When does regeneration takes place?

[mailmandan]

There’s no credible reason to deny that verse 6 simply repeats verse 5; “water” is ”physical” (birth), which is contrasted with ”spiritual” (birth).

Unless you are born of water AND Spirit…
That which is born of flesh …and that which is born of Spirit…

Verse 6 repeats verse 5; water = flesh = physical.

John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow the direct result of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that "water" signifies baptism. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. Those who teach baptismal remission never seem to discuss LIVING WATER which is mentioned in Scripture. There is a washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5). Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture.

Acts2:38 --- ”Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness or your sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit”.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. In Matthew 3:11, we see: "I baptize you with water FOR repentance. "I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance?" OR "I baptize you with water "in reference to" - concerning repentance? In Acts 3:19, Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9).

Cornelius & family & friends received the Spirit, when they believed and repented, nothing to do with water. No Scriptural proof of “special case”. To the contrary, they received the Spirit the SAME as the Apostles did after believing. Acts11:15-17.

Amen! In Acts 15:8-9, Peter clearly stated, "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH." If what took place in Acts 10 was a "special case" then why would Peter say that God made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith? Surely Peter would not have spoken these words if water baptism must precede receiving the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. In Acts 10:43, Peter clearly stated, ..whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. Water baptism followed (vs. 48).

1Pet3:21 --- ”…(water) baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the flesh but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.”

The eight people in the ark were "saved through water" as they were in the ark. They were not literally saved by the water as the context reveals. Hebrews 11:7 is very clear on this point (...built an ark for the SAVING of his household). 1 Peter 3:20 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. Right after Peter says that baptism now saves us (conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: "not the removal of the filth of the flesh." Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Positively, baptism saves because it follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase "the answer of a good conscience toward God." It is that aspect of baptism, what is signified, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves. The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what confuses people. A FLOOD of confusion.

What actually cleanses us from sins? ”If we confess our sins (repent!) He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1Jn1:9[/color][/indent]When? Today? Tomorrow? Only AT waterbaptism? Every other time AFTER waterbaptism? What does it say? Does 1Jn1:9 fit waterbaptism? Or does it fit “appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience”?

This fits together.

If we confess our sins, we repent about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us.

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.. There is no repentance apart from confessing our sins and need for a Savior. There is no faith/believing apart from genuine repentance.

Acts 11:17,18 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

"Confess/Repent/Believe" fits "appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience"? Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. So, when Peter says that baptism saves us, he does not mean that the external rite (the sign, the application of water) literally saves us; he means that baptism signifies our salvation by faith in Christ.

[Boo]

John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow the direct result of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that "water" signifies baptism. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. Those who teach baptismal remission never seem to discuss LIVING WATER which is mentioned in Scripture. There is a washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5). Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. In Matthew 3:11, we see: "I baptize you with water FOR repentance. "I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance?" OR "I baptize you with water "in reference to" - concerning repentance? In Acts 3:19, Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9).

Amen! In Acts 15:8-9, Peter clearly stated, "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH." If what took place in Acts 10 was a "special case" then why would Peter say that God made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith? Surely Peter would not have spoken these words if water baptism must precede receiving the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. In Acts 10:43, Peter clearly stated, ..whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. Water baptism followed (vs. 48).

The eight people in the ark were "saved through water" as they were in the ark. They were not literally saved by the water as the context reveals. Hebrews 11:7 is very clear on this point (...built an ark for the SAVING of his household). 1 Peter 3:20 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. Right after Peter says that baptism now saves us (conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: "not the removal of the filth of the flesh." Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Positively, baptism saves because it follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase "the answer of a good conscience toward God." It is that aspect of baptism, what is signified, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves. The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what confuses people. A FLOOD of confusion.

This fits together.

If we confess our sins, we repent about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us.

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.. There is no repentance apart from confessing our sins and need for a Savior. There is no faith/believing apart from genuine repentance.

Acts 11:17,18 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

"Confess/Repent/Believe" fits "appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience"? Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. So, when Peter says that baptism saves us, he does not mean that the external rite (the sign, the application of water) literally saves us; he means that baptism signifies our salvation by faith in Christ.

It fits together only if you change the meaning of the verses from what they actually say.

[Gadgeteer]

There’s no credible reason to deny that verse 6 simply repeats verse 5; “water” is ”physical” (birth), which is contrasted with ”spiritual” (birth).

Unless you are born of water AND Spirit…
That which is born of flesh …and that which is born of Spirit…

Verse 6 repeats verse 5; water = flesh = physical.

John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow the direct result of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that "water" signifies baptism.

It's worse than that, Dan --- it's not just "a lack of proof", it violates context and credibility to assert waterbaptism there. More on this in the next post...

If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. Those who teach baptismal remission never seem to discuss LIVING WATER which is mentioned in Scripture. There is a washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5). Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture.

Right. As we'll discuss in the next post, was Jesus teaching Nick about waterbaptism, or was He making several comparisons between "physical birth" and "spiritual birth"?

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19.

Very excellent citation.

The question has still not been answered --- Boo perceives that the Spirit works through the water to forgive sins, but only one waterbaptism is needed (it then covers each additional time that we confess and ask forgiveness). If water is required initially, then why isn't it required continually? What is the mechanism that allows waterbaptism one day, to work the next day, or the next, or ten or twenty years later when a Christian sins-repents-and-asks-forgiveness?

