break the covenant – and it will be the worse for him.

So the covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, one that Messiah will bring in, is the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled. The Old Covenant of Sinai, all those ceremonial laws, are now finished in the Messiah.

Circumcision (which was only an outward sign) is replaced in the new covenant according to Peter, the sign signifying being in the covenant body is now baptism. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation because the Holy Spirit, signifying salvation came after the water baptism, not before.

John was sent to baptize with water, why must Christ come baptizing with the Holy Ghost if baptism by water was for salvation?

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Christ began His earthly ministry by receiveing the NT sign of water baptism. Was Christ baptized signifying He too needed salvation, or did He receive the SIGN that signified being in the Covenant body?

Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Showing that the sign symbolizing being in Covenant is now baptism, Peter, just like John the Baptist instructs them to repent and be baptized, following our Lord's example.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

RW

Pilgrimtozion
May 17th 2007, 04:50 PM
OK, back to the OP then...

Roger, I started a separate thread on this in Bible Chat, perhaps we can continue this aspect of the discussion there?

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 05:54 PM
1 Peter 3: "being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also;"


When we look at the passage from 1Pe 3:20,21 in full we get a different perspective then the one you've presented in qouting only part of the passage. Look at this passage from the Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture.

He proclaims to those stubborn at one time, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is eight souls were conveyed safely through the water, the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also - not putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Clearly here we see that the water that saved Noah through the flood represented/symbolized the baptism that now saves.

So far so good. The water that saved Noah and his family was analogous baptism which, as you said, "now saves" us.


What is the symbolism pointing to? It cannot be literal water because clearly it says NOT putting off the filth of the flesh, BUT the inquiry of a good conscience to God....HOW? through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The water that saved Noah was real water, and the water of baptism is real water. What Peter says is that we are not saved by the water of baptism through any kind of cleansing of the body, but through a cleansing of the soul. That is what he is saying.



Noah was delivered from death and judgment which claimed all others (except 8 souls). When we are baptized, it symbolizes Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and our own death to sin and self. It is not baptism that saves but the ONE whom baptism symbolizes!

Nice twist, but that is not what the Bible says. Why do you reject the clear words of the Bible? Earlier you said that "baptism saves us". Then, after reinterpreting the passages to make it say what it doesn't say, you concluded that "it is not baptism that saves us". Which is it? Does baptism save us, as the Bible teaches and as you first admitted to? Or does baptism not save us, which is what you concluded aftet giving your "interpretation" to the clear words of the passage?


It is NOT the cleansing of the flesh, but a living union with Christ in the heart (a good conscience to God).

True, it is not a cleansing of the flesh that saves us through baptism, but a cleansing of the soul.

How does baptism produce a clean conscience? By cleansing the soul from sin. This has been believed by Christians since the beginning:

Augustine: "Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

Augustine: "This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sins as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, in the likeness of sin)and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man since no one should be barred from baptism... there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).

Since baptism "washes away all sins" as Augutine taught, it thereby results in a pure conscience. "not putting off the filth of the flesh" which doesn't save; but through "the inquiry of a good conscience to God" resulting from having our sins forgiven "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 06:45 PM
RSiscoe



Since baptism "washes away all sins" as Augutine taught, it thereby results in a pure conscience. "not putting off the filth of the flesh" which doesn't save; but through "the inquiry of a good conscience to God" resulting from having our sins forgiven "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
Ok so steps to salvation.

1) Getting on Gods good side? ie {"the inquiry of a good conscience to God"}

2) Making sure our sins are forgivin thru Christ. {"through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".}


This still ignores the lack of righteousness in man.

Some one can go to go ask forgiviness of sins; and still be dammed to hell.

Repenting of sin is not salvation; the jewish religious people of Christ day repented of their sins; yet they was still unrighteous.

Water Baptism is not salvation.

A lack of righteouness that God judges on man; this is only gained thru belief on Christ.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Which is a thought, not a action.
Man in his legalism demands action for salvation.
God only want mans belief on his son. {John 3:16}

We are not found righteous to God thru "being sorry of sins." or "water baptism".

It is only thru Christ.

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 07:56 PM
RSiscoe

Ok so steps to salvation.

1) Getting on Gods good side? ie {"the inquiry of a good conscience to God"}

2) Making sure our sins are forgivin thru Christ. {"through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".}

This still ignores the lack of righteousness in man.

Here's the question: when God has forgiven man and infused His Spirit into him, thereby making him a "partaker of the Divine Nature" and a "new creation in Christ Jesus" does he still lack righteousness?

I don't think so. Although all men are born unrighteous, I believe that when a person has been born again and has the Holy Ghost dwelling within them, they have been made righteous. This righteousness can be lost through sin, but can also be maintained by obedience to the will of God.

In Mt 9:13, Jesus said he "did not come to call the righteous", which means he did not come for those who think they are already righteous and not in need of a Savior. Jesus said that at the end "the righteous shall shine as the sun" (Mt 13:43); and in Mt. 25:41, Jesus explains that it is the righteous will go into eternal life - "these shall go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous, into everlasting life".

In John 1:37, we read who these righteous are: "Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil".

We can see from these verses (and there are many others that can be quoted), that man can attain to righteousness in this life - and in fact must if he is to attain eternal life.


Some one can go to go ask forgiviness of sins; and still be dammed to hell.

I agree completely. I am not saying that baptism in and of itself will save a person. I am just arguing that baptism is the means instituted by God to bring about the regeneration of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, to the one who believes.


Repenting of sin is not salvation; the jewish religious people of Christ day repented of their sins; yet they was still unrighteous.

Like you said, repenting is not enough. A person must also have faith - the true faith. Because "without faith it is impossible to please God". Therefore, repentance, without faith, is not enough.


Water Baptism is not salvation.

The Bible clearly says that "baptism saves us". Someone may not like the fact that the Bible teaches this, but it does. If we claim to believe the Bible, we should not reject what it teaches; rather, we should accept what the Bible says and then try to figure out how this or that verse can be reconcile with others verses. In other words, we should accept that "baptism saves" since that is what the Bible teaches, then try to figure out how it can save when considering what other passages have to say about salvation.

Does one verse exclude another? Or can they all be reconciled? The answer is that all verses can be reconciled, but only if a person is willing to set aside what he has been taught, and submit to the authority of the Bible. The problem is, most people will hold fast to what they were taught by some man, and reject the clear words of the Bible.

How many people in this thread have explicitly stated that "baptism does not save us", when the Bible teaches word for word the contrary?


A lack of righteouness that God judges on man; this is only gained thru belief on Christ.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Which is a thought, not a action.
Man in his legalism demands action for salvation.

God also demands action:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

Anyone who claims that keeping the commandments is not necessary is in direct contradiction to Jesus.

How does a Christian know that he truly knows Jesus, and is not deceived?

Answer: "And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments. He that sayeth I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a lair and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn 2:3-4)

So, as we can see, God demands something of us. In addition to believing in His Son, He demands that we keep the commandments.

Those who claims that we only need to believe, and not also keep the commandments, are in direct contradiction to the Bible.


God only want mans belief on his son. {John 3:16}



So, in your opinion, would it be wise for me to reject the verses quoted above? Should I not believe Jesus who said that to enter life we must keep the commandments?

And should I reject the inspired words of the apostle John who said: "He that sayeth I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a lair and the truth is not in him".

Let's say that you are my Bible teacher. Would you teach me to ignore those parts of the Bible that contradict what you teach and follow you? Should I reject the word of God and follow the word of man?

And if you respond by saying "no", I should accept the word of God, then I would ask why you believe what you do? Why do you believe the contrary of what the Bible teaches?

Are you basing your belief, which is contrary to the verses I quotes, on other verses? If so, then either the Bible contradicts itself (which is not possible), or else you are misinterpreting those verses. And if you are misinterpreting them, how can you be sure you are not misinterpreting the ones that discuss Baptism?

RSiscoe
May 17th 2007, 08:14 PM
What is this tradition Scripture speaks of?

2Th 3:6
¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of US.

What tradition, who is US? "Tradition" means inspired instructions from the lips of those who received them from God, and were authorized to dispense them in His name. These apostolic sayings were obligatory only on those who received them as inspired directly from the apostles. Had any of them come down to our times, the only means of endorsing them must be by showing their agreement with the word of God.

I agree. But whose interpretation of the Bible must this Tradition agree with? Since, it seems, just about everone has their own interpretation of the Bible, whose is right and whose is wrong?

If Tradition teaches that baptism saves us, and the Bible teaches that baptism saves us, can I follow this Tradition?



(As for how water baptism was viewed during this period, Rev Robertson tells us)

... And, although he professed to be a Christian, he had not yet been made a member of Christ by baptism, for in those days, people had so high a notion of the grace of baptism that many of them put off their baptism until they were on their deathbed, for fear lest they should sin after being baptized, and so should lose the benefit of the sacrament. This was of course wrong; for it was a sad mistake to think that they might go on in sin so long as they were not baptized. God, we know, might have cut them off at any moment in the midst of all their sins, and even if they were spared, there was a great danger that, when they came to beg for baptism at last, they might not have that true spirit of repentance and faith without which they could not be fit to receive the grace of the sacraments. And therefore the teachers of the Church used to warn people against putting off their baptism out of love for sin; and when any one had received "clinical" baptism, as it was called (that is to say, baptism on a sick-bed), if he afterwards got well again, he was thought but little of in the Church.

It is apparent from this history that the sacrament of baptism was very poorly understood by many in the early church.

RW

I think they understood it perfectly. They understood that baptism is the means of regeneration and thus washes away all of our sins. The problem was, some people delayed their baptism as long as possible so that any sins they committed would be forgiven at a later date.

But I find it interesting that Rev. Robertson says that Constantine was not a true Christian because he had not been baptised. That is what I believe (since I believe baptism incorporates a person into the mystical body of Christ), but why did Rev. Robertson teach such a thing when baptism for him is merely a public profession of faith? Does he think that baptism makes a person a Christian?

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 08:38 PM
RSiscoe




I don't think so. Although all men are born unrighteous, I believe that when a person has been born again and has the Holy Ghost dwelling within them, they have been made righteous. This righteousness can be lost through sin, but can also be maintained by obedience to the will of God.
Romans 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Salvation is a gift; givin to man.
This is irrevocable, even if we sin.

To state we can lose salvation thru sin is to state Christ suffering on the cross for sin is incomplete.

To state salvation "maintained by obedience to the will of God" is putting man back in the control of salvation. ie legalism or salvation thru works.

Salvation is not ours to keep.
It is Christs; thru a price he payed.
We dont own our self; we are owned by another.


1 cor 6
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
To state we can "lose" salvation; is to state we are our own.





In Mt 9:13, Jesus said he "did not come to call the righteous", which means he did not come for those who think they are already righteous and not in need of a Savior. Jesus said that at the end "the righteous shall shine as the sun" (Mt 13:43); and in Mt. 25:41, Jesus explains that it is the righteous will go into eternal life - "these shall go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous, into everlasting life".

In John 1:37, we read who these righteous are: "Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil".

We can see from these verses (and there are many others that can be quoted), that man can attain to righteousness in this life - and in fact must if he is to attain eternal life.
Once again; this view is putting man back in control of things.
Man has no control over it.
Once we believe on Christ; we are his.
He payed for us in blood.
Now after being his we can grow and be a good son; or turn to the world and be a spanked son.
Either way we are still his.



I agree completely. I am not saying that baptism in and of itself will save a person. I am just arguing that baptism is the means instituted by God to bring about the regeneration of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, to the one who believes.
Again as stated in

Acts 10:47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?;
Those was baptized had the spirit ALL READY! ; therefore they was complete BEFORE the water even touched their dirty toes.

Therefore the position "baptism is the means instituted by God to bring about the regeneration of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, to the one who believes"

Is biblically in error.



ike you said, repenting is not enough. A person must also have faith - the true faith. Because "without faith it is impossible to please God". Therefore, repentance, without faith, is not enough.
One choice to believe God on Christ is all the faith needed for salvation.

Like in
John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
One look at the serpent of moses by one who was bitten of a serpent cured their affliction of poisen.

Therefore one look to Christ for salvation; resolves Gods condemnation upon us.
We are saved from his judgement.

Again God did all that needed to be done; we just look to his work.

And do nothing towards the salvation.

Is it not faith to believe God can do it all with out us?



The Bible clearly says that "baptism saves us". Someone may not like the fact that the Bible teaches this, but it does. If we claim to believe the Bible, we should not reject what it teaches; rather, we should accept what the Bible says and then try to figure out how this or that verse can be reconcile with others verses. In other words, we should accept that "baptism saves" since that is what the Bible teaches, then try to figure out how it can save when considering what other passages have to say about salvation.

Does one verse exclude another? Or can they all be reconciled? The answer is that all verses can be reconciled, but only if a person is willing to set aside what he has been taught, and submit to the authority of the Bible. The problem is, most people will hold fast to what they were taught by some man, and reject the clear words of the Bible.

How many people in this thread have explicitly stated that "baptism does not save us", when the Bible teaches word for words the contrary?
The bible also clearly says there is ONE baptism.
That being the baptism of the spirit; it is man that reads that is baptism of water.

Eph 4
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Remember What John stated.

John 1
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
SO now how can one say that Johns baptism of water; can save, when even John stated there was a better baptism.




God also demands action:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

Anyone who claims that keeping the commandment is in direct contradiction to Jesus.

How does a Christian know that he truly knows Jesus, and is not deceived?

Answer: "And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments. He that sayeth I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a lair and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn 2:3-4)

So, as we can see, God demands something of us. In addition to believing in His Son, He demands that we keep the commandments.

Those who claims that we only need to believe, and not also keep the commandments, are in direct contradiction to the Bible.
SO if a christians keeps some check list then he knows he is truly saved?
I am sure many "certain" churches are more than happy to provide that checklist of bondage.

We know salvation thru having a understanding of doctrine.
Not thru some checklist of commandments.

1 cor 1
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
To even understand the most basic of doctrines is witness to our salvation.
For only those of the spirit can understand to doctrine of the spirit.




So, in your opinion, would it be wise for me to reject the verses quoted above? Should I not believe Jesus who said that to enter life we must keep the commandments?
And the rest of the passage, which many churches tend to leave off.
Matt 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
He had kept all the commandments; and STILL LACKED SOMETHING!!

SO we know then something more than commandments is needed.

So we cant be justified by the commandments; what makes people think we can be perfected by them?



And should I reject the inspired words of the apostle John who said: "He that sayeth I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a lair and the truth is not in him".
The focus of that is truth; we are speaking of salvation.



Let's say that you are my Bible teacher. Would you teach me to those parts of the Bible that contradict what you teach and follow you? Should I reject the word of God and follow the word of man?

And if you respond by saying "no", I should accept the word of God, then I would ask why you believe what you do? Why do you believe the contrary of what the Bible teaches?

Are you basing your belief on this or that verse? If so, then either the Bible contradicts itself (which is not possible), or else you are misinterpreting the verses. And if you are misinterpreting those, how can you be sure you are not misinterpreting the ones that discuss Baptism?
I feel you are infusing some action of man into salvation using passages that in no way apply to salvation to justify your position.

That to me is a gross error.

For if salvation is thru the work of man then it is not a gift; rather a debt which is not salvation.

Pilgrimtozion
May 17th 2007, 08:41 PM
I have been very clear and will do so one more time: this thread is about what John 3:5 says. Please stick to that and tie any comment henceforth back to that Scripture. Any other post on any other topic will be deleted without further notice.

uric3
May 17th 2007, 09:46 PM
uric3


Excuse me?

Then is your position is one that gentiles could not be saved before, thus race based salvation.
Race based salvation is not biblical.

All this just to defend baptism?



A start of musical verses; jumping here and there.

I dont really see a need to jump around.

The point was in acts 10:47 he had the spirit {salvation} before the water.

This refutes the point that baptism is required for salvation.
And refutes the point that baptism is the birth of water in John 3.
For it occured AFTER the spiritual birth; not before.

In no way was I stating that race has anything to do with salvation, however when reading the OT we know Isreal was God's special people, Isreal was to keep from marrying other nations etc... the gospel was offered first to the Jew then to the Greeks/Gentiles the apostles at that time had no idea Gentiles could be saved. Just look at a few passages with me.

