When does regeneration takes place?

[glad4mercy]

Originally Posted by Gadgeteer- To begin --- regeneration has nothing to do with water. First verse:


"I (John) baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Spirit (and will immerse sinners/CHAFF into fire)." Matt3:11-12

I-with-water, but He-with-Spirit-not-water. (And He will burn/baptize sinners/chaff with unquenchable fire.)

Second verse:


"John baptized with water, BUT you shall be baptized with the Spirit (not water)". Acts1:5.

John-with-water, but you-with-Spirit. Those in Acts1:5 were already waterbaptized, they did not get waterbaptized again. It is a clear BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER.

This is an excellent point. The apostles did not receive the Promise of the Father, ( ie the Holy Spirit) until the Day of Pentecost, and there was no water involved in that Spirit Baptism.

[Gadgeteer]

Excubitor, if regeneration happens at water baptism, what do you make of this occurrence.

Acts 10: 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongue and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

They received the Holy Spirit first, then were baptized.

He said:

God can regenerate with the Holy Spirit whoever he likes with or without baptism. You are completely missing the point. God is not constrained by his own sacraments. In the case of Cornelius God baptized him the Holy Spirit to make it clear to the apostle that he wanted the Gentiles to be admitted into the church. Now that the church understands that Gentiles may enter into the church it is doubtful that he would need to do this again.

So he'st taking it as a special circumstance, that doesn't usually happen (God made a special exemption).

Also, consider that the sealing of the Spirit happens when we believe.

Ephesians 1: 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.

There is a Spirit baptism and there is a water baptism. The water baptism is an outward demonstration and declaration of the Spirit baptism, just as the Lord's Supper is an outward demonstration and declaration of the the body and blood of Christ that saves us.

Nicely stated. :-)

One argument that works with Calvinism may also be effective here; "made-alive/have-life" is inseparable from "regenerated" --- a person cannot be ONE, without the OTHER. And "have-life" follows belief in Jn20:31; waterbaptism is not mentioned at all.

If an unsaved, unrepentant, unbelieving person is dunked in the baptistry, they simply come out as a wet sinner. It is the work of Christ that saves us, faith and repentance are conditions of salvation, and water baptism is the outward demonstration of our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It is the Holy Spirit that puts us in union with Christ through faith, not physical waters.

That's why I perceive in verses like Acts2:38 and 22:16 it's the "calling-on-His-NAME" that cleanses away sins, not the actual water. If it was the actual water, why wouldn't we need to be dipped daily?

We are called to to repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus. Baptism follows. Baptism is for believers, not unbelievers.

Questions: 1. Did the apostles receive the promise of the Father, ie the Holy Spirit when they were baptized in water? 2. Did they have to be rebaptized on the day of Pentecost? If the promise of the Holy Spirit comes by baptism, why is the answer to both of these questions "no".

Blessings.

[glad4mercy]

That's why I perceive in verses like Acts2:38 and 22:16 it's the "calling-on-His-NAME" that cleanses away sins, not the actual water. If it was the actual water, why wouldn't we need to be dipped daily?

Another excellent point, Gadgeteer

[excubitor]

No you haven't. No, it wouldn't. Take just this little bit:

Shouldn't take much time to answer, and I don't think we've fully discussed it yet. Well, I'll try to choose my words carefully, so as not to offend you; I have no wish to offend you or make you angry.

I think if someone of your doctrine could defend against these verses and the principle of "immersed-in-the-Spirit-WITHOUT-water" (therefore "immersed-in-Christ-also-without-water"), he or she would; the only other option would be to just decline to respond.

And I'll ask your forgiveness if I made you mad.
Heh heh heh --- I know you don't really believe that.

;-P

What annoys me is when I give answers and responses which are not read or not responded to and the next post I get asks exactly the same question using the same scriptures.
Then when I decline to answer I am told that I am unable to answer. In the face of such treatment it is impossible to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

[excubitor]

Ephesians 1: 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.