The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical.

It's the same in Mark16:16 ("He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who disbelieves shall be condemned"). We can presume that "he who is not waterbaptized is condemned" --- but that's not what Jesus said. No verse in Scripture asserts that "undipped are condemned".

In Matthew 3:11, we see: "I baptize you with water FOR repentance. "I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance?" OR "I baptize you with water "in reference to" - concerning repentance? In Acts 3:19, Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9).

I think you're right; and what Peter taught in 1:3:21 is that the water saves us AS an appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience --- that can equally be stated "water saves us IF accompanied by repentance". The two concepts are identical and consistent.

Cornelius & family & friends received the Spirit, when they believed and repented, nothing to do with water. No Scriptural proof of “special case”. To the contrary, they received the Spirit the SAME as the Apostles did after believing. Acts11:15-17.

Amen! In Acts 15:8-9, Peter clearly stated, "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH."

Another excellent citation --- God made no distinction between new believers and the Apostles, between circumcised or not.

"You received the Spirit ...by hearing with faith". Gal3:2

It is impossible to receive the Spirit without being fully saved and regenerated. So Cornelius fits full Scriptural context, and not "waterbaptism necessary for salvation".

If what took place in Acts 10 was a "special case" then why would Peter say that God made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith? Surely Peter would not have spoken these words if water baptism must precede receiving the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. In Acts 10:43, Peter clearly stated, ..whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. Water baptism followed (vs. 48).

Context prohibits the perception that "Cornelius was special". Specialness (deviation from "the norm") must be imposed externally to persist in a "water-part-of-salvation" doctrine; it is a case of interpreting Scripture to fit doctrine, rather than conforming doctrine to Scripture. Not meant to offend, there's no other way to say it.

The eight people in the ark were "saved through water" as they were in the ark. They were not literally saved by the water as the context reveals. Hebrews 11:7 is very clear on this point (...built an ark for the SAVING of his household). 1 Peter 3:20 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. Right after Peter says that baptism now saves us (conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: "not the removal of the filth of the flesh." Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Positively, baptism saves because it follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase "the answer of a good conscience toward God." It is that aspect of baptism, what is signified, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves. The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what confuses people. A FLOOD of confusion.

Heh heh heh --- is that a GLOBAL flood of confusion?

It's not that Noah was saved and righteous because of the water, but he was in the ark and saved because he was righteous. In the same way, the water-of-baptism saves us IF we are righteous and repent/appeal-to-God. We pass through water IF we're righteous and saved, just as Noah passed through water because he was righteous and saved. This is the crux of the issue --- our righteousness is apart from the water, we are righteous by faith.

What actually cleanses us from sins?
”If we confess our sins (repent!) He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1Jn1:9

When? Today? Tomorrow? Only AT waterbaptism? Every other time AFTER waterbaptism? What does it say? Does 1Jn1:9 fit waterbaptism? Or does it fit “appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience”?

This fits together.

If we confess our sins, we repent about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us.

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.. There is no repentance apart from confessing our sins and need for a Savior. There is no faith/believing apart from genuine repentance.

Why is the water required ONCE, and then on it covers us by PROXY? That's not what Scripture says. We receive the Spirit by FAITH, not by water; there are examples in Scripture when they received the Spirit with faith and water (Acts2:38, 22:16 --- can it be argued that "calling-on-His-name" is not "faith/believing"?). There are examples of receiving the Spirit BEFORE water (Acts10:45-47), and examples of receiving the Spirit AFTER water (Acts8:16). It is impossible to receive the Spirit without being fully saved and fully regenerated; Scripturally it has nothing to do with water.

Acts 11:17,18 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Again, "received the Spirit by hearing with faith" --- water is not in view.

"Confess/Repent/Believe" fits "appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience"? Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. So, when Peter says that baptism saves us, he does not mean that the external rite (the sign, the application of water) literally saves us; he means that baptism signifies our salvation by faith in Christ.

Well, I think he meant "the water saves us" --- but in context water saves us AS an appeal-for-clear-conscience; as we discussed, it's identical to saying "water saves IF ACCOMPANIED BY repentance". If repentance comes before the water, then so also does salvation, as it did to Cornelius and his family and friends.

[John146]

It fits together only if you change the meaning of the verses from what they actually say.

That is completely false. He didn't change the meaning of the verses at all. He explained what they mean. If we interpreted Matt 3:11 the way you interpret Acts 2:38 then we would conclude that Matthew 3:11 taught that people were baptized in order to repent, which is obviously false. People are not required to be baptized with water in order to have their sins forgiven and to receive the Holy Spirit any more than people are required to be baptized with water in order to repent. But you can't bring yourself to acknowledge things like that. And then you just brush passages like Acts 10:43-48 aside as if it can't be used for doctrine. That is shameful. You can't just pick and choose verses that can be used for doctrine and others that can't. All scripture can be used for doctrine!

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Gadgeteer]

My brother, once in a while, I run into someone with whom I cannot speak on phone or in writing. For some reason, there is more required in our communication that is lacking when we are not face-to-face. If you and I agreed, that would not be as evident as it is to me on this topic.