Look at Acts 10:9-27 we can see Pauls vision and how God tells him not to call what God has cleaned common and unclean. Notice verse 28-29 the vision was to help Peter understand that Gentiles was ok, because he even states that its not Lawful for a Jew to do this sort of thing. So thats before the event, if you look at Acts 15 we can see where a report of this is given and the people at the meeting are glad to hear that salvation is imparted to the Gentiles as well... that was my point Peter wasn't sure if the gospel was for them or not yet because so far it had only been preached to the Jews so it took the vision and this sign to show those present that yes the Gentiles can be saved. That was my point I was trying to make.

Also about the verse jumping thats how the Bible is written, if you read Matthew Mark Luke and John you'll notice they all tell the same thing the life, death and resurrection of Christ however you learn things from the other Gospels that might not have been mentioned in the other one. For example in Acts we see in chapter 15 that people were taking things from the OT and trying to bind them on others, if you read Gal 5:1-ff you see the same topic being discussed so you have to take things in context and see how it applies and as mentioned earlier everyone got the HS throughout the entire NT via the laying on of the hands of the apostles save the apostles on pentecost and this event in Acts 10. If it happened other wise please show me a book chapter and verse.

Centurionoflight
May 17th 2007, 10:05 PM
uric3


if you read Gal 5:1-ff you see the same topic being discussed so you have to take things in context and see how it applies and as mentioned earlier everyone got the HS throughout the entire NT via the laying on of the hands of the apostles save the apostles on pentecost and this event in Acts 10. If it happened other wise please show me a book chapter and verse.

You had saved believers who was not at pentacost;

Prior to pentacost the spirit wasnt givin to every believer.
Post pentacost everyone who is saved is givin the spirit at the point of salvation.

Therefore those who was saved and not givin the spirit before pentacost recived it thru believers who had it.

A transition period; that is no longer in effect today.

DSK
May 17th 2007, 10:31 PM
I am just arguing that baptism is the means instituted by God to bring about the regeneration of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, to the one who believes.


I have already Scripturally refuted the possibilty of that concept a couple of times now, most recently in post #67, which was directed to you, and so far you have either refused to respond, or I assume were unable to do so.

RSiscoe
May 18th 2007, 11:55 AM
I am just arguing that baptism is the means instituted by God to bring about the regeneration of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, to the one who believes.


I have already Scripturally refuted the possibilty of that concept a couple of times now, most recently in post #67, which was directed to you, and so far you have either refused to respond, or I assume were unable to do so.

I have a response to post # 67, as well as the argument in which you stated that Baptism could not be the means instituted by God to communicate the Holy Ghost, since "the Holy Ghost cometh not with observation". Unfortunately, my work scheulde is such that I usually can't post during the week - or if I do (such as yesterday), I have to chose which to response to and make it quick (unfortunately, I tore my hamstring last night and will probably have a lot of time to post over the next few weeks). I'll begin by responding to your posts #67 now (which, I just noticed, includes the other argument you made).

Now to post # 67:


Where does the Bible say he (Simon Mangus) was not regenerated?


The following verses give evidence that he never was regenerated.

Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,
Acts 8:19 saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.
Acts 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God.
Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.
Acts 8:23 For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.

In this verse, Simon Magus was seeking the office of apostle, whch began with the first 12, and was then communicated, via "the laying on of hands" to other men. Paul was ordained through the "laying on of hands" as recorded in Acts 13. That is why Paul, who was not one of the original 12 apostles, was called "apostle". There are other men as well who are called apostle in the Bible, but who were not one of the original 12. Matthias is another example of a man who was given the office of apostle after Judas fell. This is recorded in detail in Acts 1.

Simon wanted this apostolic power, which is why he said "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit".. This sin of Simon has come down to our day, and is known as "Simony"

Taken from Wikipedia: Simony is the ecclesiastical crime of paying for offices or positions in the hierarchy of a church, named after Simon Magus, who appears in the Acts of the Apostles 8:18-24. Simon Magus offers the disciples of Jesus payment for the power to perform miracles...

Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica: Simony: "The name is taken from Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), who tried to buy the power of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Simony was said to have become widespread in Europe in the 10th–11th century, as promotions to the priesthood or episcopate..."

Now, it is possible that the point you were making is the Simon was not regenerated because "his heart was not right before God". If this is what you were getting at, I would respond by saying that regeneration does not mean a person cannot later fall away. There are many places in the Bible that speak of falling away. In Hebrews, for example, we are told that " For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance” thereby showing that it is certainly possible for a person to be regenerated and then later fall away.

To conclude this point: The verses you quoted neither confirm nor refutes that fact that Simon was regenerated. In fact, regeneration is not even discussed.


Faith is necessary for being regenerated (for a person capable of having faith - an adult, for example), so it may be that his baptism did not result in regeneration, but I am curious where the Bible teaches what you claim? And if the Bible doesn't teach it, why do you say it is so? It is certainly possible that Simon the Magician converted, was regenerated, and then later fell away.


If faith is necessary for regeneration as you insist, and if regeneration comes about through baptism as the Catholic Church believes, then how does an infant, who is unable to exercise faith at it's baptism become regenerated? There is a problem there isn't there?

Not a problem at all. If you notice, in my above post I stated that “faith is necessary for being regenerated (for a person capable of having faith – an adult, for example)…" (previous post). For a child, or mentally retarded person who is incapable of making an act of faith, supernatural faith is infused into their soul with the Holy Ghost at baptism.

If you remember, I quoted a long section from St. Augustine’s writing on baptism in another thread, wherein he explains this in great detail. He explains that baptism supplies for the prerequisite of faith when faith is not possible (such as with a child); and faith supplies for baptism, when baptism is not possible (the example he gives for this is the thief on the cross).


The other problem is that Scripure says,
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If regeneration, or the new birth came about at ones baptism, then we would "know from whence it cometh" But Scripture is clear that we don't know, therefore baptism cannot possibly take place at baptism. It would appear that you have Scriptural contradictions in your belief system..
Then I guess scripture also refutes Peter. In fact, according to you, Peter must have been deceived and led all the other Christians into his error. Why do I say this?

In Act 11, Peter explains why he violated the law by eating with Gentiles; and not only that, but he explained why he allowed Gentiles to become Christians! Why did he do with a thing that was unheard of at the time? Because he claim that he witnessed “the Holy Ghost fall upon them (Act 11:15).

Can you believe Peter fell for that deception? He actually believed that he could tell when the Holy Ghost came upon someone. In fact, based on this event (supposedly seeing the Holy Ghost fall upon them), He allowed the Gentiles to enter the Church!

It is obvious that Peter was deceived, right? After all, John 3:8 says “The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Was the "voice" (or "spirit") that spoke to Peter actually the devil, who was deceiving him?

Based on your argument, if you lived in the days of the apostles you would have been the only one present to reject what Peter said. Everyone else “having heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life”. (Act 11:19

Were they all deceived. Didn't they know that a person cannot see the Holy Ghost? How did they all fall for this error? Or, could it be that you are drawing a false conclusion from John 3:8? Which is more likely?

Let me respond to you now, as I hope I would have then, had you and I lived at the time of the Apostles and you were making the same argument to refute Peter.

Like the wind, the Holy Ghost is not visible to us. We may be able to see the effects of the Holy Ghost, as in Acts 10), and we may be able to witness a person doing what is necessary to receive the Holy Ghost (being baptized, for example), but the Holy Ghost Himself is not visible. And if we come into contact with a person who has the indwelling Holy Ghost, it is not something that we can perceive with our eyes.

Therefore, when Peter saw “the Holy Ghost fall upon them”, what he actually saw were the effects produced by the Holy Ghost, not the Holy Ghost Himself. Therefore, Peter was not deceived as you may be tempted to believe (based on John 3:8). Similar, when a person is baptized and thereby receives the Holy Ghost, those present do not actually see any change in the person, but merely witness that which they believe by faith - the Holy Ghost being communicated to the soul.

I will end with this quote. You are already familiar with it, but it is worth quoting again because it show how Peter himself believed that a person received the Holy Ghost (generally speaking):

Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”

According to Peter, the Holy Ghost comes to the person through repentance and baptism. Similarly, the Bible clearly tells us that “by one spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13), which again clearly shows how a person becomes a member of the body of Christ – through baptism! Could it be anymore clear?

uric3
May 18th 2007, 11:59 AM
uric3


You had saved believers who was not at pentacost;

Prior to pentacost the spirit wasnt givin to every believer.
Post pentacost everyone who is saved is givin the spirit at the point of salvation.

Therefore those who was saved and not givin the spirit before pentacost recived it thru believers who had it.

A transition period; that is no longer in effect today.


Can you give me a passage or example of anyone having the spirit prior Pentecost? I don't know of any not even the apostles had it thats why Christ told them to go to Jerusalem and they would get power on high which they get at the start of Acts 2:1-4

Also you mentioned post pentecost everyone who was saved was given the spirit at the point of salvation. That's not the case look at Acts 8:14-17 the people they had preached to had believed and obeyed and didn't get it until they sent down two apostles to lay their hands on them so they might get it, and this is the case every time after Acts 2 save Acts 10 which I already explained.

However if you read Acts 2:37-38 they tell them repent and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. So yes they got it after salvation however we see here that, that point was after water baptism. Please feel free to comment and let me know if you know of any cases otherwise.

Teke
May 18th 2007, 01:00 PM
This topic came up in another thread. It seemed to generate some interest, so I thought we might discuss it here.

Speaking to Nicodemus, Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Christ then explained that to be born again one must be born of water and the Spirit. What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit? How does this happen?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RW

In Greek, John 3:5 is a figure of speech. It is not two things, but one. By which the latter noun becomes the superlative and emphatic adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former noun. Which shows the water to be spiritual. You could say it like this, "of water, yes, spiritual water".

I realize there are many meanings out there on this subject. But my understanding is that water baptism represents death, burial and resurrection in Christ. ie. as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

So those who are spiritually born of the spirit, naturally receive baptism by water to declare their death, burial and resurrection. IOW water baptism is a public declaration to God. Having been born of the spirit, one declares they are dead and buried with Christ, and resurrected with Christ. Our fallen nature is put to death.

Centurionoflight
May 18th 2007, 03:35 PM
uric3


Also you mentioned post pentecost everyone who was saved was given the spirit at the point of salvation. That's not the case look at Acts 8:14-17 the people they had preached to had believed and obeyed and didn't get it until they sent down two apostles to lay their hands on them so they might get it, and this is the case every time after Acts 2 save Acts 10 which I already explained.


Again you had believers who was saved before pentacost who had not the spirit; ministering.

When they had a lay on hand by one that had the spirit; then they became part of the church.


The result is;

We today have universal filling; this is from the speading of the spirit in the early church.





However if you read Acts 2:37-38 they tell them repent and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. So yes they got it after salvation however we see here that, that point was after water baptism. Please feel free to comment and let me know if you know of any cases otherwise.

Acts 2
38and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

The spirit came from their salvation; not from their bath.

To state we get the spirit from some bath; is to put mans works in the mix.

DSK
May 18th 2007, 05:41 PM
I could it be that you are drawing a false conclusion from John 3:8?

Not likely since the plain wording of the text speaks for itself, and is not at all difficult to understand what Jesus is saying here. The verse plainly states that we don't know from whence the new birth cometh. On the other hand when you state that the new birth comes about at baptism, you are saying you know from whence it cometh contrary to the plain wording from the mouth of Jesus Himself. Your post was lengthy and ran complete circles around John 3:8 without actually dealing with what is stated in that verse.

Sold Out
May 18th 2007, 06:13 PM
The only thing I follow is the Bible nothing more nothing less, OT is good for studying and understanding God and how the NT came to be about. Everything in the NT we are to follow what we learn via example, command and whats inferred. I will not go outside of the NT to get my authority so yes the NT gospel that was preached via Christ and his disciples is all there is to me, and OT for reference and learning from for it is inspired of God as well but I don't have to follow the Jewish laws that lie within because I am under a better testament.


Please just answer the question...do you believe there is only one Gospel?

RogerW
May 18th 2007, 06:44 PM
In Greek, John 3:5 is a figure of speech. It is not two things, but one. By which the latter noun becomes the superlative and emphatic adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former noun. Which shows the water to be spiritual. You could say it like this, "of water, yes, spiritual water".

I realize there are many meanings out there on this subject. But my understanding is that water baptism represents death, burial and resurrection in Christ. ie. as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

So those who are spiritually born of the spirit, naturally receive baptism by water to declare their death, burial and resurrection. IOW water baptism is a public declaration to God. Having been born of the spirit, one declares they are dead and buried with Christ, and resurrected with Christ. Our fallen nature is put to death.

Thank you Teke. I don't know enough about the Greek language to understand particular nuances. This was very helpful.

RW

Teke
May 18th 2007, 07:07 PM
Thank you Teke. I don't know enough about the Greek language to understand particular nuances. This was very helpful.

RW

Your welcome Roger. :)
It's not as complicated as some make it out to be. In translations there are bound to be errors of understanding, which are honest errors. But sometimes, IMHO, some go way over board with their own languages literal translation and their particular theological views on the text.
IOW English isn't Greek.:D

strongmeat
May 20th 2007, 12:34 AM
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Jn.3:5)

Those who teach baptism as necessary for regeneration say this verse speaks of water baptism. But they say that baptism was not mandatory upon the thief on the cross because the new testament was not binding as Christ had not died as yet. If this verse is about baptism then are we to understand that Christ is telling Nicodemus he has to be baptized to be born again but that he must wait until the death of Christ to be baptized? This does not make sense.
Jesus was speaking to a Jew who was quite familiar with the Old Testament. When Jesus speaks of water the most natural thing that Nicodemus would relate to is not water baptism but rather the water of separation or purification. ( See Num.19:9; Num.31:23; Ezek.36:25.) What did this shadow or symbol point to? Certainly not to another symbol (baptism). It refers to an inward cleansing, a cleansing from above. Being born of water and the spirit is not fleshly. A ritual or ordinance ( be it circumcision, cleansing by the water of purification, or water baptism) cannot bring about the new birth. It is not exterior, it is interior. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 01:33 AM
Not likely since the plain wording of the text speaks for itself, and is not at all difficult to understand what Jesus is saying here. The verse plainly states that we don't know from whence the new birth cometh. On the other hand when you state that the new birth comes about at baptism, you are saying you know from whence it cometh contrary to the plain wording from the mouth of Jesus Himself. Your post was lengthy and ran complete circles around John 3:8 without actually dealing with what is stated in that verse.

Then let's deal with it. The verse does not say what you said it says. It does not say that we don't know where the new birth comes from. You might read that into it, since that is what you would like for it to say, but that is not what it says. What it says is that, just as we can't tell where the wind comes from, or where it goes, so too with one born of the spirit; in other words, we can't tell where one born of the Spirit comes from, or where they go. That's what it literally says. Here's the verse:

John 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit".

Now, what is the verse saying? Literally it says that the wind comes and goes, and we can't tell from where (because it is not visible); so too does the person born of the spirit come and go, yet we can't tell from where.

What Jesus is probably saying is that, just as we are unable to see the wind itself, but only its effects, so too is it with the person born of the Spirit. We cannot see the Spirit, but only its effects.

Remember, he was talking to Nicodemus, who thought Jesus was speaking of some kind of second physical birth. Jesus made it clear that he was speaking of a spiritual birth, which is not visible of itself, but only in the effects it produces, just as the wind is not visible of itself, but only in the effects resulting from it.

One thing is certain: The verse doesn't say, as you would like it to say, that we don't know from whence comes the spiritual birth.

And it is also worth pointing out that immediately after Jesus finishes His discourse with Nicodemus (immediately after the red letters end in the King James Version), he and His disciples went out and baptized:

John 3:22: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with then, and baptized."

I guess you don't see any significance in this do you? Jesus teaches that we must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost - not born of water and again of the Holy Ghost, but born again (the second time) of water and the Holy Ghost - and then immediately follows up this teaching by going out with His disciples to baptize. I guess that is just a coincidence, right?