This passage describes the sacrament of confirmation. Eastern Orthodox perform this sacrament at the same time as the sacrament of baptism if the sacrament of baptism is performed by the priest. In the Catholic tradition the Sacrament of Confirmation is performed by the local ordinary Bishop when the child is seven or twelve or some months after the baptism of an adult when a bishop can be organised.
The sacrament of confirmation does not deny that the person was regenerated by the Holy Spirit at baptism but it provides a deepening and increasing of the baptismal grace. In fact this passage actually refutes what most protestants teach. They teach that regeneration of the new Christian occurs when we first believe. But this passage shows that it is a future gift which is promised to those who do believe and that eventually they will receive.

Having believed we are then baptised. Having believed we are afterwards confirmed. Having believed we endure until the end and shall be saved.

You are ranting on about the rare instances where the Holy Spirit is given before baptism. Rather more often the manifestations of the Holy Spirit occur after baptism. This does not deny baptism regenerated by the Holy Spirit, rather it highlights to us that there is another influx of the Holy Spirit which comes to those who believe AFTER baptism. This is confirmation. Notice that not only is belief required, but obedience also. We must keep the commandments of Christ, one of which is baptism and then continue in obedience awaiting the promised Holy Spirit.
The Promise of the Holy Spirit
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 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.

This promise was fulfilled long after they were baptised in John 20 when the Lord breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Then the general assembly of the church all baptised members were assembled on the day of Pentecost and received en-masse the Holy Ghost, another example of confirmation. Thereafter in the NT we see the apostles laying on hands to impart the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
So we see how in the Catholic church it is the successors of the apostles, the bishops who lay on hands at Confirmation to impart the Holy Spirit.

Now you will notice a passage which completely blows your theory out of the water.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles [1] and signs which were done.

So they did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they believed. They did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they were baptised by the deacon Philip. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until later when the bishop arrived. Peter laid on his hands and they received the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost.

An utterly shocking passage for OSASers. Here is Simon Magus one of the most infamous characters in scripture. Yet he is a believer. He was baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. According to OSAS he should be saved, but he commits a grievious and wicked sin trying to buy the power of a bishop. A sin known today as simony after Simon Magus. The apostle, without much confidences, tells Simon to pray so that perhaps, just maybe he could be forgiven. But the apostle also says 'Your money perish with you'. How does someone come back from a condemnation like that? Various accounts in tradition describe what became of Simon Magus, none of them positive, all of them claiming that he went forth spreading magic about. So what good did it do Simon Magus to believe? None at all. Belief finds its benefit only if we continue in obedience and repentance all the way through to the end of our life.

So in this account where Paul lays on hands this was the very visible imparting of the Holy Spirit which pentecostals call 'baptism of the Holy Ghost'. They have it all wrong. Baptism of the Holy Ghost occurs when we are baptised, but this special influx of the Holy Ghost which manifests great gifts of the spirit occurs at Confirmation, the laying on of hands. Pentecostals have noticed this but have changed the emphasis, minimising the importance of baptism. Baptists on the other hand minimise the importance of the laying on of hands.

Here is another example from Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Notice these are separate events. Baptism does not involve the laying on of hands. That is confirmation, and so when Paul performed a confirmation the Holy Ghost came powerfully upon them.

Incidentally at confirmation in the Catholic church the sign of the cross is made on the forehead of the person being confirmed with the anointing oil of chrism. This sign/seal is mentioned in Rev 9:4, 14:1, 22:4.

[glad4mercy]

This passage describes the sacrament of confirmation.

No it is not, it is talking about the sealing of a believer by the Holy Spirit. Excubitor, what does the word "sealed" mean in this passage? I am interested in hearing what you think this word means.

Eastern Orthodox perform this sacrament at the same time as the sacrament of baptism if the sacrament of baptism is performed by the priest.

Only God can seal someone with the Holy Spirit.

In the Catholic tradition the Sacrament of Confirmation is performed by the local ordinary Bishop when the child is seven or twelve or some months after the baptism of an adult when a bishop can be organised.