Boo, what I'm seeing is a clinging to doctrine and unwillingness to accommodate Scripture. Let's focus on John3:5:

"Unless you are born of water AND Spirit…
That which is born of flesh …and that which is born of Spirit…

Jesus is teaching Nick the difference between physical birth ("Can a man enter again into his mother's womb and be born a second time?"), and spiritual birth. To perceive Jesus derailed and asserted waterbaptism, would make it mean:

"A man cannot enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he?"
"Unless one is water-born-of-Spirit and born-of-Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom.
That which is born-of-flesh ...and that which is born-of-Spirit..."

That makes no sense --- can you deny it? Can you still assert that the ECF's you cited were right, and Jesus was not using "hydor/water-as-fundamental-element/PHYSICAL-FLESH"?

"A man cannot enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he?"
"Unless one is born-of-water/phsical AND born-of-Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom.
That which is born-of-flesh/physical ...and that which is born-of-Spirit..."

This is the persistent question --- why is the brown meaning credible, and the blue one is not? What's the reason, other than "necessity-to-support-waterbaptism-as-part-of-salvation"? Can you defend your support of the brown meaning over the blue one?

I think that we will not find a unified answer to this via written words.

I think we can; but we both must be willing to defend what we're saying, with Scripture. Please see my previous post to Dan -- are we saved by receiving the Spirit through faith? Or are we saved by faith plus something (in your perception, "faith + water")?

As I have already stated, you and I cannot go on until you can rectify those verses I listed with the story given in Acts 10.

Can, and did. Did again previous post to Dan, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I said.

Giving me more words around that subject accomplish nothing for me, because until that rectification takes place, I cannot see your point. Since all scripture fits together, then we should be able to put them all together in our understanding so that there is no conflict. With your view, I find conflict.

Please tell me the conflict. Acts2:38 does NOT assert "water-necessary-to-salvation", nor does 1Pet3:21. We've given you the verses that associate forgiveness only with repentance; if waterbaptism is accompanied BY repentance, then sins are forgiven during the baptism; but it's not actually the water that does anything, it's God's power through faith. It fits Acts2:38 fully; and 1Pet3:21 asserts that the water saves us IF accompanied by repentance. Please tell me where you see inconsistency and conflict between what I've said, and Scripture.

It was not my intent in my first post in this thread to do anything but to list what scripture says in answer to the original question.

We are still honoring the thread's intent; regeneration occurs when the Spirit is received --- is that BEFORE waterbaptism, during or after? The answer to that is "YES" --- each time is valid, it's really faith and repentance that receives the Spirit; before, during, or after water are all equally Scriptural.

The growth into this subject was not the intent. Let's let this thread end.

With respect, that's saying "Let's not answer what has been said; I still assert Jesus was talking about waterbaptism in John3:5" --- without giving the reason why you still perceive that. With respect and kindness, you are avoiding the discussion.

It fits together only if you change the meaning of the verses from what they actually say.

We've given you the verses that say "receive-the-Spirit-by-faith" --- water is not mentioned. We've discussed Acts2:38 and 22:16 --- it's not actually the WATER that does anything, it's the "repentance/calling-on-His-name" that does.

I realize the commitment you have to the position; your Church compells you to perceive "water-as-part-of-salvation". We are asking you to lay aside all doctrines and preconceptions, and consider the Scripture at face-value. Does what you've previously embraced fit what they wrote? Or does what they wrote cause conflict in your doctrine? You have to see Cornelius as "EXEPTION" --- special case. Why? What in the text supports "special case"? Does the EXCEPTION perception fit Scripture, or is it bending Scripture to fit doctrine? Which is conforming to which --- doctrine conforming to Scripture, or Scripture conforming to doctrine?

Are you willing to examine your doctrines in the face of Scripture? If you think our doctrines are wrong --- are you willing to assist us in examining our doctrines in the face of Scripture? Can we come to resolution, or is "letting-the-thread-end" just avoiding the resolution?

I look forward with excitement to your thoughts on this post and the previous one to Dan. :-)

[Boo]

I have already told you how the verses read. If you change none of the words and alter none of the meaning of those verses, then my view is already solid. The only way you three can get your doctrine out of any verses is to "explain what they mean." I don't have to. The are literal, solid, and they already mean what they say.

It is no surprise that you agree with each other. That is what you were all taught. I'll bet that you have some favorite scholars who can explain everything to you so that you don't have to change anything you already believe.

And since I obviously would need to have the verses altered to match how you guys take them, i don't guess I am going to accept your doctrine as true. Have a blessed day.

[John146]

I have already told you how the verses read. If you change none of the words and alter none of the meaning of those verses, then my view is already solid. The only way you three can get your doctrine out of any verses is to "explain what they mean." I don't have to. The are literal, solid, and they already mean what they say.

Does this mean that in Matthew 3:11 John said that he baptized with water in order for people to repent? Because that's how I would interpret it if it's meant to just mean what it says.

It is no surprise that you agree with each other. That is what you were all taught.

That is nonsense. I grew up in a church that believed in infant baptism. That's what I was taught. I certainly don't believe in that. It was a Reformed church so if you know anything about my overall beliefs you would know that I disagree with a lot of things I was taught.

I'll bet that you have some favorite scholars who can explain everything to you so that you don't have to change anything you already believe.

More nonsense.

And since I obviously would need to have the verses altered to match how you guys take them, i don't guess I am going to accept your doctrine as true. Have a blessed day.

Until you understand that scripture is not meant to be read the same way you read the newspaper you just won't get it.

[Boo]

You have shared your beliefs, I have shared mine.

You think I don't get it, I think you don't.