And as I showed in the last post, Peter tells us how the Holy Spirit is received:

Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

Pretty clear teaching for the one who believes the Bible. Not clear at all for the one who refused to believe.

RogerW
May 20th 2007, 02:47 AM
And it is also worth pointing out that immediately after Jesus finishes His discourse with Nicodemus (immediately after the red letters end in the King James Version), he and His disciples went out and baptized:

John 3:22: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with then, and baptized."

I guess you don't see any significance in this do you? Jesus teaches that we must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost - not born of water and again of the Holy Ghost, but born again (the second time) of water and the Holy Ghost - and then immediately follows up this teaching by going out with His disciples to baptize. I guess that is just a coincidence, right?

And as I showed in the last post, Peter tells us how the Holy Spirit is received:

Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

Pretty clear teaching for the one who believes the Bible. Not clear at all for the one who refused to believe.

Yes, Jesus goes out with His disciples, and Jesus's disciples baptize, and John is also baptizing. If water baptism is the means of salvation I find it very odd that Jesus did not baptize along with His disciples.

Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself batized not, but his disciples,)

After Christ left Judaea, He went through Samaria where He met the Samaritan woman at the well. The discussion Christ has with this woman is very informative, for it shows us the significance of the water (Christ, the living Word) which saves. We all know the story, Christ asks for a drink of water, and the woman is surprised that Christ would speak to a Samaritan, Him being a Jew. Then Christ tells her that the water that He can give her is living water, and if she drinks this water she will never thirst again.

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Joh 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

You say that baptism in water brings eternal life, but here Christ tells us that He has (in fact is) the water (the Word of Life i.e. the Word became flesh; Jo 1) that springs up into everlasting life.

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jesus makes no mention of baptism in water as being the means for her to obtain everlasting life. If water baptism is necessary for obtaining eternal life, why doesn't Christ mention it to this woman? He had just been with His disciples, and John who were baptizing, and yet He doesn't tell His disciples they must baptize this woman?

RW

Lars777
May 20th 2007, 06:19 AM
If water baptism is necessary to complete salvation as lots of people believe then who Baptized John the Baptist?

He said to Jesus while standing in the Jordan I should be baptized by you!
So we know he was not baptized.

What is Johns fate concerning water baptism ?

DSK
May 20th 2007, 11:56 AM
John 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit".

What Jesus is probably saying is that, just as we are unable to see the wind itself, but only its effects, so too is it with the person born of the Spirit. We cannot see the Spirit, but only its effects.


That should be easy enough to prove or disprove by answering the following question.
What effects are seen in an infant when you baptize it?

deaconrick
May 20th 2007, 01:16 PM
I don't know anyone who says that baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism is A means of grace, not the ONLY means of grace.

Pilgrimtozion
May 20th 2007, 02:09 PM
That should be easy enough to prove or disprove by answering the following question.
What effects are seen in an infant when you baptize it?

With all due respect, that reasoning says more about infant baptism than of baptism in general.

DSK
May 20th 2007, 04:45 PM
With all due respect, that reasoning says more about infant baptism than of baptism in general.

Fair enough. Then let me ask you or anyone else who cares to answer the following question, and I will save my previous question for those whose denominations practice infant baptism.
What effect have you ever seen upon any individual, whether young or old upon their being water baptized?

RogerW
May 20th 2007, 05:01 PM
RSiscoe,

Going back and reading again some of the posts here, I wonder if there can be any agreement between us on this topic? I agree with you 100% that baptism DOES INDEED SAVE US. The difference in our understanding is that you believe the baptism that saves comes from water, while I am convinced the only BAPTISM that saves is that baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is the baptism that only Christ can give that is unto salvation. Not done with human hands, or through human obedience, but through Christ. Water baptism is commanded to signify being set apart from the world. If circumcision did not save all those who received the sign, how could water baptism save, when like the sign of circumcision it is outward, but eternal salvation is inward of the heart?

RW

deaconrick
May 20th 2007, 05:48 PM
RSiscoe,

If circumcision did not save all those who received the sign, how could water baptism save, when like the sign of circumcision it is outward, but eternal salvation is inward of the heart?

RW
How is watger batism an outward sign? Circumcision of the male can be seen well afer the procedure takes place. In baptism, once the person is toweled off there's no evidence of the event. Seems awfully different to me.

In infant baptism it is not the water that makes a person saved. It is Jesus who uses the water to impart His Holy Spirit into the one beiing baptized.

Unless I've missed something, and it is certainly possible that I have. I have yet to see anyone explain Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Also, what about 1Peter where we are told that "baptism now saves..."

Lars777
May 20th 2007, 06:00 PM
I have yet to see anyone explain Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Also, what about 1Peter where we are told that "baptism now saves..."








And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation [Or, to put it bluntly, as he did: 'this generation of crooks']." (Acts 2:38-40 RSV)




The Apostle Peter is answering this question, "What shall we do?" And he acknowledges that there is something to be done. When you come to the place where you understand that Jesus is Lord, and that you are out of harmony with all his purposes and his life, then there is something to do. There are two things you need to do, Peter says, and then one thing God will do.

You need, first, to repent. "Repent" is a word that is greatly misunderstood. Most people think repentance means that you feel sorry, and you begin to cry and weep.

That has nothing to do with repentance. You may feel sorry, and you may begin to weep and cry, but that is not necessary, and it does not mean that you have repented. Repent is a word which means "to change your mind," to change your thinking.

In the Greek that is exactly what it means: metanoi -- "change your mind." We get our English word from the Latin -- pentir means "to think," and the prefix re means "again" -- "think again." You have been thinking that everything was all right with you; well, "think again."

You have been thinking that Jesus is nothing but a great teacher, or a great prophet, but that he is not the Son of God, and he is not the Lord of glory, the Lord of all the earth; well, think again.

Repent -- "change your mind, get in tune with reality, line up with things the way they really are," is what Peter is saying. "You have been kidding yourself, you have been deluded, you have been fooled; well, change your mind." That is the first thing. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God -- repent and put him where he belongs in your life.

Then, the second thing, be baptized. Now, baptism does not add anything to your repentance. It does not make you better. It does not do anything magic for you so that you are suddenly forgiven of your sins.

But baptism is the outward declaration, by symbol, of the change of mind that you have experienced within. Baptism is an open identification with Jesus Christ. To be baptized means that you are telling everybody, "I belong to him. I follow him. I am one of his." It is a cutting off from the old way of thinking, and a beginning of a new life.

There are several ways of being baptized, and I do not think the issue hinges at all upon the mode of baptism. The two general ways both symbolize the beginning of a new life, and that is what baptism is all about.

And among these Jews it was a very clearly understood process. They knew that when a Gentile became a Jew, his body was washed all over, and they called that a baptism.

It was a symbol that he was beginning a new life, starting all over again. This is what baptism basically means. This is what it meant to John the Baptist. It is not important what the mode is.

But it is important that it be the indication of a new beginning. This is what it is intended to be here in Acts.

Someone says, "Wait a minute. Peter says, 'Be baptized in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.'" A great number in the church have taken that passage to mean that when you are baptized your sins are forgiven.

The Greek construction here is somewhat more loose than the English, and it allows for another perfectly proper translation which would make it read, "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins." That is the way it should be read.

A little later in this same book, the Apostle Peter is speaking to another crowd of people in the house of Cornelius, and he says to them, "Repent, and you shall receive remission of sins..." (Acts 10:43).

He does not say anything at all about baptism there. So baptism is not the essential here. It is repentance that obtains remission of sins. It is changing your mind about Jesus Christ that enables God to wipe out all your guilt and all the sins of your past.

But baptism is the sign that this has been accomplished, and is the mark of the beginning of new life on your behalf. "When you repent," says the apostle, "you will receive the Holy Spirit." That is, God, the third person of the Trinity, will come and live in you. And his work will be to make Jesus Christ real, visible, plain, and close to you, to impart his life to your own. This is what happens when you repent.

Teke
May 20th 2007, 06:03 PM
How is watger batism an outward sign? Circumcision of the male can be seen well afer the procedure takes place. In baptism, once the person is toweled off there's no evidence of the event. Seems awfully different to me.

In infant baptism it is not the water that makes a person saved. It is Jesus who uses the water to impart His Holy Spirit into the one beiing baptized.

Unless I've missed something, and it is certainly possible that I have. I have yet to see anyone explain Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Also, what about 1Peter where we are told that "baptism now saves..."

If I may, Deacon Rick:hug:, point out that in Acts 2:38, Peter is making a call to respond to the gospel. And that requires specific actions which define Christian life within the Church.

Is this the verse from 1 Peter,
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Peter is not saying that baptism saves you, but that the resurrection of Jesus Christ does. Which agrees with the historical teaching of baptism. That being that it represents our death, burial and resurrection with Christ.:)

Side note; I doubt everyone sees another's circumcision, as that is their private parts. Which is part of the meaning for Jews.

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 06:44 PM
RSiscoe,

Going back and reading again some of the posts here, I wonder if there can be any agreement between us on this topic? I agree with you 100% that baptism DOES INDEED SAVE US. The difference in our understanding is that you believe the baptism that saves comes from water, while I am convinced the only BAPTISM that saves is that baptism of the Holy Spirit.

What we can agree on is that it is not the water of baptism that saves, but the Holy Ghost received at Baptism that regenerates the soul.

What some people today don't realize - even though it was taught unanimously by all Christians for the first 1000+ years - is that Baptism with water is the means instituted by God to bring this about. The outward act signifies what takes place within, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible shows us this in the baptism of Jesus. What I mean is, the baptism of Jesus shows us, in a physical way, what takes places spiritually. Notice what takes place when Jesus is baptized:

Mt 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to Him: and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3: 16-17;

Rather than my drawing the paralled between what physically took place when Jesus was baptized, and what spiritual takes place when we are baptized, I will allow Aphraahat the Sage explain it:

Aphraahat the Sage: "From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . in the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit." (Aphraahat the Persian Sage, Treatises 6:14:4 [inter A.D. 340])

I provided numerous quotes in post 10 to show how all the early Christian understood baptism.


It is the baptism that only Christ can give that is unto salvation. Not done with human hands, or through human obedience, but through Christ.

It is not one or the other. The infusion of the Holy Ghost which comes about through baptism, is the baptism of Christ. Christ is the efficient cause of grace, while baptims is the means He instituted to communicate that grace.

Jesus Himself told us that two things were required for salvation - belief and baptism.

In Mark 16, Jesus said: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

Clearly, Jesus said the belief and baptism are necessary for salvation. And keep in mind that what I am arguing has been believed since the beginning by all Christians. Consider how well the following quotes fit in with the clear words of our Lord quoted above:

Augustine: "The Lord has determined that the kingdom of Heaven should be conferred only on baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only to those who have been baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death" (St. Augustine, circa 400AD)

Tertullian: "Without Baptism, salvation is attainable by no one" (Tertullian - On Baptism circa 200AD).

Tertullian: “From that great pronouncement of Our Lord it is prescribed that salvation comes to no one without Baptism" (Tertullian - On Baptism, circa 200AD)

Ambrose: "Without Baptism, faith will not secure salvation, since only through Baptism comes the remission of sin and the special grace... (St. Ambrose - "One the Sacraments" Bk 1 CSL 73).

The early Christians believed the clear words of our Lord. Would that those who claim to be Christians today would follow their example.


Water baptism is commanded to signify being set apart from the world. If circumcision did not save all those who received the sign, how could water baptism save, when like the sign of circumcision it is outward, but eternal salvation is inward of the heart?

RW

Again, it is not the outward act of baptism that saves, it is the inward effect that is produced by water baptism that saves. Like Peter explains, it is not the washing of the flesh, but the inward effects that saves:

1 Peter 3: "In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

It is the effects produced by water baptism that saves. It is not the cleansing of the flesh, but the cleansing from sin (that results in a good conscience towards God) that saves.

Teke
May 20th 2007, 07:02 PM
I don't know anyone who says that baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism is A means of grace, not the ONLY means of grace.

And it is in one's view of grace that they view baptism.:)

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 07:23 PM
John 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit".

What Jesus is probably saying is that, just as we are unable to see the wind itself, but only its effects, so too is it with the person born of the Spirit. We cannot see the Spirit, but only its effects.


That should be easy enough to prove or disprove by answering the following question.
What effects are seen in an infant when you baptize it?

As for what effects would be shown in infant, there would be none. Infants do not have the use of their reason, and aren't able to do much more than eat and dirty their diaper. So, since the Spirit is invisible; and since the fruits of the Spirit are seen in action, we will not be able to see any spiritual fruit in infants. As the wind is sometimes gentle and produces no visible effects, so to the Spirit would not produce any visible fruits in an infant.

What about an adult? The Bible tells us what the fruits of the Spirit are, and what the fruits of the flesh are:

Galatians 5: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: ... Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity...

Those are the fruits of the Spirit. How'd you come out?

But to address your point: I did not claim that the spiritual birth always produces an immediate outward effect. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The point is, the Holy Spirit is invisible, and there will be no way to visibly see the new birth take place within the soul. All we can see are the outward actions of baptism which, as Christians have always believed, produces the inward rebirth.

I'll end with this point. As has been said, for over 1000 years (and probably over 1500 years) all Christians believed that Baptism was the means instituted by God to bring about the spiritual rebirth. I provided many quotes in post #10 (and could have provide many more) showing that this was believed by Christians in the first few centuries.

Now, the Bible warns us that "in the end many will be deceived". It doesn't say "in the beginning", or "in the middle" many will be deceived, but rather "in the end many will be decieved".

What is more likely, that all Christians for the first 1000 + years were wrong in their belief and in their interpretation of the Bible with regard to baptism, or that those living today (near the end), who disagree with them, are wrong?

And it is not as though the Bible doesn't agree with what the early Christians believed. The Bible quite clearly tells us that "baptism saves us". Jesus Himself said that two things are required for salvation: belief and baptism. The early Christians all understood this, and all believed it. Why it is so hard for those living today to do the same?

Answer: Because most people hold fast to what they have been taught by man, and then attempt to interpret the Bible in accord with what they believe (which is based on what they were taught), rather than honestly and sincerely submitting to the clear words of the Bible, as the early Chrisians did.

Jesus told His disciples that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he who believeth not shall be condemned"[/i], thereby showing that only one thing is required for damnation - unbelief - whereas two things are required for salvation - belief and baptism (unless, of course, one of the two are impossible, as explained in an earlier post).

DSK
May 20th 2007, 07:42 PM
As for what effects would be shown in infant, there would be none.

But to address your point: I did not claim that the spiritual birth always produces an immediate outward effect. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Earlier you said we can only see the effects that baptism produces, now you say there isn't any. That should be a clue to you that baptism isn't what produces the new birth. When the wind blows, we don't have to wait to see the effects of the wind. The effects of the wind are seen immediately. Even if the wind blows ever so gently, so that it merely turns a leaf over, nevertheless the effects of that wind are immediately seen. The wind doesn't blow today, and then the leaf turns over tomorrow, or next year.
I know you posted other verses, but for now I prefer to stick to the verses in John 3, especially verse 8. Later on when the time is right I will discuss other verses with you if you still desire to. I prefer to keep it short and to the point.

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 08:01 PM
Earlier you said we can only see the effects that baptism produces, now you say there isn't any. That should be a clue to you that baptism isn't what produces the new birth. When the wind blows, we don't have to wait to see the effects of the wind. The effects of the wind are seen immediately. Even if the wind blows ever so gently, so that it merely turns a leaf over, nevertheless the effects of that wind are immediately seen. The wind doesn't blow today, and then the leaf turns over tomorrow, or next year.
I know you posted other verses, but for now I prefer to stick to the verses in John 3, especially verse 8. Later on when the time is right I will discuss other verses with you if you still desire to. I prefer to keep it short and to the point.

What else is there do discuss about John 3:8? You originally said that the verse states that we don't know where the new birth comes from, which is not what the verse says. Then, drawing an erroneous conclusion from what the verse does not actually say, you claimed that this proves that baptism doesn't produce the new birth, since, as you said, we can't tell where the new birth comes from.

But what you claimed the verse said, is not what it says. What it says is this:

John 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit".