If this is how they do it, then their practice does not line up with this passage, for this passage talks about being sealed when a person believes, not months later. Read it again, please.

The sacrament of confirmation does not deny that the person was regenerated by the Holy Spirit at baptism but it provides a deepening and increasing of the baptismal grace.

Where do you see any of this in the passage you are trying to expound? You are taking incredible liberties with this passage.

They teach that regeneration of the new Christian occurs when we first believe. But this passage shows that it is a future gift which is promised to those who do believe and that eventually they will receive.

So you do not believe regeneration is the same as the New Birth? Let me know, yea or nay. Then I will discuss this statement further. Also, let me know when you think the event of regeneration takes place, and provide scriptural support if you will.

Having believed we are then baptised. Having believed we are afterwards confirmed. Having believed we endure until the end and shall be saved.

Please provide scripture to support the rite of confirmation.

Also did you not know that salvation is not only a future event, ( the redemption of the body), it is also something God has already done in those who believe, ( Juatification, adoption, New Birth, sanctification, washing, etc) and it is a present possession of those who believe? ( see 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5 which speak of salvation in the aorist tense.)

You are ranting on about the rare instances where the Holy Spirit is given before baptism

Quoting scripture is ranting? I pretty much only quoted scriptures and asked questions. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a ranter?

This promise was fulfilled long after they were baptised in John 20 when the Lord breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Then the general assembly of the church all baptised members were assembled on the day of Pentecost and received en-masse the Holy Ghost, another example of confirmation.

Luke didnt call it confirmation, neither did Jesus in Acts 1. Nowhere in the Bible is this event called confirmation. You are mixing tradition with scripture, which may be acceptable in your eyes, but not in mine.

So we see how in the Catholic church it is the successors of the apostles, the bishops who lay on hands at Confirmation to impart the Holy Spirit.

Paul says in Romans 8 that if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. So what of these poor souls who are waiting around for the priest to impart the Holy Spirit to them? Yes, at times the Holy Spirit was imparted by the laying on of hands, but do you think that this is always the case. Do you really believe that God always needs a priest around to give someone the Holy Spirit? Wasnt it you who said that God is not limited by His sacraments or something like that?

By the way, Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, not a priest.

Now you will notice a passage which completely blows your theory out of the water.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles [1] and signs which were done.

So they did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they believed. They did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they were baptised by the deacon Philip. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until later when the bishop arrived. Peter laid on his hands and they received the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost.

There were occurances in the early church that were not the norm for every part of the church age. God did things in certain ways to protect the newborn church. I will speak more on this at a later time. Yet you cannot dispute this statement, for you said the same thing when referring to Cornelius.

An utterly shocking passage for OSASers

I am not an OSASer, so this poses no problem for me.

So in this account where Paul lays on hands this was the very visible imparting of the Holy Spirit which pentecostals call 'baptism of the Holy Ghost'. They have it all wrong. Baptism of the Holy Ghost occurs when we are baptised, but this special influx of the Holy Ghost which manifests great gifts of the spirit occurs at Confirmation, the laying on of hands. Pentecostals have noticed this but have changed the emphasis, minimising the importance of baptism. Baptists on the other hand minimise the importance of the laying on of hands.

I'm not Pentecostal or Baptist either, though you are getting closer

Here is another example from Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Notice these are separate events. Baptism does not involve the laying on of hands. That is confirmation, and so when Paul performed a confirmation the Holy Ghost came powerfully upon them.

They were only instructed up to John's Baptism. Why did Paul have to tell them that John preached about one that would follow him, namely Christ? Answer me that, and we'll discuss this further.

Incidentally at confirmation in the Catholic church the sign of the cross is made on the forehead of the person being confirmed with the anointing oil of chrism. This sign/seal is mentioned in Rev 9:4, 14:1, 22:4.

Goodness, no wonder I got stung with a locust with a scorpion tail yesterday. I better run over to the Catholic church and make sure it doesnt happen again. Hey, I'm just being silly with this last line, so don't take it personally.