I guess we are finished here.

God bless you and yours, brother.

[Gadgeteer]

You have shared your beliefs, I have shared mine.

Is that what we're doing here? Sharing beliefs, contrasting opinions? Can we not establish absolutes in Scripture, rather than each have our own doctrine?

...why did It take 1600 years for man to realize that baptism is not part of the conversion process that will "wash away their sins," provide them with a new conscience, and allow them to walk in newness of life, permitting them to be reborn so that they could enter the Kingdom of God? How did those men in 1649 finally get so enlightened, they could see the "error" of scriptures?
Response from this site, "Water Baptism in Early Church History":

The short answer is that ALL the early fathers believed that part of the conversion experience was going under the water in baptism. At the same time NONE of the early fathers said faith without baptism was impossible - in other words, NO church father argued that salvation was impossible without water baptism. It was simply assumed that a believer would be baptized.
.
.
.
So you see, there is just not an easy answer. But if you insist, my easy answer is that NO, the early fathers did not believe water baptism was a requirement for salvation - they just assumed you would be baptized and if you were not they questioned your salvation.
Here is an interesting paper on Essenic baptism:
"The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance,"
by Stephen Pfann, Ph.D.

You are not arguing Scripture. You are arguing someone's interpretation of Scripture --- specifically, early church fathers.

I was answering your questions, one by one, when the futility of it hit me. We can do this for days, but you are not going to accept what I say because you are looking for words to be given in a specific way. Since they are not given the way you want, you are navigating your way around the message in order to eliminate the need for baptism.

If you had a choice to have the Gospel message to be explained to you; would you prefer to have it explained by a recent graduate from seminary in the 21st century or by someone alive and preaching the gospel message in the first and second centuries? Keep in mind that these theologians lived in the culture and spoke the language natively. They did not have a problem with the linguistics and the social norms. They didn't have to learn it from some professor at seminary. There was no need for a Strong's concordance or a protestant study bible.

Would not they have more credibility in their explanation that a modern day preacher? To me they sure do.
They explained the salvation message and baptism to others in their time. Of course, they were preaching to gentiles; people who did not grow up with the idea of water purification or circumcision. They had to pass on to those people how it actually works. I guess that still happens today, but instead of explaining it the way they did, modern day preachers have stripped the purpose and effect of baptism from the message.

Here is what the theologians of that period explain about baptism. I do not present this as scripture, but as commentary letters.

This is the closest I can come to providing the words you are looking for but not finding in scripture.

The writings of early church fathers are not Scripture --- yet you perceive them as of equal value. If we cannot find a principle in Scripture, but we find it in words from an ECF, that sets our doctrine. Is that valid, Boo?

I am afraid that this is all I have to offer you, my brother. I cannot make it more clear for you than that.

Notice that none of them mention any other baptisms for believers.

110-165 AD Martyr

And is one would like to refer back to the writings of Justin Martyr, you can see that they were aware in the second century - 80 years after Jesus' return to heaven, that the "washing of regeneration" occurred at baptism.

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all… And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe.” (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

That is the earliest known reference to John 3:5. The next is just as clear, and it is from one of the most respected 2nd-century Christians. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who knew the apostle John, then later became a missionary to barbarians of the tribe of Gaul.

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean—by means of the sacred water and the invocation [i.e., calling on the name of] of the Lord—from our old transgressions. We are spiritually regenerated as newborn 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."
("Fragments of Irenaeus" 34, from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I )

115-188 THEOPHILUS “

On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration, as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.”
(Theophilus, “To Autolycus,”, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 101)

120-205 AD IRENAEUS “

As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, 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, “Fragments From Lost Writings”, no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574)

120-205 AD IRENAEUS “

This class of men have been instigated by satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith.”
(Against Heresies, bk. 1, chap. 21, sec. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 345.)

140-230 AD TERTULLIAN “

After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, ‘the waters’ were the first to receive the precept ‘to bring forth living creatures.’ Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life.”
(Tertullian, “On Baptism,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, page 670)

140-230 AD Tertullian “

Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins”
(Baptism 7:2).

150-200 AD CLEMENT “

Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal… This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.[/U]” (Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 215)

200 AD CYPRIAN

“But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, ‘He saved us by the washing of regeneration.’ But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?”
(Cyprian, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 388)

200 AD 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; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man”
(To Donatus 3)

200 AD HERMAS “

And I said, ‘I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sin.’ He said to me, ‘That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case.’”
(Hermas, “The Shepherd,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 22)

So you find seven "early church fathers" who assert John3:5 is speaking of waterbaptism. Are Jesus' words vague, that one person can perceive "baptism" and another can perceive "physical"? Is there not sufficient reason to perceive one to have more credibility than the other?

"Unless you are born of water AND Spirit…
That which is born of flesh …and that which is born of Spirit…

Jesus is teaching Nick the difference between physical birth ("Can a man enter again into his mother's womb and be born a second time?"), and spiritual birth. To perceive Jesus derailed and asserted waterbaptism, would make it mean:

"A man cannot enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he?"
"Unless one is water-born-of-Spirit and born-of-Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom.
That which is born-of-flesh ...and that which is born-of-Spirit..."

That makes no sense --- can you deny it? Can you still assert that the ECF's you cited were right, and Jesus was not using "hydor/water-as-fundamental-element/PHYSICAL-FLESH"?