Notice, it doesn't say we can't tell where the new birth comes from, or that we don't know what produces the new birth. What it says is that we can't tell where the person born of the Spirit comes from.

I gave you my interpretation of the verse. If you have a better one than let's hear it. But don't claim that it says what it doesn't say; and what it doesn't say is that we can't tell what produce the spiritual birth. That "interpretation" was nothing but you claiming that the verse said what you would have liked it to say, which it didn't.

DSK
May 20th 2007, 08:18 PM
Notice, it doesn't say we can't tell where the new birth comes from, or that we don't know what produces the new birth. What it says is that we can't tell where the person born of the Spirit comes from.



Lets look at the verses in a better context.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In the above verses it is clear that "it" can only be referring to the wind, not the person born of the Spirit as you claim. You might want to read those verses more carefully. As long as you are unable to come to a proper understanding of what "it" refers to, then your interpretation of these verses will remain faulty.

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 08:33 PM
Lets look at the verses in a better context.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In the above verses it is clear that "it" can only be referring to the wind, not the person born of the Spirit as you claim. You might want to read those verses more carefully. As long as you are unable to come to a proper understanding of what "it" refers to, then your interpretation of these verses will remain faulty.

Maybe you missed my point. I understand what it was referring to. It was obviously referring to the wind. The point is that the verse says the same is true for the person born of the Spirit. It compares the person born of the Spirit to the wind. Jesus is drawing a parallel.

He said, just as you can't tell where the wind comes from or where the wind goes, so too you can't tell where the one born of the Spirit comes from and where the person born of the spirit goes.

Augustine interprets this verse to mean that the unbeliever is unable to understand where the person born of the Spirit comes from and where he goes.

That interpretation fits in with the context, since Nicodemus, who was not born of the Spirit, was unable to understand what Jesus was saying. They were operating on two different levels. Jesus was speaking of a spiritual birth, while Nicodemus had his mind on the natural level.

*Madeline*
May 20th 2007, 08:45 PM
John 3:8 is a description of people born of the Spirit -- they are fully free to act at any moment (like the Spirit) and that they would be known by their effect ('sound') rather than by where they come from. You can't tell that something or someone is not doing an action of the Holy Spirit just by where they come from or who they are or what they identify as, because often you don't know what that is, and even when you do know, not everything that comes from there is from the Spirit. The Spirit has surprises. Instead, you hear the sound, you feel the breeze, and by that you know the wind. People born of the Spirit can be much the same way. Weeellll, that's just my 2 cents worth!:)

Love,
Madeline

DSK
May 20th 2007, 09:04 PM
Maybe you missed my point. I understand what it was referring to. It was obviously referring to the wind.

Good, then thats a start in the right direction. Now that we have determined that "it" is referring to the wind, we can move on to the next point.

Let me post verse 8 once again

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Now when the verse above says, we do not know from whence "it" cometh. The "it" we do not know from whence "it" cometh is speaking of the wind which actually is referring to the Holy Spirit which is the agent which produces the new birth.
Therefore, when you say you know that "it" (the Holy Spirit) comes at ones baptism, your are saying you do know from whence "it" cometh, which disagrees with this Scripture. In other words, if we claim that the Holy Spirit comes at ones baptism, we are stating we do know from whence "it" cometh. The conclusion we have to draw to not be found in disagreement with Scripture is the Holy Spirit cannot possibly come at baptism, because if He did, then we would know when He comes.

DSK
May 20th 2007, 09:12 PM
Side note; I doubt everyone sees another's circumcision, as that is their private parts.

Then you have never been in a man's locker room, and have not had the pleasure of having six brothers whom you have the opportunity to grow up with. :D

*Madeline*
May 20th 2007, 09:24 PM
Then you have never been in a man's locker room, and have not had the pleasure of having six brothers whom you have the opportunity to grow up with. :D

I highly doubt that a woman is going to enter a room filled with sweat, naked men, and smelly odors! ;)

DSK
May 20th 2007, 09:42 PM
I highly doubt that a woman is going to enter a room filled with sweat, naked men, and smelly odors! ;)

I understand. And likewise men don't enjoy being in locker rooms with other smelly men either. At least I don't. But if you are married, or have been married, then possibly you have had the opportunity to see what the visible work of circumcission has accomplished. :spin:

deaconrick
May 20th 2007, 09:58 PM
One of the things that I have observed over the years and continue to observe here is that those who believe in infant baptism interpret scripture one way, and those who do not believe in infant baptism interpret scripture another way. In addition, those who hold to one of those 2 beliefs is not willing to change his beliefs to "the other side." I am bowing out of this discussion. I believe what I believe, I am as certain that what I believe is of divine origin as you are of yours.

We simply must agree to disagree.

DSK
May 20th 2007, 10:17 PM
One of the things that I have observed over the years and continue to observe here is that those who believe in infant baptism interpret scripture one way, and those who do not believe in infant baptism interpret scripture another way. In addition, those who hold to one of those 2 beliefs is not willing to change his beliefs to "the other side." I am bowing out of this discussion. I believe what I believe, I am as certain that what I believe is of divine origin as you are of yours.

We simply must agree to disagree.

Just a note here.

I noticed your a Lutheran, and having been raised as a Lutheran myself, and having been sent to a Lutheran grade school and Sunday School, and having been confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I am quite familar with the Lutheran position on baptism as well as other teachings of the Lutheran Church. Once I became an adult and learned what John chapter 3 was saying, I left all my connections to the Lutheran Church. These days, as I look back on my Lutheran education, I find it quite odd, that in all my years spent as a Lutheran, no explanation of John chapter 3 and what it truly meant to be born again was ever given to me. It wasn't until after I left the Lutheran Church that I learned from Scripture all about being born again, and the true meaning of it. But to this day I still have a compassionate love for all Lutheran's and pray that John chapter 3 will be more emphazied than it was during the years I attended that denomination.

deaconrick
May 20th 2007, 10:24 PM
Just a note here.

I noticed your a Lutheran, and having been raised as a Lutheran myself, and having been sent to a Lutheran grade school and Sunday School, and having been confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I am quite familar with the Lutheran position on baptism as well as other teachings of the Lutheran Church. Once I became an adult and learned what John chapter 3 was saying, I left all my connections to the Lutheran Church. These days, as I look back on my Lutheran education, I find it quite odd, that in all my years spent as a Lutheran, no explanation of John chapter 3 and what it truly meant to be born again was ever given to me. It wasn't until after I left the Lutheran Church that I learned from Scripture all about being born again, and the true meaning of it. But to this day I still have a compassionate love for all Lutheran's and pray that John chapter 3 will be more emphazied than it was during the years I attended that denomination.
I don't know what division of the Lutheran Church you were raised in, but I can tell you that John 3 is talked about and taught. Being born again is a reference to baptism, dying with Christ and rising again.

Obviously we will not agree on that as well. Again I am convinced that the Lutheran teaching is correct, and you disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.

DSK
May 20th 2007, 11:08 PM
I don't know what division of the Lutheran Church you were raised in, but I can tell you that John 3 is talked about and taught. Being born again is a reference to baptism, dying with Christ and rising again.

Obviously we will not agree on that as well. Again I am convinced that the Lutheran teaching is correct, and you disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.

FYI it was the Missouri Synod

Teke
May 20th 2007, 11:48 PM
Then you have never been in a man's locker room, and have not had the pleasure of having six brothers whom you have the opportunity to grow up with. :D

:rofl: I can confidently say, I have not.

I do not associate circumcision with baptism either. My point was that God circumcises the heart, which is private, between you and Him.

And I certainly disagree with any bodily mutilation of any kind. Such as the Muslims, even taking the circumcision to the extreme, by circumcising women. OWW!:o

DSK
May 21st 2007, 12:32 AM
:rofl: I can confidently say, I have not.

I do not associate circumcision with baptism either. My point was that God circumcises the heart, which is private, between you and Him.

And I certainly disagree with any bodily mutilation of any kind. Such as the Muslims, even taking the circumcision to the extreme, by circumcising women. OWW!:o

OK, however my purpose here isn't to argue any of those points. My main purpose is to Scripturally prove that the new birth does not come about upon being baptized as is incorrectly taught by certain denominations.

deaconrick
May 21st 2007, 12:44 AM
OK, however my purpose here isn't to argue any of those points. My main purpose is to Scripturally prove that the new birth does not come about upon being baptized as is incorrectly taught by certain denominations.
Ok, so this is my last comment. You need to understand, those of us who believe in infant baptism are every bit as convinced that you are wrong as you are that we are wrong. That is why we have to agree to disagree.

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 01:01 AM
Good, then thats a start in the right direction. Now that we have determined that "it" is referring to the wind, we can move on to the next point.

Let me post verse 8 once again

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Now when the verse above says, we do not know from whence "it" cometh. The "it" we do not know from whence "it" cometh is speaking of the wind which actually is referring to the Holy Spirit which is the agent which produces the new birth.

That you have correct. I started to get into this earlier but thought it would take us in another direction. There are actually two translations of the verse in question, and both of them go back to the Fathers of the Church. In fact, Augustine discussed the two different translations that were being used. I have been using your translation, but my Bible uses the other one. This is the translation from my Bible, which is the same translation Augustine used for his commentary:

John 3:8: "The Spirit (not wind) breatheth where he will, and thou hearest his voice; but thou knowest not whence he cometh, nor wither he goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit"

The difference in the translation is that the one found in the KJV translates the Greek word pneuma as wind, whereas my Bible translates it as "spirit".

Both are valid translations since pneuma can mean either wind or spirit; and when it refers to spirit it can mean either the Divine Spirit, or the human spirit.


Therefore, when you say you know that "it" (the Holy Spirit) comes at ones baptism, your are saying you do know from whence "it" cometh, which disagrees with this Scripture. In other words, if we claim that the Holy Spirit comes at ones baptism, we are stating we do know from whence "it" cometh. The conclusion we have to draw to not be found in disagreement with Scripture is the Holy Spirit cannot possibly come at baptism, because if He did, then we would know when He comes.

OK, let me make sure I understand your reasoning and subsequent conclusion before I comment.

You are saying this: The Bible says we don't know where the Spirit comes from or where it goes. Thus the obvious conclusion that follows is that if anyone says the Spirit comes through baptism they are contradicting the Bible, because the Bible says we don’t know from whence the Spirit comes. That is what you are saying, right?

But does the verse say we don't know where the Spirit comes from, or we don't know how the Spirit is given? When Jesus speaks of the Spirit, is He speaking of the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit “drawing men” to God? Or is He speaking of the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit being infused into the soul? And is there really a difference between the two?

There is indeed a difference. And the "conclusion" you have drawn by not distinguishing the difference has led you to a false conclusion - a conclusion that is directly opposed to the evidence contained within the New Testament.

In fact, if you are consistent with you argument (and I don't expect that you will be), you will have to conclude that the apostles were all deceived. Not just once, but many times. Why do I say that?

Because the apostles, for some reason, believed that they could actually tell from whence the spirit came.

For example at Pentecost the apostles, who must have completely forgot what Jesus taught in John 3, actually believed that they witnessed the Holy Ghost coming upon them.

Acts 2:2-4: "And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind (pneuma) coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with diverse tongues...".

Can you believe that? They actually thought they witnessed the Holy Ghost come upon them. Too bad you weren't there to remind them that "The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth”. The apostles could not possibly have known if the Holy Ghost came at Pentecost, because if He did, they ” would know when He came" – conclusion based on your logic: the apostles were all deceived, for they would have had no way to know if the Holy Ghost came upon them.

But maybe you won't be convinced by that argument. ‘After all’, you might say, ‘a certain action was not performed by the apostles that produced the coming of the Holy Ghost. It came upon them in a way that they could perceived’, you may admit contrary to your earlier conclusion, ‘but it wasn't through any action of theirs that produced it’. Is that what you were thinking? If so, let's take a look at Acts, chapter 8...

Acts 8: “Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost… then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost”.

It is really too bad you weren’t around back then to tell the apostles that they were all in error. After all, they actually thought their laying hands upon them resulted in their receiving the Holy Ghost. They actually thought that they “knew whence the Spirit came”. Can you believe it?

After all, you have clearly shown us that we have no way of knowing whence the spirit comes from, or whither it goes. And you have pointed out that anyone who claims to know is in contradiction to the Scriptures.
Didn’t Paul know that “the Holy Spirit cannot possibly come at [the laying on of hand], because if He did, then we would know when He comes” (DSK). Yet the apostles actually thought that He did come at the laying on of hands.
It is a good thing that we have you here now to instruct us all. I’m just sorry you weren’t around during the days of the apostles. Oh well, their loss is our gain, right?

But unfortunately that’s not all. These poor apostles were under the same delusion in Acts 19. That’s right. As hard as it is to accept, we must acknowledge the apostles (probably well meaning but very ignorance in scripture,) believed that they knew from whence the spirit came.

Acts 19: “And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”

Poor Paul he thought there was a substantial difference between the baptism of John the Baptist and that of Jesus. And not only that, but he actually thought that he could impart the Holy Ghost to them through the laying on of hands (i.e. confirmation).

I won’t even get into Acts 10 and 11, for it is just too troublesome.

So, what are we to make of all this? If we accept your argument, we are forced to conclude that the apostles were in error for believing that the “laying on of hands” resulted in people receiving the Holy Ghost. And if we accept what is recorded in Scripture – that the Holy Ghost came upon people by the laying on of hands by the apostles – we are must conclude that your interpretation on John 3:8, and subsequent conclusion is false.

Which seems more likely? That the apostles were all deceived, or that you are misinterpreting, and thus drawing a false conclusion, from the verse in question?

And you left the Lutheran church over this?

Teke
May 21st 2007, 01:25 AM
OK, however my purpose here isn't to argue any of those points. My main purpose is to Scripturally prove that the new birth does not come about upon being baptized as is incorrectly taught by certain denominations.

OK, I have to ask. What denominations teach that?
I believe the other posters are only trying to show that baptism is a grace of God.
A few posts back I commented on that, and that their views of grace should be understood first.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 10:35 AM
OK, I have to ask. What denominations teach that?


The first few that come to my mind are Catholicism, Lutheran's and the church of Christ

DSK
May 21st 2007, 11:31 AM
I have been using your translation, but my Bible uses the other one. This is the translation from my Bible, which is the same translation Augustine used for his commentary:

John 3:8: "The Spirit (not wind) breatheth where he will, and thou hearest his voice; but thou knowest not whence he cometh, nor wither he goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit"

I have been aware that some translations use that wording, and I actually prefer this wording above the wording of the translation I have been using because it makes what I have been saying even clearer.


You are saying this: The Bible says we don't know where the Spirit comes from or where it goes. Thus the obvious conclusion that follows is that if anyone says the Spirit comes through baptism they are contradicting the Bible, because the Bible says we don’t know from whence the Spirit comes. That is what you are saying, right?

That is correct, and that is what Jesus said in John 3:8.


But does the verse say we don't know where the Spirit comes from, or we don't know how the Spirit is given?

John 3:8 specifically says, "from whence" not from how.
“BUT CANST NOT TELL WHENCE IT COMETH.”
The word “whence” is ‘pothen’, which means FROM WHICH, FROM WHERE, FROM WHAT PLACE. The word “cometh” is ‘erchomai’, which means TO COME, TO APPEAR, TO SHOW UP, TO COME TO.


When Jesus speaks of the Spirit, is He speaking of the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit “drawing men” to God? Or is He speaking of the Spirit in the sense of the Spirit being infused into the soul? And is there really a difference between the two?

The entire discourse in John chapter 3 is about being born again, not about being drawn.


Because the apostles, for some reason, believed that they could actually tell from whence the spirit came.

For example at Pentecost the apostles, who must have completely forgot what Jesus taught in John 3, actually believed that they witnessed the Holy Ghost coming upon them.

Acts 2:2-4: "And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind (pneuma) coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with diverse tongues...".

Can you believe that? They actually thought they witnessed the Holy Ghost come upon them. Too bad you weren't there to remind them that "The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth”. The apostles could not possibly have known if the Holy Ghost came at Pentecost, because if He did, they ” would know when He came" – conclusion based on your logic: the apostles were all deceived, for they would have had no way to know if the Holy Ghost came upon them.