I may be away from the forums for a few days, but I hope we can continue this discussion. It's a very interesting discussion, and it's good to talk Bible with someone who comes from a different theological perspective than mine.
Blessings

.

[excubitor]

No it is not, it is talking about the sealing of a believer by the Holy Spirit. Excubitor, what does the word "sealed" mean in this passage? I am interested in hearing what you think this word means.

I agree that is what confirmation is. The sealing of the believer by the Holy Spirit. How do you believe that the Holy Spirit seals a believer if not by the laying on of hands by the successors of the apostles. Sealing means all the same things that confirmation does.

That's a shame, seeing that only God can seal someone with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, only God can seal someone with the Holy Spirit. He has chosen to do so through the rite of laying on of hands by the successors of the apostles in the sacrament of confirmation.

Where do you see any of this in the passage you are trying to expound? You are taking incredible liberties with this passage.

It is not a liberty with the passage. I follow the example of the scriptures as I clearly outlined them. The church follows this example in providing us the sacrament of confirmation.
What do you think the passage is trying to expound?

So you do not believe regeneration is the same as the New Birth? Let me know, yea or nay. Then I will discuss this statement further. Also, let me know when you think the event of regeneration takes place, and provide scriptural support if you will.

I did not even mention "New Birth" My concept is rebirth or being born again. Surely that is regeneration. Surely I have said it occurs at baptism. I already gave scriptural support that it occurs at baptism.

Please provide scripture to support the rite of confirmation.

I already have in my last post.

Also did you not know that salvation is not only a future event, ( the redemption of the body), it is also something God has already done in those who believe, and it is a present possession of those who believe? ( see 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5 which speak of salvation in the aorist tense.

Where did I say any different.

If this is how they do it, then their practice does not line up with this passage, for this passage talks about being sealed when
a person believes, not months later. Read it again, please.

Please show how any passage in the scripture talking about being sealed, places that event at the time of believing. I have already showed passages which place it afterwards, usually at the laying on of the hands of the apostles.

I will not be communicating with you any longer because you do not possess adequate judgement or discernment to engage in any meaningful communication or dialogue.

[glad4mercy]

I agree that is what confirmation is. The sealing of the believer by the Holy Spirit. How do you believe that the Holy Spirit seals a believer if not by the laying on of hands by the successors of the apostles. Sealing means all the same things that confirmation does.

Let's take this one step at a time. In the passage that we are speaking of, ( Ephesians 1:13), what is the Greek word that is translated "sealed" in English, and what does it mean?

answer- σφραγίζω
) to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal

a) for security: from Satan

b) since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret

c) in order to mark a person or a thing

1) to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp

2) angels are said to be sealed by God

d) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing

1) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt

a) of a written document

b) to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be


2. What is the seal that is spoken of?

[Boo]

I have already provided extensive responses to all of your points. To answer you would be merely going around in circles.
Besides I do not have time.
I have to go and take a waterbath.

And here you see why this conversation is not actually taking place.

For this to actually be discussed, we must use intellectual honesty. We must take off our doctrinal blinders and be willing to accept what scripture says. That is the stumbling block which will not allow this conversation.

If anyone can honestly look at the evidence already provided and see the truth of it, they might be accused of being (gasp!) Catholic or a member of the (Oh, NO!) Church of Christ.

I have read innumerable pages of commentary by modern protestant theologians. They all say the same thing - like listening to a room full of parrots. They all seem to want to claim that the bible translators were in error. They seem to all want to say that we don't have the mental capacity to read words in English and have comprehension. They intimate that, without a perfect command of the Greek language and an understanding of the culture of that period, we cannot ascertain the true meaning of those scriptures. (Apparently, God was not able to leave us His Word so that we can actually understand it.)

Now it becomes perfectly clear why the writings of the first and second century desciples are being disregarded by the post-17th-century protestants. (Keeping in mind that the current mainline protestant doctrine was considered heresy prior to the 17th century) Those writings by Greek speaking Christians, completely immersed in the culture of the period, who describe the spiritual workings that occur during baptism removed all of the argument from this discussion. To attribute credibility to their words completely takes the wind out of the anti-baptismal sails - so they must be disregarded.