"A man cannot enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he?"
"Unless one is born-of-water/phsical AND born-of-Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom.
That which is born-of-flesh/physical ...and that which is born-of-Spirit..."

This is the persistent question --- why is the brown meaning credible, and the blue one is not? What's the reason, other than "necessity-to-support-waterbaptism-as-part-of-salvation"? Can you defend your support of the brown meaning over the blue one?

If the seven ECF's are right, then the brown understanding is what Jesus meant --- "Unless one is born-of-Spirit, AND born-of-Spirit". Why does that have more credibility than to just perceive that verse 6 ("unless one is born of flesh and also born of Spirit") is repeating verse 5 ("unless one is born of water and also born of Spirit")? This is the question you're not answering --- what establishes the credibility of waterbaptism in the words of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement, Cyprian, Hermas, and Theophilus? When were these seven men's writings accorded the same regard as "inspired Scripture", the subject of what Paul said in 2Tim3:16 --- "all Scripture is God-breathed and suitable for correction, training, equiping"?

Their writings have never been regarded as "infallible/inspired-by-God", Boo. That's why we are not "sharing beliefs", we are measuring doctrines against that which Paul referred to as "inspired by God".

Here is a comparison of "Early Church Fathers" in support of waterbaptism-necessary-to-salvation, and other "Early Church Fathers" in support of it not being necessary:

Baptism is Necessary for salvation

1.

Irenaeus (120? - 200), “'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. 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.'" (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).

2.

Origen (185 - 254), "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9)

3.

Tertullian (155 - 220), “When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" (On Baptism, 12:1, A.D. 203).

4.

Ambrose (340? - 397), “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved…for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism...."Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (On Abraham 2:11:79-84).

Baptism is Not Necessary

1.

Clement of Rome (? - 110), “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32).

2.

Polycarp (69 - 150), "by grace ye are saved, not of works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ....If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, 'we shall also reign together with Him,' provided only we believe…” (Epistle to the Philippians, 1, 5, 8)

3.

Marius Victorinus (280 - ?): Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39).

We clearly see that all of the "water-necessary-to-salvation" quotes are based on John3:5. In the midst of Jesus teaching Nicodemus the difference between physical birth, and spiritual birth, Jesus injected a waterbaptism clause. That does not make sense; it does violence to Jesus' point (asserting TWO "births-of-the-Spirit"), it breaks the context of contrasting physical with spiritual, and is not established in credibility.

In the second set of quotes, these "Early Church Fathers" qualify salvation by belief alone, not by works. Behind all the arguments, waterbaptism is a WORK! But Paul said we are justified by faith --- Rom5:1. Not by faith and a sacrament/work/action.

Romans11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

If salvation is by grace, then it's not by works. Works-salvation is based on what we do. Grace is a free, undeserved unmerited gift from God, for which we do nothing.
The entire argument of "water-necessary-to-salvation" is in fact arguing salvation by Grace PLUS something WE DO.

How are we saved, Boo? By something Jesus did and something WE DO? Or is our salvation only purchased by what Jesus did? This is cutting past the arguments, and looking at the foundation of faith. Who is it it that DID something which EFFECTED salvation? Did Jesus die on the Cross to purchase our eternity, but then He steps back and says "You must do something too or I will not give you the gift I wrought when I died"?

Why would He make "receiving the Spirit" conditional on something men do, rather than simply a gift that men receive? Where is that principle in Scripture? It cannot be there; not as long as verses like Romans5:1 and 11:6 exist.

You think I don't get it, I think you don't.

What is it that you think we don't get? Specifically? What doctrine have you established with Scripture, that still stands?

I guess we are finished here.

Are we? You know, I respect you, and wish only to strengthen you in your position with Jesus and the Spirit; and --- towards that --- I encourage you to examine what you have embraced, testing the merit against written Scripture (not writings which have never been considered "God-breathed"); as you have encouraged us.

We have met your challenge to measure our perceptions with Scripture; have you met our challenge for the same? No one is forced to post here; I pray that things we've said have encouraged you and strengthened you in Christ. I hope you're willing to confront the reality that waterbaptism-necessary-to-salvation violates passages like Rom5:1 and 11:6.

God bless you in your walk, and mostly I pray God will be pleased with you and will use you effectively to bring Jesus' life to a lost and dying world. The greatest message we are to teach men, is "You don't have to die!"

:-)

[Boo]

Your whole post is nothing more than your opinion, brother.

You have proved nothing. You state your opinions about what verses mean, and then you use those opinions to show that the verses I gave you must be in error.

Your assuming the role of teacher and giving me the role of student is probably why your are not really reading what I have written.

So, rather than continue to waste my time with discussions that are actually monologues, I am moving on.

[Gadgeteer]

Your whole post is nothing more than your opinion, brother.

You have proven nothing. You state your opinions about what verses mean, and then you use those opinions to show that the verses I gave you must be in error.

No, I stated both understandings --- yours (which perceives verse 5 to deviate completely from verse 6 and from Jesus' point), and mine (which perceives verse 5 to repeat verse 6), and asked you why the deviation was more credible than the repetition. The "deviation" also casts Jesus as saying "Unless you are born-again and born-again..." --- because in your perception "born-again" is indissolubly tied to waterbaptism, which would then have Jesus separating "born-again-water" from "born-again-Spirit", which conflicts your position born-again-Spirit-THROUGH-WATER. I simply asked you how your view made sense?