First of all, what happened at Pentecost was a one time occurance, which has never been repeated. Secondly the evidence of the Holy Spirit came in external visible tongues of fire. Thirdly, the apostles were not expecting the Holy Spirit to appear, they were taken by as much surprise as anyone. Forthly, he there is no mention of baptism in that text. In other words baptism didn't produce His coming.


Acts 8: “Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost… then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost”.

Once again there is no mention of baptism in the above verses. Actually if you read all of Acts chapter 8 you will see that the people were baptized v 12, but that baptism didn't produce the Holy Spirit. It wasn't until later, only after Peter and John came and prayed for them and laid hands on them that they received the Holy Spirit vs. 14-17.


Acts 19: “And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”

The above text is the best case you have offered thus-far for your position. Nevertheless, please take notice that those who received the Holy Spirit gave visible evidence of their having received the Holy Spirit. That brings me full circle back to the question concerning the Catholic Church's position of baptizing infants. And the question once again arises, what evidence do you see in infants to verify that they have received the Holy Spirit, to which you previously answered; "there can be none"


I won’t even get into Acts 10 and 11, for it is just too troublesome.

I can't say as I blame you for not wanting to go there since the Holy Spirit came upon individuals previous to having been baptized in Acts chapter 10


So, what are we to make of all this? If we accept your argument, we are forced to conclude that the apostles were in error for believing that the “laying on of hands” resulted in people receiving the Holy Ghost. And if we accept what is recorded in Scripture – that the Holy Ghost came upon people by the laying on of hands by the apostles – we are must conclude that your interpretation on John 3:8, and subsequent conclusion is false.

Which seems more likely? That the apostles were all deceived, or that you are misinterpreting, and thus drawing a false conclusion, from the verse in question?

Well, here is what I make of all this. Since the Catholic Church is not only in error concerning this topic, but also concerning a multitude of other topics, I personally believe the probability of the teachings presented by Catholicism are more likely to be in error. I could list many of the unScriptural practices of the Catholic Church, but then I would not being staying within the specific topic of this thread.


And you left the Lutheran church over this?

No not just over this, but that is a long story suited for another day.

Teke
May 21st 2007, 12:06 PM
The first few that come to my mind are Catholicism, Lutheran's and the church of Christ

I don't know about Lutheran's, we'll have to let Deacon Rick comment on that.
But not all that call themselves catholic hold to that. The Roman church teaches grace is created, therefore more can be created, which has to do with their doctrine on baptism. An EO catholic would disagree, as they don't see grace as created. But an uncreated energy of God which lightens all mankind.

That is why I said the differences likely lie in the understanding of grace.:)

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 02:08 PM
Once again there is no mention of baptism in the above verses. Actually if you read all of Acts chapter 8 you will see that the people were baptized v 12, but that baptism didn't produce the Holy Spirit. It wasn't until later, only after Peter and John came and prayed for them and laid hands on them that they received the Holy Spirit vs. 14-17.

Which is it? If they received the Holy Ghost when the apostles laid hands upon them, then we “know from whence it came”, which, according to your interpretation of John 3:8, was not possible. You can’t have it both ways. You claimed that if the Holy Ghost is given at baptism it would contradict Scripture since “we knoweth not whence the Spirit cometh”. Yet you now admit that the Spirit came through the laying on of hands.

If you now admit that the Holy Ghost’s coming through the laying on of hands is not contrary to John 3:8, then you would have to admit that the coming of the Holy Ghost through Baptism would not be contrary to John 3:8.

You may not agree that the Holy Ghost comes through baptism, but you would have to admit that those who claim it does are not in contradiction to the verse in question, for if they were, you would have to say that the apostles were in contradiction to that verse.

Regarding receiving the Holy Ghost through the laying on if hands. The Holy Ghost comes at Baptism, and then is comes in the fullness through confirmation, which is what the “laying on of hands” is.

Confirmation is still referred to as that which gives the Holy Ghost, but it does not mean that the Holy Ghost was not received in a lesser degree at baptism.

As has been quoted, Peter himself said that the Holy Ghost is received at Baptism (Acts 2:38).


First of all, what happened at Pentecost was a one time occurance, which has never been repeated. Secondly the evidence of the Holy Spirit came in external visible tongues of fire. Thirdly, the apostles were not expecting the Holy Spirit to appear, they were taken by as much surprise as anyone. Forthly, he there is no mention of baptism in that text. In other words baptism didn't produce His coming.

No one said that Baptism the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. I was just showing that the apostles were able to tell “whence the spirit came”, which is in direct contradiction to your interpretation of John 3:8. So, were the apostles wrong in believing they could tell “whence the Spirit came”, or are you wrong in saying those who claim they can tell when the Spirit came are in contradiction to John 3:8? Which is it?


Acts 19: “And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”


The above text is the best case you have offered thus-far for your position. Nevertheless, please take notice that those who received the Holy Spirit gave visible evidence of their having received the Holy Spirit. That brings me full circle back to the question concerning the Catholic Church's position of baptizing infants. And the question once again arises, what evidence do you see in infants to verify that they have received the Holy Spirit, to which you previously answered; "there can be none".

First let’s clear this up: Are you now admitting that people can tell from whence the Spirit comes? – From the laying on if hands? If you admit this, then you are contradicting your earlier position.

Regarding the effects produced in an infant who is capable of just about nothing: The Spirit is not visible. Therefore, as I explained in an earlier post, we are unable to see its coming. We can see what produces it (baptism or the laying on of hands, for example), but the Spirit itself is not seen. We can also sometimes see effects that are produced by the Spirit, but these effects would not be seen in an infant, since their faculties are still undeveloped, and all they can do is lay there. And I never claimed that visible effects are always produce by the infusion of the Holy Ghost into the soul. In fact, I would guess that no one believes visible effects always result when a person is born again. Maybe something will happen, but maybe not. My claim is that we can see the actions that give the Holy Ghost (Baptism), not always external effects. You then claimed that if we can know what physical action produced the Holy Ghost, we would know “whence it came”.

Yet you now realize that your statement is contrary to what we see in Acts, since the action of the apostles – the laying on of hands – gave the Holy Ghost.


That brings me full circle back to the question concerning the Catholic Church's position of baptizing infants.

You have admitted that people come in to this world in a state of sin, and are in need of being born again. You have also admitted that you don’t know how a child can be saved, since they are unable to fulfill your requirements for being born again.

I have resolved this difficulty, and showed that Augustine taught the exact same as myself. The explanation I provided makes perfect sense, and has been taught from the beginning of the Church age. Infant baptism is not something that came along in the middle ages. It has been taught from the time of the apostles, and is still taught in non-Catholic churches., so it is not just some Catholic belief like you try to claim.

The following are some quotes from the earliest years of the Church. Two of these quotes confirm that infant baptism was handed down from the apostles. The first quote was written only 150 years after the death of the last apostle. That would be like us writing about slavery – that’s how close it was to the time of the apostles.

Origen, AD 248: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentary on Romans 5:9).

Origen, AD 248: “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin… In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would be superfluous” (Sermon on Baptism, 8:3).

Augustine, AD 408:: “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, not is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The litteral interpretation of Genesis, 10:23:39)

Baptism of infants was the norm in the early Church. The only disagreement was whether or not they should wait until the 8th day after birth to baptize, since that was the requirement with circumcision, which, as I think you realize, prefigure baptism. Delaying baptism for eight days was discussed at a Church council in the year 256, and rejected in favor of immediate baptism of infants.

The following is a letter from Cyprian, who was in charge of the council, to a person named Fidus who was claiming that the Church should wait until the 8th day to baptize infants:

Cyprian, AD 256: “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born: (Letters 64:2).

The following is Augustine’s commentary on the above letter from Cyprian.

Augustine, AD 412: “Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the 8th day after their birth. He agreed… that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166: 8:23).

You have admitted that you don’t know how a child can be saved since they are born in sin, and unable to fulfill your requirements for salvation (believing and confessing with the mouth). What the early Church teach about the salvation of infants with regard to baptism is explained by St. Ambrose:

St. Ambrose, circa 370: “No one ascends to the kingdom of Heaven except my the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not even infants…” (On Abraham, Book 4, ch 11:79)


Well, here is what I make of all this. Since the Catholic Church is not only in error concerning this topic, but also concerning a multitude of other topics, I personally believe the probability of the teachings presented by Catholicism are more likely to be in error. I could list many of the unScriptural practices of the Catholic Church, but then I would not being staying within the specific topic of this thread.

I wasn’t born Catholic and never had any reason to want to become one. However, through my studies I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was right about everything. I came to this conclusion completely on my own, and through my own studies. No one tried to convince me of anything, and I didn’t even have any Catholics to ask questions to. Through my own independent studies of the doctrinal differences, I concluded that the Catholic Church was right about everything. I based this conclusion on the Bible and Church history. That which as been taught unanimously since the earliest years of Christianity is not to be lightly ingored, for the early Christians received their teaching directly from the apostles. They did not base their opinion on merely an interpretation of this or that verse 2000 years separated from the actual events. That which was believed unanimously by all Christians is a strong confirmation that the teaching was of apostolic origin - especially when you read what the early Christians thought of novel teachings and practices. And with regard to infant baptism, the early Christians actually stated that it was of apostolic origin, and no one disagree with it.

I will discuss any Catholic doctrine with you in the world religions forum. There’s really only a few Catholic doctrines that aren’t taught by other denominations also, so these can’t be referred to as exclusively Catholic teachings. Infant baptism, for example, is practiced by other denominations, (which is why I felt I could discuss it with you in this forum).

I myself was baptized when I was three years old, and it wasn’t in the Catholic Church.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 04:55 PM
I don't know about Lutheran's, we'll have to let Deacon Rick comment on that.
:)

He already did in post #113 when he said:

"Being born again is a reference to baptism"

DSK
May 21st 2007, 05:32 PM
If you now admit that the Holy Ghost’s coming through the laying on of hands is not contrary to John 3:8, then you would have to admit that the coming of the Holy Ghost through Baptism would not be contrary to John 3:8.

The problem is you haven't as yet given me a single Biblical reference where anyone received the Holy Spirit at baptism.


let’s clear this up: Are you now admitting that people can tell from whence the Spirit comes?

To do so would be to contradict the words of Jesus found in John 3:8. And I don't like to trump the words of Jesus with the words of Augustine or others. It's more likely your understanding of what it truly means to be born again is faulty. I am also inclined to believe your perceptions on the difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism are probably incorrect as well.


Through my own independent studies of the doctrinal differences, I concluded that the Catholic Church was right about everything.

Well thats great. But it tells me that your thinking is confined to and limited by the teachings of that denomination. Denominationalism is the number one cause of blindness. But I am not only picking on your denomination, others who belong to different denominations are likewise limited in their thinking to what a certain denomination has taught them as well. For instance I believe both Calvinism as well as Arminianism have errors in their teachings as well.

Well, we will just have to disagree, because I see so many unScriptural practices of the Catholic Church. I have many family members and many friends and aquaintances who are Catholic, who have been baptized, confirmed, and married within the Catholic Church. There isn't a single one of them that give one iota of evidence of having received the new life in Christ. My current Pastor and his wife are both ex-Catholics, and many who attend the Church I attend are likewise ex-Catholics. Once they saw the error of the Catholic teachings, they packed up their bags and headed for higher ground.

By the way. You can save your time and omit all the quotes by the Church Fathers. I don't read them in posts anyway.

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 06:08 PM
Well thats great. But it tells me that your thinking is confined to and limited by the teachings of that denomination. Denominationalism is the number one cause of blindness.

With that statement I would agree. I agree because people usually believe what they have been taught, then interpret the Bible so that it fits in with what they believe (which is based on what they were taught). Their interpretation of the Bible is through the lens of what they already believe. Thus, since they are told that keeping the commandments is not necessary for salvation, they completely ignore the words of Jesus who says that we must keep the commandments if we are to attain to eternal life. The verses that agree with then, they accept; those that do not, they either pass over and attempt to explain away.

But, I don't see how you can say that about me. Why? Because I did not receive my teachings from any denomination. As I told you, I wasn't raised Catholic. I was raised Episcopal. It was through my own studies that I came into the Catholic Church. I didn't want to become a Catholic, nor did I not want to. I wasn't looking for any denomination. I was just looking at the Bible, Church history, and the various beliefs of the differing denominations from a neutral position. Approaching it this way, I did not have any bias (which causes the "blindness" you described). I did not have anything against any denomination. I approached it neutrally, and my only desire was to find the truth - not to prove or disprove anything.


But I am not only picking on your denomination, others who belong to different denominations are likewise limited in their thinking to what a certain denomination has taught them as well.

But remember, I came to where I am on my own, through my own studies, with absolutely no preconceived notions or biases. Therefore, and this is the truth, I was not leaning in any way, nor did I care at all where the truth led me. That is how I approached it.

The truth is, I did not have any of the "demoninational bias" you describe.


For instance I believe both Calvinism as well as Arminianism have errors in their teachings as well.

And your Pastor has everything right?


Well, we will just have to disagree, because I see so many unScriptural practices of the Catholic Church. I have many family members and many friends and aquaintances who are Catholic, who have been baptized, confirmed, and married within the Catholic Church. There isn't a single one of them that give one iota of evidence of having received the new life in Christ.

Maybe they are dead in sin, and have no faith. Most Catholics in America are luke-warm, don't have the Catholic faith (because they reject what the Church teaches), and are, objectively speaking, in the state of sin. That comment was based on objective evidence, not mere opinion.


My current Pastor and his wife are both ex-Catholics, and many who attend the Church I attend are likewise ex-Catholics. Once they saw the error of the Catholic teachings, they packed up there bags and headed for higher ground.

There are no errors in Catholic teaching.


By the way. You can save your time and omit all the quotes by the Church Fathers. I don't read them in posts anyway.

I didn't think you would read them. After all, why would you want to see your denominations teachings being contradicted by the Church Fathers? In my opinion, that would not be too comfortably for you. After all, you have the teachings of your denomination to hold fast to, and you wouldn't want any evidence to the contrary to rock you boat. Therefore, so that your conscience doesn't bother you, you won't read anything that is contrary to what you have been taught. I don't blame you. If I simply held fast to what I had been taught, I wouldn't want to see any evidence to the contrary either.

But I was hoping that you were more interested in the truth, rather than in simply holding fast to what you Preacher has taught you. Therefore, I took the time to post all of those quotes for your benefit (not mine), in the hope that you were sincerely interested in the truth. But I see that you are more interested in holding to what your denomination teaches. I guess this shows just how true your words were when you said "Denominationalism is the number one cause of blindness.

Now, for any further discussion, we should probably take it to the World Religions forum so as not to violate any rules.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 06:45 PM
I wasn't raised Catholic. I was raised Episcopal.

That explains alot. So you went from one very liberal denomination, to another denomination that likewise has many unBiblical teachings.


And your Pastor has everything right?

No, and he is willing to admit it. I speak personally with him all the time, and there are those items which are not essential to salvation which my Pastor and I find disagreement with each other, and yet our respect and admiration for each other is not in any way dimished. He is aware of those areas which we don't agree 100% and he doesn't see any problem with that. Nevertheless we both agree on the essentials. My Pastor even comes right out and tells you he doesn't know it all.


Maybe they are dead in sin, and have no faith. Most Catholics in America are luke-warm.

Actually the problem is as follows. At one time they were told that because they were baptized in the Catholic Church, then they are born again. But the truth of the matter is they never were truly born again. They have believed a lie. To this day they remain unregenerate and therefore act like those that are unregenerate.


There are no errors in Catholic teaching.

There are no errors in Scripture, and many Catholic teachings and practices find no Biblical support.


I didn't think you would read them. After all, why would you want to see your denominations teachings being contradicted by the Church Fathers?

I don't fully agree with the Church denomination which I attend, neither do I fully agree with any single denomination. I do however agree with what is written in Scripture, and when a denominnation teaches anything contray to Scripture. I side with Scripture as my final authority for all faith and practice.

So now tell me who is limited in their thinking, and blinded by their denomination. It appears you are my friend.