It is at this point that the correct move is to know that the information was honestly provided. Those who want to place priority in doctrine over scripture will continue to do so. No amount of shooting information past each other will effect a change in anyone. We must leave that up to the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3: 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

[Gadgeteer]

What annoys me is when I give answers and responses which are not read or not responded to and the next post I get asks exactly the same question using the same scriptures.
Then when I decline to answer I am told that I am unable to answer. In the face of such treatment it is impossible to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

Ah --- well, then, I owe you a serious apology. I'm on a "dialup" internet service, which is very cheap, but also very slow. So searching back through posts is prohibitive. If you would be so kind as to tell me which of your posts answered the question of Acts1:5 "immersion-in-the-Spirit not having anything to do with water" (and therefore "immersion-into-Christ" also does not have anything to do with water), I would be grateful. :-)

Having believed we are then baptised. Having believed we are afterwards confirmed. Having believed we endure until the end and shall be saved.

Can we know that we're saved NOW? Is there a "duality", being saved NOW, and also being saved at the end if we endure?

You are ranting on about the rare instances where the Holy Spirit is given before baptism. Rather more often the manifestations of the Holy Spirit occur after baptism. This does not deny baptism regenerated by the Holy Spirit, rather it highlights to us that there is another influx of the Holy Spirit which comes to those who believe AFTER baptism.

I look forward to your linking to your post where you discussed why regeneration only occurs through WATER. Why Titus3:5-6 is not asserting it's the regeneration itself that is the "washing", why it has to be "by water".

Now you will notice a passage which completely blows your theory out of the water.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles [1] and signs which were done.

So they did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they believed. They did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost when they were baptised by the deacon Philip. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until later when the bishop arrived. Peter laid on his hands and they received the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost.

Acts8:16 clearly states they did NOT receive the Spirit at waterbaptism, they received the Spirit AFTER. And Acts10:43-47 has some receiving the Spirit BEFORE waterbaptism. So "receiving-the-Spirit" cannot be tied TO waterbaptism, or it could not come before, or after.

If "regeneration" is tied to "receiving-the-Spirit" (and you and I will likely agree it is), then regeneration/having-life is only tied to belief (Jn20:31, Jn5:40). I look forward to your explaining (or linking me to your previous explanation) of where water is tied to regeneration and having-life/made-alive.

You know how to do links here? Hover over the post number you want to link to, right-click and select "copy link location". Then type the link like:

[url=http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/239298-When-does-regeneration-takes-place?p=2870162#post2870162](link label, like "CLICK HERE!")[/url]

Just hit "ctrl-V" to actually paste in the link where you "copied-link-location".

Thanx, Excubitor! :-)

[Gadgeteer]

That's why I perceive in verses like Acts2:38 and 22:16 it's the "calling-on-His-NAME" that cleanses away sins, not the actual water. If it was the actual water, why wouldn't we need to be dipped daily?

Another excellent point, Gadgeteer

In 1Pet3, he says "Baptism saves you" --- clearly he's talking about waterbaptism. What did he mean? HOW are we saved through the water? Peter explains:

"Not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience."

Therefore it's not the WATER that saves us, but the APPEAL --- waterbaptism saves us if it's ACCOMPANIED by repentance/appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience!

And that fits what I said about Acts2:38 and 22:16 --- it's the "calling-on-His-name" that cleanses sins!

[excubitor]

Ah --- well, then, I owe you a serious apology. I'm on a "dialup" internet service, which is very cheap, but also very slow. So searching back through posts is prohibitive. If you would be so kind as to tell me which of your posts answered the question of Acts1:5 "immersion-in-the-Spirit not having anything to do with water" (and therefore "immersion-into-Christ" also does not have anything to do with water), I would be grateful. :-)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...50#post2869850

Can we know that we're saved. NOW? Is there a "duality", being saved NOW, and also being saved at the end if we endure?