You're assuming the role of teacher and giving me the role of student...

I'm sorry you perceive that; I simply see the verses asserting salvation apart from water as solid, I see no "special circumstance" for Cornelius, and I asked you to demonstrate the same solidarity in your view.

...is probably why you are not really reading what I have written.

And I'm sorry I've given you the impression I'm not reading/listening to you. I've been very carefully considering what you've said; and asking what is so convincing to you about your view, in comparison to how I've shown why I'm convinced by passages like Acts10:45-47 (Cornelius & family & friends), Acts11:15-17 (Cornelius received the Spirit the same as the Apostles, after believing, and before water, no indication of an "exemption/special-provision"); and several other points as posted.

You are convinced by "Early Church Fathers"; I wanted you to show me from Scripture alone. ECF writings do not have the privilege of being regarded as "God-breathed" as letters like Acts and Romans do (2Tim3:16).

So, rather than continue to waste my time with discussions that are actually monologues, I am moving on.

As you wish. I hope you at least consider this point:

Romans11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

If salvation is by grace, then it's not by works. Works-salvation is based on what we do. Grace is a free, undeserved unmerited gift from God, for which we do nothing.
The entire argument of "water-necessary-to-salvation" is in fact arguing salvation by Grace PLUS something WE DO.

You have made posts on the board that I consider brilliant. This is not a major stumbling block between us; I pray that we continue to embody Christ here and in the world, and I look forward to meeting you in person some day, in the present world or in the clouds with Jesus when He returns. (That seems to be a whole lot closer than anyone imagines!)

God bless you!

[Boo]

No, I stated both understandings --- yours (which perceives verse 5 to deviate completely from verse 6 and from Jesus' point), and mine (which perceives verse 5 to repeat verse 6), and asked you why the deviation was more credible than the repetition. The "deviation" also casts Jesus as saying "Unless you are born-again and born-again..." --- because in your perception "born-again" is indissolubly tied to waterbaptism, which would then have Jesus separating "born-again-water" from "born-again-Spirit", which conflicts your position born-again-Spirit-THROUGH-WATER. I simply asked you how your view made sense?

The fact that I see John 3:5 as a simple message and you don't seems to be the barrier. Born of water and of Spirit is an accurate description of baptism. Your body is born of water WHILE your soul is born of Spirit. I can do nothing to enable you to see that. It makes perfect sense to me because when I learned this lesson, I was not fighting the issue as a person who was taught differently for many years. I learned it as one seeking the truth to write on a blank slate. I had to erase nothing.

I'm sorry you perceive that; I simply see the verses asserting salvation apart from water as solid, I see no "special circumstance" for Cornelius, and I asked you to demonstrate the same solidarity in your view. And I'm sorry I've given you the impression I'm not reading/listening to you. I've been very carefully considering what you've said; and asking what is so convincing to you about your view, in comparison to how I've shown why I'm convinced by passages like Acts10:45-47 (Cornelius & family & friends), Acts11:15-17 (Cornelius received the Spirit the same as the Apostles, after believing, and before water, no indication of an "exemption/special-provision"); and several other points as posted.

I have shared with you why in the first half of the book of Acts, salvation and the Holy Spirit acted differently. I have already explained why the Jews had to see the Holy Spirit given before the Jews would be willing to baptize that family, but since you deny that; there is nowhere else for me to go. I can see it plainly, but apparently you cannot.

Even disregarding that, even without knowing that there was a reason for it to be out of order, we still have the scriptures that state plainly what I have presented.

Even after the evidence of Cornelius, I still have to deal with the other verses I presented. I cannot accept your denial of the information given in those other verses just because it happened differently with Cornelius - especially when the whole story is considered together, I can understand why.

You are convinced by "Early Church Fathers"; I wanted you to show me from Scripture alone. ECF writings do not have the privilege of being regarded as "God-breathed" as letters like Acts and Romans do (2Tim3:16).

No, my brother, I have not presented the letters for the ECF as inspired messages. I have presented them as commentary from theologians who were more qualified to testify as to the intent of the teachings and the mindset of the people back in the early church - those who were closely associated with the original teachers of the churches established by the Apostles. Their commentary carries more weight that commentaries written by theologians of today. Maybe only to me, but that is my view. I have denied giving their letters any "God breathed" status on a few occasions, but it is when you continue to say these kinds of things that I know you have not read what I have written.

Note that Martin Luther, a theologian more recent than them one one recognized by many churches today believed as I do, but even his beliefs are denied today. People considered him a man of God who did great things, but now people claim that he was wrong as well?

As you wish. I hope you at least consider this point:

1. Romans11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

If salvation is by grace, then it's not by works. Works-salvation is based on what we do. Grace is a free, undeserved unmerited gift from God, for which we do nothing.
The entire argument of "water-necessary-to-salvation" is in fact arguing salvation by Grace PLUS something WE DO.

Another instance where you appear to be ignoring what I wrote in the past. The whole "baptism is a work" argument holds no water. (Pun intended) Baptism is not a "work" on the part of the person accepting Christ Jesus. If it is a work at all, it is God's work. He is the one doing something. The person submitting to baptism is only receiving the baptism.

If you had read my blog, even if you have ignored the earlier posts, you would know the Jesus said that believing in Him is a "work." This word "work" is used like a sword to slice away anything that we don't want to acknowledge, but it is in error. The work that was spoken of in Ephesians is the work of merit - the kind of merit that earns eternal life. It is not a prescription against having to be obedient.