Theophilus
May 21st 2007, 06:50 PM
I will commend the restraint of the posters here, who have strongly held convictions about what they hold to be true...and yet have been, to this point, cordial in their posts toward other believers who disagree with those beliefs.

Am I coming through loud and clear? :)

Continue in your restraint...and we'll continue this thread. :hug:

Teke
May 21st 2007, 06:52 PM
He already did in post #113 when he said:

"Being born again is a reference to baptism"

I can't speak for him. But I can see a point in that.
Since he is clergy, he likely sees it in a sacramental way. I don't see anything wrong with that. As scripture is holy, and part of the tradition of the Church.

I didn't really "feel" born again, until I was baptized. The Father revealing His Son was more like the conception. A birth is the fullness, a coming to pass, fulfilling.

I like the way Isaiah says it in chapter 48.

Isa 48:3 ¶ I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] suddenly, and they came to pass.

Isa 48:6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare [it]? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

:saint:

DSK
May 21st 2007, 07:01 PM
I didn't really "feel" born again, until I was baptized. The Father revealing His Son was more like the conception. A birth is the fullness, a coming to pass, fulfilling.
:saint:

Part of the reason for that can oftentimes be explained as follows:

There is not an initial awareness on the part of the one being born, either physically or spiritually, that they actually have been born. The realization of this fact comes sometime later, and oftentimes gradually. While conversion occurs in the conscious level, regeneration occurs in the subconscious level.

Teke
May 21st 2007, 07:16 PM
Part of the reason for that can oftentimes be explained as follows:

There is not an initial awareness on the part of the one being born, either physically or spiritually, that they actually have been born. The realization of this fact comes sometime later, and oftentimes gradually. While conversion occurs in the conscious level, regeneration occurs in the subconscious level.

I'd agree with that.
My experience was conscious (I "knew" I was born again), as I made a conscious effort to be baptized. Which was also part of that public proclamation which Jesus calls for.

Mat 10:32 ¶ Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

If you understand what you stated above, then you should also understand infant baptism. I recall someone putting it this way, "how do you know, when the infant cries out as it is immersed in the baptismal waters, that it doesn't cry out to God".;)

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 07:22 PM
I will commend the restraint of the posters here, who have strongly held convictions about what they hold to be true...and yet have been, to this point, cordial in their posts toward other believers who disagree with those beliefs.

Am I coming through loud and clear? :)

Continue in your restraint...and we'll continue this thread. :hug:

Understood.


I don't fully agree with the Church denomination which I attend, neither do I fully agree with any single denomination. I do however agree with what is written in Scripture, and when a denominnation teaches anything contray to Scripture. I side with Scripture as my final authority for all faith and practice.

I have a comment about this. I would start by saying "I don't want to derail this thread", but it seems that the thread mostly consists our conversation so I don't think anyone will mind. I will try not to violate any rules here, but do want to see if what you claimed is true.

You claimed to believe what is written in the Bible, and that Scripture is your final authority. I am going to quote a few verses and ask if you believe them.

Jesus said that to enter the kingdom of Heaven, we must keep the commandemnts:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17)

I believe keeping the commandments is necessary to enter into eternal life, do you? If you do, how can you be sure you will not fall away, break one of the commandments, and be lost?

Jesus taught that "only those who endure to the end shall be saved".

I believe that only those who endure to the end shall be saved, do you? If so, how can you assure anyone that they will go to heaven unless you know the future?

John said that the only way we can know that we know Jesus is it we keep the commandments, and then followed this up by saying that those who claim to know him, yet keepeth not the commandments, are liars:

1 John 2:3-4: "And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Do you believe that those who claim to know Jesus, yet do not keep His commandments, are liars?

Paul tells us that we must hold fast to both written and oral traditions.

2 Thess 2:14,15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

I believe we should hold fast to both written and oral traditions, do you? If so, do you acknowledge that anyone who teaches the "Bible alone" doctrine is in contradiction to Scripture? And if you accept the verse in question, I will ask what oral Traditions you hold fast to? If you don't hold fast to any oral Traditions, why do you think you have the complete teaching of the apostles, since the Bible clearly states that we should hold fast two what has been handed down both in writing and orally?

If you don't hold fast to oral Traditions, how do you justify this given what the Bible teaches?

James says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:14, 24: "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? ... Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

I believe we are justified by works and not by faith alone, do you?
If so, do you reject the doctrine of Sola Fide, which teaches word-for-word the contrary - that we are justified by faith alone?

I am asking because I really don't know what your answers will be. I hope you accept what the Bible teaches, but I am not sure.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 07:27 PM
If you understand what you stated above, then you should also understand infant baptism. I recall someone putting it this way, "how do you know, when the infant cries out as it is immersed in the baptismal waters, that it doesn't cry out to God".;)

I understand perfectly what I posted.

Now concerning infant baptism as pertains to salvation. Since an infant cannot exercise belief in Christ, which is essential to salvation, then infant baptism is really quite useless. Secondly, should we assume that everytime we hear an infant cry that it automatically must be crying out to God. Where can we find support for such a statement?

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 07:35 PM
I understand perfectly what I posted.

Now concerning infant baptism as pertains to salvation. Since an infant cannot exercise belief in Christ, which is essential to salvation, then infant baptism is really quite useless.

Well this brings us back to the question you said you don't have an answer to: How is an infant saved? Are they all lost and without hope?

Surely God would make a simple way for infants to attain justification, right? What is it?

DSK
May 21st 2007, 07:38 PM
Understood.



I have a comment about this. I would start by saying "I don't want to derail this thread", but it seems that the thread mostly consists our conversation so I don't think anyone will mind. I will try not to violate any rules here, but do want to see if what you claimed is true.

You claimed to believe what is written in the Bible, and that Scripture is your final authority. I am going to quote a few verses and ask if you believe them.

Jesus said that to enter the kingdom of Heaven, we must keep the commandemnts:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17)

I believe keeping the commandments is necessary to enter into eternal life, do you? If you do, how can you be sure you will not fall away, break one of the commandments, and be lost?

Jesus taught that "only those who endure to the end shall be saved".

I believe that only those who endure to the end shall be saved, do you? If so, how can you assure anyone that they will go to heaven unless you know the future?

John said that the only way we can know that we know Jesus is it we keep the commandments, and then followed this up by saying that those who claim to know him, yet keepeth not the commandments, are liars:

1 John 2:3-4: "And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Do you believe that those who claim to know Jesus, yet do not keep His commandments, are liars?

Paul tells us that we must hold fast to both written and oral traditions.

2 Thess 2:14,15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

I believe we should hold fast to both written and oral traditions, do you? If so, do you acknowledge that anyone who teaches the "Bible alone" doctrine is in contradiction to Scripture? And if you accept the verse in question, I will ask what oral Traditions you hold fast to? If you don't hold fast to any oral Traditions, why do you think you have the complete teaching of the apostles, since the Bible clearly states that we should hold fast two what has been handed down both in writing and orally?

If you don't hold fast to oral Traditions, how do you justify this given what the Bible teaches?

James says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:14, 24: "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? ... Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

I believe we are justified by works and not by faith alone, do you?
If so, do you reject the doctrine of Sola Fide, which teaches word-for-word the contrary - that we are justified by faith alone?

I am asking because I really don't know what your answers will be. I hope you accept what the Bible teaches, but I am not sure.

Much of your post seemed to deal with Scripture which appears to disagree with "once saved, always saved" In case your wondering about my position concerning that, I am one who believes that salvation can be forfeited, but I don't want to discuss that any further in this thread, because it doesn't deal with the main topic of this thread.
Secondly, I believe everything contained in Scripture. I see many who have faulty interpretations of said Scripture.
Thirdly, I agree with any oral traditions when they don't disagree with what is already contained in my Bible. There are teachings and practices of the fathers, and of Church tradition's etc. which I personally believe find no Biblical support.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 07:45 PM
Well this brings us back to the question you said you don't have an answer to: How is an infant saved? Are they all lost and without hope?

Surely God would make a simple way for infants to attain justification, right? What is it?

I do have an answer. And it does come from Scripture.

Bathsheba bore David a child in their sinful adulterous affair, and the child died. After the child died, David had this to say:

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.

I believe God will do the right thing in the case of infants, even if they have never been baptized.

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 07:51 PM
I do have an answer. And it does come from Scripture.

Bathsheba bore David a child in their sinful adulterous affair, and the child died. After the child died, David had this to say:

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.

I believe God will do the right thing in the case of infants, even if they have never been baptized.

You must have seen something in that verse that I didn't.

Do you believe that there is a "second chance" for people after death?

If not, do you believe that a person has to be born again in this life to be saved (that's what Jesus said)?

If you believe Jesus who said we must be born again to attain heaven, then tell me how an infant is born again?

Teke
May 21st 2007, 08:02 PM
I understand perfectly what I posted.

Now concerning infant baptism as pertains to salvation. Since an infant cannot exercise belief in Christ, which is essential to salvation, then infant baptism is really quite useless. Secondly, should we assume that everytime we hear an infant cry that it automatically must be crying out to God. Where can we find support for such a statement?

Scripture focuses much on babes. And my question was, how do you know the infant is not crying out to God. Because I know from scripture they do.

Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].

There was also Moses who was found crying, and Pharoahs daughter had compassion on him. Did these infants not cry out to God for their salvation and He heard them and answered.
We also have John the Baptist who leaped in the womb, recognizing Christ.

So there is plenty of evidence that babes and children know the Lord, and depend completely on God. Jesus even said, suffer the children to come to Him and forbid them not. That should seal it.
He also told us that we must be as them, as such is the kingdom of God.

DSK
May 21st 2007, 08:10 PM
You must have seen something in that verse that I didn't.

Do you believe that there is a "second chance" for people after death?

If not, do you believe that a person has to be born again in this life to be saved (that's what Jesus said)?

If you believe Jesus who said we must be born again to attain heaven, then tell me how an infant is born again?

You being a catholic, maybe you can tell me how you answer this question. I have already given you my answer. Say an infant dies before the Catholic Church has a chance to baptize it. Is the child saved or unsaved?

DSK
May 21st 2007, 08:16 PM
Scripture focuses much on babes. And my question was, how do you know the infant is not crying out to God. Because I know from scripture they do.

Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].



The lad mentioned in that verse was Ishmael, and Ishmael at this point when this verse was spoken was certainly not an infant. If I'm not mistaken he already was somewhere bewtween the age of 12-17, but I would have to look into again. I know he wasn't an infant.

RogerW
May 21st 2007, 08:17 PM
What we can agree on is that it is not the water of baptism that saves, but the Holy Ghost received at Baptism that regenerates the soul.

What some people today don't realize - even though it was taught unanimously by all Christians for the first 1000+ years - is that Baptism with water is the means instituted by God to bring this about. The outward act signifies what takes place within, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

What I will agree on is that it is not water baptism that saves. You are relying on tradition, and the writings of fallible men to prove what the Infallible Word of God does NOT confirm. If water baptism is the means instituted by God to impute His Holy Spirit, why do we find much evidence in Scripture of those baptized, but remaining unregenerate? How can water baptism be the means of receiving the HS before the Spirit had been sent by Christ?

For instance John the Baptist came baptizing (water) the baptism of repentance before the Holy Spirit was liberally poured out on Pentecost. Christ tells us in fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent, and would not until His departure. How can you insist that water baptism is the means of receiving the Holy Spirit since John was sent to baptize before the HS had been sent unto all the world? In the Old covenant the Spirit of truth dwelt with them, but now Christ tells us that after He is gone away He will send another Comforter (HS), who will abide in us forever.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.



The Bible shows us this in the baptism of Jesus. What I mean is, the baptism of Jesus shows us, in a physical way, what takes places spiritually. Notice what takes place when Jesus is baptized:

Mt 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to Him: and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3: 16-17;

It is not one or the other. The infusion of the Holy Ghost which comes about through baptism, is the baptism of Christ. Christ is the efficient cause of grace, while baptims is the means He instituted to communicate that grace.

John is very helpful in trying to understand the purpose for which Christ was baptized by JTB. I prefer to listen to the infallible Word of God through His inspired apostle John rather than the writings of fallible men. John tells us the reason Christ was baptized in water was irrefutable proof that this Man was indeed Who He claimed to be, and that He is the One Who would baptize with the Holy Ghost. No water baptism can do what only the Lord is given to do, and that is to baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.



Jesus Himself told us that two things were required for salvation - belief and baptism.

In Mark 16, Jesus said: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

Clearly, Jesus said the belief and baptism are necessary for salvation. And keep in mind that what I am arguing has been believed since the beginning by all Christians.

I’ve already commented on the passage from Mk 16 in post 32, and will not do so again now.



Again, it is not the outward act of baptism that saves, it is the inward effect that is produced by water baptism that saves. Like Peter explains, it is not the washing of the flesh, but the inward effects that saves:

1 Peter 3: "In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

It is the effects produced by water baptism that saves. It is not the cleansing of the flesh, but the cleansing from sin (that results in a good conscience towards God) that saves.

How does cleansing our flesh, cleanse us inwardly? It cannot! This passage is pointing us to Christ, the One whom water baptism represents. It is NOT an outward cleansing, but a good conscience (a cleansed heart) toward God by the resurrection of Jesus. How is this inward cleansing accomplished? Not by water baptism, but through the preaching of the gospel “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” That is why Paul says that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel, less the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Paul very clearly here tells us that it is not baptizing, but the power of the gospel that saves.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

RW

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 08:27 PM
You being a catholic, maybe you can tell me how you answer this question. I have already given you my answer. Say an infant dies before the Catholic Church has a chance to baptize it. Is the child saved or unsaved?

I don't mind answering your questions, but you have to answer mine as well - and i don't consider you last post much of an answer. From what you wrote, it basically sounded like you were saying you don't know and will leave it to God. If that's what you were saying it's fine - I don't fault you for it since you were bekng honest - but at least admit that you don't claim to know.

What do I believe happens to a child who dies without being born again, which takes place at baptism? They go to hell.

That may have been a little shocking, so let me clarify.

The word "hell" does not only mean the place of hell fire. It refers to a state of separation from God. This can be shown from verses in the Old Testament (the ones the JW's use).

The place that infants who dies without baptism go is called Limbo. It is a place of natural happiness where the saints of the Old Testament went prior to the coming of our Lord.

Limbo is called Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16. It is where Lazuras the beggar went, and is described as a place of "comfort".

I believe Jesus was referring to Limbo when He told the good thief that he would be with him "that day" in paradise. Jesus could not have been refering to heaven since he did not go to heaven until after the resurrection, as He told Mary Magdalen - "do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father".

Limbo is believed to be a place of natural happiness (paradise), but without the Beatific Vision of God. Limbo is not bad, but it is not heaven.

But I believe that God wants all of His children to be with Him in heaven - especially the children who have never offended him though personal sin. Therefore, I believe God has made a very simply means for communicating His grace to them (and to others who are incapable of making an act of faith). This simple means is the sacrament of baptism, through which a person "is born again of water and the Spirit".

That's what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is what I believe.

If you would care to give me your belief regarding infants who die without being born again, I am listening. And if you think they can be born again, please explain how, since they are unable to make an act of faith.

Teke
May 21st 2007, 08:29 PM
The lad mentioned in that verse was Ishmael, and Ishmael at this point when this verse was spoken was certainly not an infant. If I'm not mistaken he already was somewhere bewtween the age of 12-17, but I would have to look into again. I know he wasn't an infant.

If he was that old, he could have gotten up from under the tree his mother left him to die under. I would think.

The point is that they can communicate with God. And God knows them. He even gave prophecies of them before they were born.

I just wouldn't underestimate God on the children.:)

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 08:33 PM
Roger,

I have a few quick questions:

1. Do we come into this world justified?

2. If you say no, does it mean we have to be born again to be saved?

3. In John 3, Jesus said we must be born again to enter heaven. Do you believe that we must be born again to be saved? If so, please explain why we must be born again.

Thanks

RogerW
May 21st 2007, 08:33 PM
How is watger batism an outward sign? Circumcision of the male can be seen well afer the procedure takes place. In baptism, once the person is toweled off there's no evidence of the event. Seems awfully different to me.

In infant baptism it is not the water that makes a person saved. It is Jesus who uses the water to impart His Holy Spirit into the one beiing baptized.