Jesus said. 'He that endures to the end shall be saved' which is the same as saying that he who does not endure until the end shall not be saved. This is not duality of salvation. Why do you invent these terms. The economy of salvation has never been portrayed as a once off event that happens when we believe until Calvin dreamed it up. What do I care what Calvin teaches. I believe the scriptures. I once came up with 8 pages of scripture in 10pt close typed font showing that we can lose our salvation. Countless times I have trotted out the scriptures ad nauseum but I have come to learn that OSAS'ers do not actually care what the scriptures say. They pay lip service to the scripture.

I look forward to your linking to your post where you discussed why regeneration only occurs through WATER. Why Titus3:5-6 is not asserting it's the regeneration itself that is the "washing", why it has to be "by water".

Because the word washing is implicitly talking about water. If I say that I washed something it is automatically assumed that it is washed by water unless it is explicitly stated what other liquid is used to wash.
Also cross reference this which was told to Paul after his Damascus Road experience.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This shows most clearly that baptism is the washing of water that washes away sins.

[Gadgeteer]

And here you see why this conversation is not actually taking place.

For this to actually be discussed, we must use intellectual honesty. We must take off our doctrinal blinders and be willing to accept what scripture says. That is the stumbling block which will not allow this conversation.

If anyone can honestly look at the evidence already provided and see the truth of it, they might be accused of being (gasp!) Catholic or a member of the (Oh, NO!) Church of Christ.

I have read innumerable pages of commentary by modern protestant theologians. They all say the same thing - like listening to a room full of parrots. They all seem to want to claim that the bible translators were in error. They seem to all want to say that we don't have the mental capacity to read words in English and have comprehension. They intimate that, without a perfect command of the Greek language and an understanding of the culture of that period, we cannot ascertain the true meaning of those scriptures. (Apparently, God was not able to leave us His Word so that we can actually understand it.)

Boo, you are also cordially invited to explain why Acts1:5 is NOT asserting "baptism-in-the-Spirit has NOTHING to do with water" --- and therefore "baptism-in-Christ" also is apart from water. If you've answered this already, please link to your answer (as I asked Excubitor to link to his).

It is at this point that the correct move is to know that the information was honestly provided. Those who want to place priority in doctrine over scripture will continue to do so. No amount of shooting information past each other will effect a change in anyone. We must leave that up to the Holy Spirit.

Great. Then I look forward to your Scriptural response, with excitement.

:-)

[excubitor]

In 1Pet3, he says "Baptism saves you" --- clearly he's talking about waterbaptism. What did he mean? HOW are we saved through the water? Peter explains:

"Not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience."

Therefore it's not the WATER that saves us, but the APPEAL --- waterbaptism saves us if it's ACCOMPANIED by repentance/appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience!

And that fits what I said about Acts2:38 and 22:16 --- it's the "calling-on-His-name" that cleanses sins!

It clearly says Baptism saves you. I don't now how much clearer it can be. It seems that you are absolutely committed to proving the concept wrong that you are prepared to even ignore the blatant words of scripture.
The passage even likens the waters of baptism to the waters which covered the earth. It's kind of interesting that the waters which destroyed all flesh on earth are said to have saved Noah and the ark. This dichotomy also exists in baptism. Passing through the water the old man dies, but the new man rises out of the water as a new creation. Reborn, Born again. How wonderful.

God could have destroyed all flesh on earth with a breath of his nostril but he used water to do it as a precurser to point us to the waters of baptism as the agent of our salvation.
Try washing anything on this earth with any liquid other than water. It just does not work. Even most cleaning agents are mostly water. In fact water has remarkable, almost miraculous properties for washing dirt on this earth. This too is to help teach us that water which is consecrated by the invoking of the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has the power to wash away all spiritual dirt as well so that we may have a perfectly clean conscience.

So why do we baptise if not to regenerate? What is the point? To impress the gathering that we are believers? Why do you need to invoke the holy name of God in order to symbolise something that has already happen. If we are going to invoke this most holy name above all names, then we do it for a very, very serious matter, an absolutely essential matter. A matter of life and death. To invoke the holy name of God in such a way for anything less important than that is to take the Lord's name in vain.