The phrase "plus something we do" will cause all sorts of problems if used to justify the denial of baptism.
Here are things that we are told "to do:" if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

How about another "work" that we must do to be saved? Consider the following example from Jesus’ statements in John 6: 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

"Works-based salvation" refers to earning eternal life through good works (works of merit), not God's work in regenerating our souls. Submitting to baptism is not a "work" in that sense.


The end result of all this probably does not justify all the time and effort that has gone into this discussion. If, in the end, all of us are baptized, we have been obedient to the Lord. That is what really matters to me.

I really do have a special place in my heart for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I never entered this discussion to suffer angst nor to cause anyone else to. I actually wanted only to give a scriptural answer to the OP.

Whichever side of the discussion anyone falls on, as long as we all submit to baptism after belief and repentance, I am comfortable.

God bless all of you reading this........

[Eyelog]

No, I stated both understandings --- yours (which perceives verse 5 to deviate completely from verse 6 and from Jesus' point), and mine (which perceives verse 5 to repeat verse 6), and asked you why the deviation was more credible than the repetition. The "deviation" also casts Jesus as saying "Unless you are born-again and born-again..." --- because in your perception "born-again" is indissolubly tied to waterbaptism, which would then have Jesus separating "born-again-water" from "born-again-Spirit", which conflicts your position born-again-Spirit-THROUGH-WATER. I simply asked you how your view made sense?

I hope you at least consider this point:

Originally Posted by Gadget

Romans11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

If salvation is by grace, then it's not by works. Works-salvation is based on what we do. Grace is a free, undeserved unmerited gift from God, for which we do nothing.
The entire argument of "water-necessary-to-salvation" is in fact arguing salvation by Grace PLUS something WE DO.

Hi, Gadget.

I am compelled to ask a couple of questions of you here:

1. You who believe we can lose our salvation by something we do, why is getting saved not something we do? If we confess with our mouth Jesus is Lord, that is certainly doing something, as is believing in our heart He was raised from the dead. Romans 10. Indeed, as I have argued in the past with you, you do not build your house on the Rock that is Jesus Christ by belief alone. You must DO what He says to Do. Matthew 7:21-27. When I point that out, and the need to produce a crop with perseverance in the parable of the sower in order to be saved, you balk, yet use the same verses to say they are examples of how to lose one's salvation. I think we are looking at the same sunrise from two opposite sides of the Greenwich mean line. But this makes the point either way: Works are not the problem. It is thinking we do the works on our own to earn salvation which is the problem. No one can boast because it is the faith oif our actions which saves us, but having faith without actions can't save you. James 2. So, this anti-action to be saved argument needs to go, bro.

2. You are straining with your redundancy argument as to born of water and Spirit. Don't you think Boo's point is well taken that he is logically consistent to interpret Jesus' requirement of being born of both, water and Spirit in order to be born again, amounts to two simultaneous conditions for being born again? That is not in the least illogical. It is internally consistent. What makes it weird is simply your instantiating of your "born of Spirit and born of Spirit" interpretation of the passage. That's no way to show he is internally inconsistent. You can't put words into his mouth and then complain they sound redundant and implausible.

3. Moreover, all the baptisms Boo seems to rely on are not John's baptisms, but baptisms in the name of Jesus Christ or the Trinity. Each of those, according to Paul, represents dying with Christ, being buried and raised with Him. So, if water baptism in Christ symbolizes that vicarious death, burial and resurrection with Christ, Boo's point makes perfect sense. Yet, you act like you have this razor sharp logic ripping him to shreds. That is not fair argumentation in my view.

You have other reasons for your view, but I think you owe it to Boo not to unfairly invoke the reductio ad absurdum, just because his view is not yours. Here, you are the one arguing fallaciously and inconsistently with your own broader theology, to suggest there are never any outward actions when we get saved, yet such actions or lack thereof, get us unsaved. Really, now. ....

Anyway, good talking at you again.

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadget.

I am compelled to ask a couple of questions of you here:

1. You who believe we can lose our salvation by something we do, why is getting saved not something we do? If we confess with our mouth Jesus is Lord, that is certainly doing something, as is believing in our heart He was raised from the dead. Romans 10.

Hi, Eyelog! I was hoping someone would pick up the ball that I threw. :-)

"Everyone who hears My words and DOES them, is as a wise man who...
Everyone who hears My words and DOES NOT DO them, is as a foolish man who..." Matt7:24-27

"Do not WORK for food that perishes, but (WORK) for food that endures to eternal life." Jn6:27

So --- which is it? Are we saved by what Jesus worked on the Cross, alone --- received by faith? Or is there something additional we must DO? In the verses I just cited, what Jesus said to DO, is believe --- THAT is the "work" we work. Jn6:28 says "work-the-work-of-God", Jn6:29 says that God's work that we work, is to BELIEVE in Jesus. It's the same in Matt7; we DO His words, by believing and receiving Him.

Imagine it's your birthday --- and I want to give you a gift. I pick out some choice wood, and cut it and shape it and assemble it into a jewel-box, sand it glass-smooth, stain it and varnish it with seven coats. The grain fairly glows in the light. At your birthday party, I hand you your present; and you --- what? Do you have to build a box too, so that you reach out with your box to receive the box I've built for you?