Unless I've missed something, and it is certainly possible that I have. I have yet to see anyone explain Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Also, what about 1Peter where we are told that "baptism now saves..."

Just as circumcision was an outward sign of being in covenant with God, so too water baptism is an outward sign of being in covenant. Circumcision under the Old Covenant symbolized the circumcision made without hands, or circumcision of the heart. Baptism has replaced the Old Covenant sign of circumcision in the New Covenant. Baptism points to the One Who saves. Points to His death, burial, and resurrection. The sign in the Old was national, so only eight day old males needed to receive the sign. All who were born in the household of the circumcized male became included through the sign. The New covenant is not to a single nation, but universal, so everyone wishing to come into covenant must receive the sign. Just as circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received the sign, the same with the outward sign in the New. There are many who have come into the covenant body, the covenant church who receive the outward sign of water baptism and have never received salvation through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Water does not impart the Holy Spirit baptism to infants. If an infant becomes saved he/she is saved in the same way every other person is saved. Salvation for the infant is not dependent upon anything they do, but upon the grace of Christ alone, through His imputed faith/righteousness alone. So, an infant can be saved, a mentally impaired person can be saved, and anyone else can be saved.

RW

Quickened
May 21st 2007, 09:16 PM
I don't mind answering your questions, but you have to answer mine as well - and i don't consider you last post much of an answer. From what you wrote, it basically sounded like you were saying you don't know and will leave it to God. If that's what you were saying it's fine - I don't fault you for it since you were bekng honest - but at least admit that you don't claim to know.

What do I believe happens to a child who dies without being born again, which takes place at baptism? They go to hell.

That may have been a little shocking, so let me clarify.

The word "hell" does not only mean the place of hell fire. It refers to a state of separation from God. This can be shown from verses in the Old Testament (the ones the JW's use).

The place that infants who dies without baptism go is called Limbo. It is a place of natural happiness where the saints of the Old Testament went prior to the coming of our Lord.

Limbo is called Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16. It is where Lazuras the beggar went, and is described as a place of "comfort".

I believe Jesus was referring to Limbo when He told the good thief that he would be with him "that day" in paradise. Jesus could not have been refering to heaven since he did not go to heaven until after the resurrection, as He told Mary Magdalen - "do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father".

Limbo is believed to be a place of natural happiness (paradise), but without the Beatific Vision of God. Limbo is not bad, but it is not heaven.

But I believe that God wants all of His children to be with Him in heaven - especially the children who have never offended him though personal sin. Therefore, I believe God has made a very simply means for communicating His grace to them (and to others who are incapable of making an act of faith). This simple means is the sacrament of baptism, through which a person "is born again of water and the Spirit".

That's what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is what I believe.

If you would care to give me your belief regarding infants who die without being born again, I am listening. And if you think they can be born again, please explain how, since they are unable to make an act of faith.

I saw you comment on Limbo and it reminded me of an article i just read.

Which can be read here (http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1490) and more here. (http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5936277?source=rss)

In Second Samuel 12 we see the loss of the child that was bore due to David's sin. Look at what David says in verse 23... i will go to him but he will not return to me. It looks to me that this is speaking of heaven.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the article and perhaps that passage. I found it interesting when i first came upon it on a thread about the "age of accountability"

:)

RogerW
May 21st 2007, 09:41 PM
Roger,

I have a few quick questions:

1. Do we come into this world justified?

2. If you say no, does it mean we have to be born again to be saved?

3. In John 3, Jesus said we must be born again to enter heaven. Do you believe that we must be born again to be saved? If so, please explain why we must be born again.

Thanks

I would be happy to answer your questions. However, I would ask that you also respond to many questions I have presented to you thus far.

1. No

2. Yes

3. I'll simply say that it takes a supernatural Lord to give us this re-birth, because we cannot be born again unless the Lord imputes this new life in us. We must be born again because unless we are born again we will not receive eternal life.

RW

DSK
May 21st 2007, 09:42 PM
I don't mind answering your questions, but you have to answer mine as well - and i don't consider you last post much of an answer. From what you wrote, it basically sounded like you were saying you don't know and will leave it to God. If that's what you were saying it's fine - I don't fault you for it since you were bekng honest - but at least admit that you don't claim to know.

What do I believe happens to a child who dies without being born again, which takes place at baptism? They go to hell.

That may have been a little shocking, so let me clarify.

The word "hell" does not only mean the place of hell fire. It refers to a state of separation from God. This can be shown from verses in the Old Testament (the ones the JW's use).

The place that infants who dies without baptism go is called Limbo. It is a place of natural happiness where the saints of the Old Testament went prior to the coming of our Lord.

Limbo is called Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16. It is where Lazuras the beggar went, and is described as a place of "comfort".

I believe Jesus was referring to Limbo when He told the good thief that he would be with him "that day" in paradise. Jesus could not have been refering to heaven since he did not go to heaven until after the resurrection, as He told Mary Magdalen - "do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father".

Limbo is believed to be a place of natural happiness (paradise), but without the Beatific Vision of God. Limbo is not bad, but it is not heaven.

But I believe that God wants all of His children to be with Him in heaven - especially the children who have never offended him though personal sin. Therefore, I believe God has made a very simply means for communicating His grace to them (and to others who are incapable of making an act of faith). This simple means is the sacrament of baptism, through which a person "is born again of water and the Spirit".

That's what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is what I believe.

If you would care to give me your belief regarding infants who die without being born again, I am listening. And if you think they can be born again, please explain how, since they are unable to make an act of faith.

First of all, in none of my posts have I ever said I have all the answers.

I do have thoughts on every subject, which come from Scripture, and never did I say my answers should be taken as being absolutely correct. On the other hand it has been your claim that the Catholic Church is never wrong.
Secondly you never addressed my question, so let me ask it one more time, and please read it carefully so I won't have to ask it again.

Question:
Say an infant dies before the Church gets a chance to baptize it. DOES IN DIE IN A SAVED OR UNSAVED CONDITION?

DSK
May 21st 2007, 09:47 PM
I just wouldn't underestimate God on the children.:)

Believe me, I never do. I personally believe God is merciful and just and will see to it that defenseless children are taken care of.

watchinginawe
May 21st 2007, 10:11 PM
Hey everybody. This looks like an interesting conversation but some liberty is needed at this point. For this reason, we are moving this to the World Religions forum where everyone can ask whatever they want.

Thanks!

RSiscoe
May 21st 2007, 10:20 PM
I would be happy to answer your questions. However, I would ask that you also respond to many questions I have presented to you thus far.

1. No

2. Yes

3. I'll simply say that it takes a supernatural Lord to give us this re-birth, because we cannot be born again unless the Lord imputes this new life in us. We must be born again because unless we are born again we will not receive eternal life.

RW

How is an infant justified?

You asked that I respond to your questions. Read through the last few pages of posts and make sure I didn't already answer them.

I have been around and around with DSK on this topic and I'm not sure how much more can be said. I think we have pretty much exhausted it.

But, if you have a question that you really think is good... one that you think is a real problem for my position, post it in a quick question form and I will certainly give you my best reply.

My question to you is: how is an infant justified? I may have asked you before, and if I recall you just gave a vague answer that they are justified by God's grace, without explaining how this takes place.

But my question is more specific. How can a child, who is incapable of making an act of faith (or anything else for that matter) obtain the state of justification that comes through the spiritual rebirth? Remember "without faith it is impossible to please God". Can an infant have faith? If not, how can they be justified?

Also, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise infants? Why bring them into God's Covenant when they are unaware of what is happening? After all, shouldn't they have been allowed to grow up and decide for themselves if they wanted to serve God? That's what people say today, isn't it? Isn't that one of the reason's given for not baptising infants? They need to grow up and decide for themselves, we are told.

You have said that circumcision prefigured baptism. So who was wrong? God, for commanding infants to be circumcised, or those today who say it is wrong to baptise an infant, since they need to make the decision for themselves?

If circumcision prefigured baptism (as most do acknowledge); and if circumcision was given to infants, then doesn't it indicate that we should baptize infants, since baptism was prefigured by circumcision which was performed in infants.

I think some people miss the forest for the trees. They read the Bible so carefully; they search for hidden meanings and interpretations; study the meanings of the original Greek words, yet miss the obvious that's staring them in the face. If circumcision was performed on infants, and if it prefigure baptism, doesn't it show that baptism would be performed on infants as well?

RogerW
May 21st 2007, 11:40 PM
How is an infant justified?

You asked that I respond to your questions. Read through the last few pages of posts and make sure I didn't already answer them.

How about for starters answering the questions in post #141.



But my question is more specific. How can a child, who is incapable of making an act of faith (or anything else for that matter) obtain the state of justification that comes through the spiritual rebirth? Remember "without faith it is impossible to please God". Can an infant have faith? If not, how can they be justified?

An infant, child, someone mentally impaired are all saved the same way you or I or anyone else is saved. Where does Scripture tell us one must make an act of faith in order to receive eternal life? If you're going to use Scripture to try and prove we must demonstrate faith in order to be saved, please consider the full context of each verse you bring. For it's common knowledge that we can make the Bible say just about anything we want when taken out of context. Scripture tells us we are saved by grace through faith, and this saving faith is not from ourselves, but a gift of God. Can an infant, a child, someone mentally impaired not be imputed with this gift of saving faith? It is NOT by our own righteousness that we are saved, but His righteousness, His faith imputed to His own. So yes, faith must precede salvation, now tell me whose faith has ability to make us righteous before God? Is it yours, mine, or Christ's righteousness? Please confine your responses to answers found in the Bible.

You baptize infants because you believe that water baptism infuses them with the Holy Spirit baptism that only Christ can give. How do you explain the indisputable evidence that multitudes of infants have been baptized, and later prove themselves to be reprobate? This will lead to yet greater error, for you will probably say they fell away, they lost their salvation, another doctrine not found in Scripture.



Also, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise infants? Why bring them into God's Covenant when they are unaware of what is happening? After all, shouldn't they have been allowed to grow up and decide for themselves if they wanted to serve God? That's what people say today, isn't it? Isn't that one of the reason's given for not baptising infants? They need to grow up and decide for themselves, we are told.

Yes, I was for a time confused about circumcision, until I better understood what it means to be in covenant with God. You're making the same mistake with circumcision that you do with water baptism; assuming that it is for salvation. It is NOT! What is circumcision a sign of? (See
Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4) What word is used for the circumcision made without hands? Regeneration. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant promise and it symbolizes regeneration.

If circumcision is a sign of the promise of redemption, why would God tell Abraham to circumcise 8 day old infants, who have no faith? Could it be that circumcision is NOT a promise of redemption, but rather receiving this sign shows covenantal identity as being separated from the unbelieving world? A covenantal people unto God, but not a promise that all who receive the sign will be saved. It is simply that the promises and blessings come through the covenant people.


You have said that circumcision prefigured baptism. So who was wrong? God, for commanding infants to be circumcised, or those today who say it is wrong to baptise an infant, since they need to make the decision for themselves?

If circumcision prefigured baptism (as most do acknowledge); and if circumcision was given to infants, then doesn't it indicate that we should baptize infants, since baptism was prefigured by circumcision which was performed in infants.

I think some people miss the forest for the trees. They read the Bible so carefully; they search for hidden meanings and interpretations; study the meanings of the original Greek words, yet miss the obvious that's staring them in the face. If circumcision was performed on infants, and if it prefigure baptism, doesn't it show that baptism would be performed on infants as well?

Baptism, like circumcision is a sign pointing to the redemptive work of Christ, His righteousness. Being in the covenant body, the universal church in time, just like being in covenant for the Jewish nation comes with promises and blessings. The nation for instance received the Word of God, they were given the Law, the prophets, the priests all pointing to Christ. These were of great benefit, for without the Word who can be saved? It is the same in the New covenant church. Christ has promised providential protection, like He had for the Jews. Christ gave the church His Word of life, and promised never to leave nor forsake the church. It is by being in the covenant body, the external church that many receive saving faith. People come into the covenant through the outward sign of water baptism, but only those who are appointed unto life will receive the Holy Spirit baptism unto salvation.

This is why we baptize our infants. Not because we believe that water baptism gives them eternal life, but because it brings our infants into covenant relationship where we train them, and teach them Spiritual truths, where Christ has promised that salvation is unto us and to our children, and to all our Lord shall call. As covenant parents, raising covenant children it is our prayer that one day they will demonstate a life that reflect a saving love for our Lord, showing them to be in the Eternal Covenant.

RW

DSK
May 22nd 2007, 12:00 AM
Also, have you ever wondered why God commanded the Israelites to circumcise infants? Why bring them into God's Covenant when they are unaware of what is happening? After all, shouldn't they have been allowed to grow up and decide for themselves if they wanted to serve God? That's what people say today, isn't it? Isn't that one of the reason's given for not baptising infants? They need to grow up and decide for themselves, we are told.

You have said that circumcision prefigured baptism. So who was wrong? God, for commanding infants to be circumcised, or those today who say it is wrong to baptise an infant, since they need to make the decision for themselves?

If circumcision prefigured baptism (as most do acknowledge); and if circumcision was given to infants, then doesn't it indicate that we should baptize infants, since baptism was prefigured by circumcision which was performed in infants.

I think some people miss the forest for the trees. They read the Bible so carefully; they search for hidden meanings and interpretations; study the meanings of the original Greek words, yet miss the obvious that's staring them in the face. If circumcision was performed on infants, and if it prefigure baptism, doesn't it show that baptism would be performed on infants as well?

If Abraham wasn't declared righteous because of his circumcission in the OT, why would you try to lead us believe that infants in the OT would be?

Rom 4:7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin.
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:
Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them;

The only thing that is important is becoming a new regenerated creature in Christ

Gal 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 12:54 AM
This is why we baptize our infants. Not because we believe that water baptism gives them eternal life, but because it brings our infants into covenant relationship where we train them, and teach them Spiritual truths, where Christ has promised that salvation is unto us and to our children, and to all our Lord shall call. As covenant parents, raising covenant children it is our prayer that one day they will demonstate a life that reflect a saving love for our Lord, showing them to be in the Eternal Covenant.

RW

Your Church baptizes infants? What Church do you belong to?

RogerW
May 22nd 2007, 01:01 AM
Your Church baptizes infants? What Church do you belong to?

United Reformed Church of North America

RW

CFJ
May 22nd 2007, 08:51 AM
Although I am not Catholic (I'm Lutheran) I have to agree with RSiscoe. Baptism was instituted in the early church as he stated and was looked at as imparting faith. Peter tells us that baptism now saves. The Nicene Creed tells us that we believe ".. in one baptism for the remission of sins." This creed was written about AD 325 originally, giving that beleif a very early origin. There are many other reasons I bleive this as well. I put the following together based on a book called "The Fire and the Staff" by Klemet Preuss. I copy and pasted it here, so forgive the inconsistencies in font, etc.

1. Baptism imparts forgiveness of sins. "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, ESV). In addition, the Nicene Creed, accepted by all Christian churches, states in part “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This seems to make the point that one is forgiven of sins through baptism.

2. You are washed clean of your sins. "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’" (Acts 22:16, ESV).” This is not just a general statement, it is specific to you.
3. Baptism cleanses the invisible church. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27, ESV).”

4. God’s name is placed on you. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19, ESV). In addition, "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5, ESV). If God’s name is placed on you at baptism, then it is not necessarily something you do as an
acknowledgement of your faith.

5. We were baptized into Jesus’ death. "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:3-4, ESV).

6. Justification takes place in baptism. "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7, ESV).

7. Baptism brings the Holy Spirit into your life. "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, ESV).

The question is, what baptism saves us? It can never be water baptism persé, here is the reason as I see it... Paul said that he was not send by Christ, to baptize with water, but to baptize people into His body. The line of this reasoning begins with 1 Cor 1:17 and accumulate as He works his way up till 1 Cor 12:13 and even further to show us our own resurrection in Christ in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians.

Further to this... I truly believe that the following passages, refers to baptism into the body of Christ... and not water baptism.