[Gadgeteer]

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...50#post2869850

Thank you, sir! :-)

Looking at your post 182, I see:

Wrong. At baptism our soul is regenerated but not our bodies. Our bodies are still weak and as such we can by living after the flesh still fall into sin. The regenerated man is freed from sin but he may because of the pulls of the flesh and of his own weakness and neglect may still fall back into sin. This should not happen, does not need to happen but invariably does happen. There are varying degrees of sin which the baptized may commit. For example a thousand and one little sins that we are barely aware of which occur on a daily basis. These are venial sins. Then there are major willful sins which are grave sins committed with full knowledge. These are mortal sins which cut us off from the body of Christ where we will certainly wither and die unless we are grafted back on. The sacrament of the Eucharist is given so that we can be forgiven of our venial sins and the sacrament of Confession is given so that we can be forgiven of our mortal sins. But God is not a respecter of persons. Sinners will not enter the kingdom of heaven, far less will those sinners who have been reborn and regenerated, freed from sin, who then return to their vomit and sin willingly.

I see opinion, but no Scriptural basis. Why must it be THROUGH WATER that our souls are regenerated?

You are kidding surely. Here is the definition of baptizo.
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

The whole meaning infers and even states water. To state that baptism has nothing to do with water is not just wrong, it is ludicrous, outrageous and comical.
Just because a man can be washed with water does not mean that he cannot also be washed with other things as well. The whole point which John is making is that when Jesus baptizes you (in other words submerges you to wash in water) that what he is actually doing is baptizing you, washing you clean, regenerating you with the Holy Spirit. Which is exactly the teaching of the church that the forms of baptism are physical manifestations of a real spiritual action of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore Jesus can baptize us with fire. This is a purging of sin in the trials of this life and in purgatory. So the point of what John is teaching is that baptism is a once off event of regeneration which is lived out our entire life with a process of continual washing and purification by the Holy Spirit and by trial.

To say that Romans 6:3 is not talking about water is just so ridiculous and absurd its almost unbearable to imagine that such folly could be possible in a man. It's like if someone says 'I am taking a bath and then someone saying that that does not mean he is washing with water, he could be having a bath with milk, or a bath with imaginary water'. This is the kind of foolishness that men are driven to when they reject the teachings of the church. Thinking themselves wise they become clowns.

In Romans6:1-11 --- where is the word "water"? I referred you to Acts1:5, "John immersed you in water, but He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit". The audience in Acts1:5 had already been waterbaptized; did they get waterbaptized again? No. "In-the-Spirit", is not "in-water". He's clearly making a distinction between "in water", and "in the Spirit".

To continue your position you must prove Acts1:5 is a second waterbaptism, and that "immersed-in-Jesus" is a different event than "immersed-in-the-Spirit".

There is a lot of opinion by you that Jesus means "in-the-Spirit-THROUGH-WATER". Jesus said --- "John-with-water, but-now-with-SPIRIT". That doesn't fit "John-with-water, but now-with-water". That would be a SECOND "waterbaptism", and no one believes they were dipped again. So no, you haven't supported your position with Scripture, only with opinion and adjectives ("ridiculous", "absurd", "unbearable", "foolishness", "buffoons", etcetera).

Additionally --- you think "baptism-of-fire" is for BELIEVERS, but verse 12 (Matt3) clearly says the FIRE is to burn the chaff/SINNERS. No way that's a "saving-water-baptism". There are three baptisms in Matt3:11-12, only the first is water:
1. John immersed you in water
2. now He will immerse you in the Spirit
3. He will also immerse SINNERS in fire and burn them like chaff

But Cornelius & family & friends were fully saved, but undipped. And it's the SAME as with the Apostles --- Acts11:15-17.

(Your response avoided discussing Cornelius.)

You said in another post that God made a special case in regard to Cornelius; but that opposes what Peter said in Acts11:17 --- they received the Spirit the same as the Apostles did. It's not "special case".

Incredible stuff. The passage even states that you must be born of water/baptized in order to see the kingdom of heaven and yet you still deny it. The way you are coming across you sound as if those who get baptized are living by works and are not allowing themselves to be saved by grace. This is such incredible nonsense it almost defies belief that anybody could fall into such incredible folly. This is the nature of deception; turning otherwise sensible rational people into buffoons.
The apostles baptized 3000 people in one day. You seem to be saying that the apostles were saving these people by works and not by grace.
The churches primary commission was to baptise the nations. Is that salvation by works is it?

The passage (John3:1-6) does NOT mention at all waterbaptism. You presume that "water" is "waterbaptism". As I said:

"Unless you are born again, you cannot see/behold the kingdom."
"Unless you are born of water AND the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom."
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus is trying to explain to Nicodemus the difference between PHYSICAL birth, and SPIRITUAL birth. Because you perceive that every occurrence of "WATER" must be waterbaptism, you don't acknowledge that the Greek "hydor" is water-as-the-fundamental-element, "PHYSICAL". Thus, "water = flesh = physical" --- verse 6 REPEATS verse 5 --- unless one is BORN PHYSICALLY ("of water/flesh"!), and is also BORN SPIRITUALLY ("of the Spirit"), he cannot see/enter the kingdom. You have provided no basis for supporting "waterbaptism" in John3:5.

Jesus said. 'He that endures to the end shall be saved' which is the same as saying that he who does not endure until the end shall not be saved.

Right.

This is not duality of salvation. Why do you invent these terms.

We can know now that we are saved:

"He who has the Son, has the life; he who does not have the Son, does not have the life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may KNOW you HAVE eternal life." 1Jn5:11-13

We ARE SAVED, now, who believe and have the Son. We WERE saved the MOMENT we believed and received Him.

We are BEING saved (1Cor1:18) as we CONTINUE in fellowship with the Son and ENDURE in salvation. That is a "duality"; saved now, and saved then if we continue.

The economy of salvation has never been portrayed as a once off event that happens when we believe until Calvin dreamed it up. What do I care what Calvin teaches.

Calvin was wrong on most points.

I believe the scriptures.

Do you? Then how do you understand 1Jn5:11-13? Can we KNOW NOW that we ARE saved? Yes. What about tomorrow? That one-time-event, becomes a lifelong walk and ABIDING in Christ and in salvation.

We WERE saved yesterday, WHEN we believed; we ARE saved today and tomorrow, as we abide in Christ and salvation. 1Tim4:16 says to guard ourselves and our teaching, as we do we will save ourselves.

Hence passages like Jude20-21, BUILD yourselves in faith and KEEP yourselves in His love.

I once came up with 8 pages of scripture in 10pt close typed font showing that we can lose our salvation. Countless times I have trotted out the scriptures ad nauseum but I have come to learn that OSAS'ers do not actually care what the scriptures say. They pay lip service to the scripture.

I'd like to see them; I bet I can cite most of them. I made a list of about 60 verses that speak of "falling-from-salvation".

Because the word washing is implicitly talking about water. If I say that I washed something it is automatically assumed that it is washed by water unless it is explicitly stated what other liquid is used to wash.

Why? Why does "washing OF regeneration" have to mean "washing OF WATER and regeneration"? It's the regeneration itself that washes us clean; as it did Cornelius, before being dipped in water.

To require Titus3:5-6 to be waterbaptism is to insert something into the text that wasn't there before.

Also cross reference this which was told to Paul after his Damascus Road experience.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This shows most clearly that baptism is the washing of water that washes away sins.

No, it's the "calling-on-His-name" that actually removes sins. As I just posted above, 1Pet3:21 teaches that waterbaptism saves us, if it's accompanied by an "appeal-to-God-for-a-good-conscience".

...but it's the APPEAL, the CALLING-ON-HIS-NAME, that actually cleanses us from sins. 1Jn1:9!!!

BTW, thank you for the link; I hope we can move forward in the discussion.