By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether we are Jewish or Greek, slave or free, God gave all of us one Spirit to drink.
(1Co 12:13)

Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life.
(Rom 6:3-4)

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Gal 3:27)

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(Col 2:11-13)

They are like those who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while Noah built the ship. In this ship a few people-eight in all-were saved by water. Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn't save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.
(1Pe 3:20-21)

In 1Peter 3:20-21, I see it that we need to be in Christ, as Noah was in the ark, to be saved. When you are baptized into the body of Christ, it is the moment you accept Christ Jesus, the moment you kneel at the cross, the moment your heart is circumcised, the moment you are born again. For me personally, that is the only reason why this baptism can save us.

Also if one read the context in all those passages, we are refered to a baptism that raise us from the dead... we are resurrected. What baptism is this... water?

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 11:52 AM
Roger,

OK, I took the time to resond to your post #141 as you asked. I won't be able to post much after this, as I am getting a little busy at work.


POST 141


What we can agree on is that it is not the water of baptism that saves, but the Holy Ghost received at Baptism that regenerates the soul.

What some people today don't realize - even though it was taught unanimously by all Christians for the first 1000+ years - is that Baptism with water is the means instituted by God to bring this about. The outward act signifies what takes place within, through the power of the Holy Spirit.


What I will agree on is that it is not water baptism that saves.

Read my post again. I didn’t say it that water baptism doesn’t save. And how could I say that, and how can you when the Bible clearly tells us that “baptism saves us”. And it is clear from the context that the Baptism referred to is water baptism, since Peter first says that eight people were saved “by water”, and then says that in the same way baptism now saves us. To anyone with ears to hear it is obvious what baptism Peter is referring to.

What I said, if you look more closely, is that it is not the water of baptism that saves us. Baptism saves us, but not the water, which merely cleanses the flesh. It is the Spirit that is given at water baptism that saves.

And my interpretation has been believed consistently for 2000 years. Your’s is a novelty that is nowhere to be found for at least the first 1000 + years of Christianity.


You are relying on tradition

Doesn’t the Bible tell us to hold fast to Tradition “stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle” (2 Thes 2:14,15). Do you reject that part of the Bible? Tell me, what oral Traditions are you holding fast to? If you don’t have any, you are not following the Bible, are you?

The “traditions” you are following are known as “traditions of men”, which are traditions that were started by men (within the past 500 years). How do I know your “traditions” were started by men? Because they were nowhere to be found for well over 1000 years of Christianity, whereas mine were taught consistently from the beginning, and are in perfect continuity with the Scriptures.


and the writings of fallible men to prove what the Infallible Word of God does NOT confirm.

I have used Scripture as the authority to make all my points. The Church Fathers were brought in to confirm that my interpretation of Scripture is in agreement with what the early Church believed, while your “interpretation” is a mere novelty – nowhere to be found in the writings of the early Church.

We all agree that the Bible is infallible, but you seem to think you are as well. Do you really believe that I should raise you upon a pedestal and accept you “interpretation” of the Bible when it is totally different than mine, and nowhere to be found until relatively recently in Church history?


If water baptism is the means instituted by God to impute His Holy Spirit, why do we find much evidence in Scripture of those baptized, but remaining unregenerate? How can water baptism be the means of receiving the HS before the Spirit had been sent by Christ?

For instance John the Baptist came baptizing (water) the baptism of repentance before the Holy Spirit was liberally poured out on Pentecost. Christ tells us in fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent, and would not until His departure. How can you insist that water baptism is the means of receiving the Holy Spirit since John was sent to baptize before the HS had been sent unto all the world?

You are aware that the baptism of John was not a Christian baptism, right? The baptism of John was merely a baptism of repentance, and was not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is the form of Christian baptism given by Jesus. The Baptism of John was a Baptism of repentance and was replaced with the Christian baptism of Jesus.

This is clear from Acts 19. Paul met some believers and asked if they had received the Holy Ghost. They said that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost. He then asked what baptism they were baptized in. They responded that it was the baptism of John. He then explained that John’s baptism was only one of repentance, then re-baptized them with the baptism of Jesus (see Acts 19).


In the Old covenant the Spirit of truth dwelt with them, but now Christ tells us that after He is gone away He will send another Comforter (HS), who will abide in us forever.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And your point is?


The Bible shows us this in the baptism of Jesus. What I mean is, the baptism of Jesus shows us, in a physical way, what takes places spiritually. Notice what takes place when Jesus is baptized:

Mt 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to Him: and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3: 16-17;

It is not one or the other. The infusion of the Holy Ghost which comes about through baptism, is the baptism of Christ. Christ is the efficient cause of grace, while baptims is the means He instituted to communicate that grace.


John is very helpful in trying to understand the purpose for which Christ was baptized by JTB. I prefer to listen to the infallible Word of God through His inspired apostle John rather than the writings of fallible men.

The inspired word of God is what I used to make my point.


John tells us the reason Christ was baptized in water was irrefutable proof that this Man was indeed Who He claimed to be, and that He is the One Who would baptize with the Holy Ghost. No water baptism can do what only the Lord is given to do, and that is to baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.

Jesus gives the Holy Spirit at water baptism. What do you think he meant by being born again by water and the Spirit?

He didn’t say born of water (through the womb) and born again by the Spirit. He said born again (the second time) by water and the Spirit. In other words water and the Spirit both apply to the second birth. In fact, John doesn’t refer to the birth from the womb as a birth from water. He refers to it as a birth of blood (John 1:13).

Like it or not, the new birth comes about by water and the Spirit, just like Jesus said it would. The water of baptism is the outward sign that signifies the reality that is taking place within the soul. And I know you don’t like to hear this, but that has been believed consistently for 2000 years, whereas your novel interpretation (your “tradition of men”) was “invented” within the past 500 years.


Jesus Himself told us that two things were required for salvation - belief and baptism.

In Mark 16, Jesus said: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

Clearly, Jesus said the belief and baptism are necessary for salvation. And keep in mind that what I am arguing has been believed since the beginning by all Christians.


I’ve already commented on the passage from Mk 16 in post 32, and will not do so again now.

You can’t give a good answer for that verse. Your only hope is to give it an “interpretation” the is contrary to what it actually says. That verse proves that baptism is required for salvation (not saying there can’t be exceptions). Jesus clearly said that two things are necessary for salvation – belief and baptism. Why don’t you believe the clear word of Jesus? Jesus said a person must believe and be baptized to be saved. Tell me, why don’t you believe Him? What excuse are you going to bring forward for not believing the clear and unambiguous words of Jesus Christ? After all, they are right there in the Bible, which you claim to believe.


Again, it is not the outward act of baptism that saves, it is the inward effect that is produced by water baptism that saves. Like Peter explains, it is not the washing of the flesh, but the inward effects that saves:

1 Peter 3: "In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

It is the effects produced by water baptism that saves. It is not the cleansing of the flesh, but the cleansing from sin (that results in a good conscience towards God) that saves.


How does cleansing our flesh, cleanse us inwardly? It cannot!

Cleansing of the flesh is not what saves. That is what Peter is saying. It is not the cleansing of the flesh that saves, but the cleansing of the soul, which happens at water baptism.

Don’t you understand? Baptism is an outward sign that signifies the reality that is taking place within the soul. It is not the outward washing that saves, but the inward cleansing that happens through baptism. That is how “baptism… now saveth you”.

And it is very clear from the context that the baptism he is referring to is “water baptism”.


This passage is pointing us to Christ, the One whom water baptism represents.

Water baptism represents Christ? I’ve never heard that one. Did you just make it up? If not, please provide the Bible verse that says water baptism represents Christ. If you don’t have one, please admit that your statement has no Biblical basis and that you completely made it up.


How is this inward cleansing accomplished? Not by water baptism, but through the preaching of the gospel “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Yes, faith cometh by hearing, but the regeneration of the soul cometh through the new birth, which takes place at baptism.


That is why Paul says that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel, less the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Paul very clearly here tells us that it is not baptizing, but the power of the gospel that saves.

Paul’s job was primarily to preach, not to baptize. He did baptize people as we see a few verses before the one you alluded to (1 Cor 1:14-17), but he was sent primarily to convert people through his preaching, while others baptized the converts.

You said that baptism does not save. I will end with the question I have asked repeatedly? Why do you reject the Bible? The Bible tells us that “baptism saves us”. Why don’t you believe those clear words? I believe them. The Church Fathers all believed them. Why don’t you?

That’s going to have to do it for now. I’m getting a little busy at work and have to take care of my responsibilities there first. I may be able to post a few short replies, but I will have to keep it at a minimal for a while.

CFJ
May 22nd 2007, 12:03 PM
Yes, faith cometh by hearing, but the regeneration of the soul cometh through the new birth, which takes place at baptism.

Which baptism RSiscoe...?




Paul’s job was primarily to preach, not to baptize. He did baptize people as we see a few verses before the one you alluded to (1 Cor 1:14-17), but he was sent primarily to convert people through his preaching, while others baptized the converts.

You said that baptism does not save. I will end with the question I have asked repeatedly? Why do you reject the Bible? The Bible tells us that “baptism saves us”. Why don’t you believe those clear words? I believe them. The Church Fathers all believed them. Why don’t you?

That’s going to have to do it for now. I’m getting a little busy at work and have to take care of my responsibilities there first. I may be able to post a few short replies, but I will have to keep it at a minimal for a while.

Again, which baptism saves us... see post # 156...?

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 12:05 PM
The question is, what baptism saves us? It can never be water baptism persé, here is the reason as I see it... Paul said that he was not send by Christ, to baptize with water, but to baptize people into His body. The line of this reasoning begins with 1 Cor 1:17 and accumulate as He works his way up till 1 Cor 12:13 and even further to show us our own resurrection in Christ in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians.

Further to this... I truly believe that the following passages, refers to baptism into the body of Christ... and not water baptism.

[INDENT][i]By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether we are Jewish or Greek, slave or free, God gave all of us one Spirit to drink.
(1Co 12:13)



Hello CFJ,

I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that we are baptized into Christ when we are baptized in water. I believe the baptism in water produces a spiritual effect in the soul. It is not the water in and of itself that does it; rather, it is the Holy Spirit that comes into us when we are baptized with water.

Let me draw a parallel. Many people say that a person is born again when they say the sinner's prayer. Now, for those people, it is not the words of the prayers in and of itself that does it, but the Holy Ghost that is received when the person prays the prayer.

Therefore, based on their belief, when a person believes, they are to follow this up by praying the sinner's prayer, which thereby brings the Holy Ghost into them. That is why they are told that they are then "saved" because this prayer is thought to bring the Holy Ghost into their souls.

I believe that when a person believes, they are then to be baptized. Rather than the sinner's prayer giving them the Holy Ghost, it is their baptism in water that accomplishes it.

I would point to all of the times in Acts when the person who believed was immediatley baptized.

In fact, the best verse to show this is Acts 2:38. Peter converted the Jews through his preaching. The Jews then asked what they needed to do to be saved. He didn't say "repeat after me...". What he said was "repent and be baptized... and you shall recieve the Holy Ghost".

I believe that Acts 2:38 is a strong confirmation for my position, just as it would be a strong confirmation for the other position if, when the Jews asked Peter what they needed to do to be saved, if he would have replied by saying "repeat after me, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost: 'I am a sinner, etc.".

But that's not what he said. In fact, the sinner's prayer is no where in the Bible. It is something that was started based on Romans 10, but is not an actual practice we find in the N.T.. What we do find in the Bible is that those who believed were immediately baptized, showing, in my opinion, that the two go hand in hand: Belief comes first (since faith is a required), then comes baptism which causes the person to be born again, and made a part of the mystical body of Christ.

Quickened
May 22nd 2007, 02:25 PM
RSiscoe,

are you not planning on replying to my post to you (post #146 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1267481&postcount=146))?

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 02:28 PM
RSiscoe,

are you not planning on replying to my post to you?

Yes, I took a look at the verse yesterday, and want to read the article before I respond. I am just a little busy right now, and am not sure when I will be able to get to it. I'll try to read the article tonight and reply by tomorrow morning.

Quickened
May 22nd 2007, 02:29 PM
Yes, I took a look at the verse yesterday, and want to read the article before I respond. I am just a little busy right now, and am not sure when I will be able to get to it. I'll try to read the article tonight and reply by tomorrow morning.

Oh ok cool! Sorry no rush intended. Just thought i got overlooked :)

Teke
May 22nd 2007, 03:47 PM
RSiscoe,

are you not planning on replying to my post to you (post #146 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1267481&postcount=146))?

Hi Quickened. I read the articles. :)

The articles did make a good point about how tough Catholic and Evangelicals are on the subject of who gets to go to heaven and how.
The Catholics are likely to make more headway on this than the Evangelicals, simply because there is a church structure of authority in the RC church, whereas there isn't in the Evangelical churches. So while one may change, the other likely will not.

Eastern Orthodox catholics decided not to make this judgment call long ago. But only to uphold the deity of Christ first and foremost. As all things are possible with God.:saint:
BTW, the RC is likely looking more at this because the pope they currently have is following the advice of the former pope, John Paul, in bringing unity back to the churches, both east and west. Which means, this pope is likely talking more to EO's now. Which is a good thing for us.

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 09:46 PM
I saw you comment on Limbo and it reminded me of an article i just read.

Which can be read here (http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1490) and more here. (http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5936277?source=rss)

In Second Samuel 12 we see the loss of the child that was bore due to David's sin. Look at what David says in verse 23... i will go to him but he will not return to me. It looks to me that this is speaking of heaven.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the article and perhaps that passage. I found it interesting when i first came upon it on a thread about the "age of accountability"

:)

OK, I didn't know that was the subject of the article you linked to. I am familiar with that. Here's the story.

It was reported in many places that "The Pope overturned the long standing belief in Limbo", or some such similar headline. The truth is quite different.

All that the theological commission said is that there can be "hope" for a child who dies without baptism.

Now, the Catholic Church can only teach what it knows, and it knows of absolutely no way for a child to be saved without being born again. The Church also teaches that we are born again by Baptism.

For an adult there can be exceptions to baptism. For example, if a person dies for Christ their death is called a "baptism of blood" and suffices for actual baptism. Similarly, if a person has the faith, is sorry for their sins and intends to be baptized as soon as possible, if they die prior to being baptized for some unforseen reason, the Church teaches that their desire for baptism, combined with faith, can suffice for actual baptism and save them.

With a child, however (since they are unable to make an act of faith, or willingly give themselves for Christ as a martyr), the Church admits to knowing of no other means of justification than baptism. This is admitted to in several authoritative documents.

The Church has defined as a dogma (something that all Cathlics - including the Pope - must accept) that anyone who dies without being born again will not attain to heaven. It says that those who were not born again, but who committed no actual sins of their own (a child for example) will not be punished with any physical pain. Their only punishment is not seeing God face to face. They will live in a state of natural happiness, without the beatific vision.

So, although the Church admits to knowing of absolutely no way for an unbaptized child to be saved, the Pope has allowed the commission to pulish a document that allowed for people to "hope" that through some miracle an unbaptized child can attain salvation.

But it should be emphasized that this "hope" is not based on any knowledge at all. And in fact, is contrary to what the Church has always taught. However, the Pope allowed this theological commission to publish this writing.

This is not an infallible document or pronouncement in the least. It is merely a document of speculation which allows for "hope"- again, a hope that is contrary to all that the Church has every taught, and not based on any knowledge.

I could go a little deeper, but I'll stop there.

As far as the verse you mentioned. It is really hard to say for sure. What we do know is that before the death and resurrection of Christ, no one went to heaven. Those who died when to a place the Bible calls "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16), which is described as a place of "comfort". Abraham's Bosom is Limbo. That is where Jesus descended after he died on the cross (which is discussed in 1st and 2nd Peter).

In the verse in question, David said it was useless for him to pray for the child any longer, since "the child will not come back to him"; rather, he said, "he will go to the child", which means that his preayers will not bring the child back, but instead, at some point, David himself will die.

Although we probably shouldn't read too much into it (since David probably didn't have any Divine insight into the after life, and since the verse is certainly not indended to be a theological teaching), what he said was probably correct. After all, the child would have gone to Limbo, and so would David after he died, since no one went to heaven prior to the death of Christ.

I have more I could say but I wouldn't want to bore you. But if you have any questions, let me know and I'll try to answer them.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77