This is the argument about waterbaptism --- is belief alone not enough, we have to build our own box, we have to engage in the sacrament of waterbaptism TO RECEIVE the Spirit, we have to do something of ourselves in addition TO what Jesus did, to receive His gift? Boo perceives that our sins are not forgiven and we do not receive the Spirit until we also ENTER the water. And that is "building a box to receive the box Jesus built". It's not what Cornelius and family and friends did. Boo's perception is that Cornelius was a special case, something God did differently to impress those at that time; but Peter said they received the Spirit JUST AS THE APOSTLES did after believing. It's not a special case, it's fully embodying the New Covenant, saved by grace through faith, and the deeds then follow.

"Believing" is not an act that is part of salvation; belief is receiving the act Jesus did, receiving His salvation. One box, not two. Not "His gift/action, and our action alongside" --- His gift alone, voluntarily received (belief!) which then causes all our actions.

Indeed, as I have argued in the past with you, you do not build your house on the Rock that is Jesus Christ by belief alone.

It is belief alone; but not any kind of belief, such as the mere head-belief that demons have (James2:19) --- it is the kind of belief that produces good works (James2:14-18, Matt7:16-18).

You must DO what He says to Do. Matthew 7:21-27.

Very specifically --- what does that mean? What do we DO to be saved? Do we do some act of righteousness, perform some sacrament, along WITH Jesus' perfect sacrifice, to be saved? No! We DO, merely by BELIEVING!

"Abraham BELIEVED, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Rm4:3.

When I point that out, and the need to produce a crop with perseverance in the parable of the sower in order to be saved, you balk,

Of course I do --- that's the point! "IN ORDER TO BE saved". That's what you said, and that's what Boo is arguing --- waterbaptism-in-order-to-be-saved. That's not what Scripture says! We produce crops (and are waterbaptized) because we ARE saved, not in order to BE saved!

yet use the same verses to say they are examples of how to lose one's salvation.

That's because it begins and ends with voluntary faith. That's why Paul said in Romans1:17 that the righteousness of God is revealed from BEGINNING faith, to ENDING faith; the just shall live BY faith.

If we WORK the work of God by believing (receiving Jesus' gift by faith), then that faith remains in our power to later THROW AWAY His gift; thus, we persevere BY faith. And that's the point of this thread --- if regeneration follows belief, then we can become unregenerated; but if it's God's sovereign choice for us (before belief), then of course we cannot turn away from Him (Heb12:25 says we shall not escape who turn away from God!).

I think we are looking at the same sunrise from two opposite sides of the Greenwich mean line. But this makes the point either way: Works are not the problem. It is thinking we do the works on our own to earn salvation which is the problem.

Not necessarily "earn" --- I don't think Boo is arguing that. But, rather, he perceives that waterbaptism is a work we do in order to RECEIVE the work Jesus did.

And that's "two boxes"! Jesus' work was sufficient and complete, we WORK His work by believing, by receiving His finished work. To assert that waterbaptism is needed ADDITIONALLY, is to perceive that His work was NOT finished, something additional must be done BY us to RECEIVE His gift.

We build a box, to receive His box. But the box is all His --- receiving it is nothing of ourselves. "Waterbaptism" as part of salvation is something of ourselves.

No one can boast because it is the faith of our actions which saves us, but having faith without actions can't save you. James 2.

Exactly --- but the action does not cause faith or salvation, the action is the consequence of saving-belief. Make sense?

So, this anti-action to be saved argument needs to go, bro.

Do you have any conflicts with anything I've said?

2. You are straining with your redundancy argument as to born of water and Spirit. Don't you think Boo's point is well taken that he is logically consistent to interpret Jesus' requirement of being born of both, water and Spirit in order to be born again, amounts to two simultaneous conditions for being born again?

No --- to perceive John3:5 as waterbaptism, that is asserting TWO "born-agains/born-of-Spirits".

"Unless you are water-born-of-Spirit, AND (also) born-of-Spirit"

How does that make sense? Boo's position is that waterbaptism is coincident with "being-born-of-the-Spirit". Why would Jesus say "unless you are born of the Spirit, AND born of the Spirit"? Not logical; but it's fully logical and consistent to read verse 5 as repeating verse 6:

"Unless you are born PHYSICALLY (water), and also born of the Spirit....
That which is born of the flesh/physical ....and that which is born of the Spirit..."

That makes perfect sense; "born-of-the-Spirit AND born-of-the-Spirit" does not. The whole passage is Jesus trying to teach Nick about TWO births --- physical, and spiritual. We can't see the wind but know it's there by its effects, we can't see spiritual birth either but know it's there by its effects.

That is not in the least illogical. It is internally consistent.

Please tell me how, in light of the previous couple paragraphs?

What makes it weird is simply your instantiating of your "born of Spirit and born of Spirit" interpretation of the passage. That's no way to show he is internally inconsistent. You can't put words into his mouth and then complain they sound redundant and implausible.

Boo will not deny he's asserting that one does not receive the Spirit or have his sins washed away apart from waterbaptism; that is where he perceives "regeneration" occurs -- so a believer is UNSAVED, is NOT filled with the Spirit, and is NOT forgiven his sins until he actually enters the WATER! And that's not what Scripture says --- a BELIEVER is saved, and THEREFORE enters the water.

Even as Cornelius and family and friends bore out; they were all fully saved, "even as the Apostles also were AFTER BELIEVING".

After believing --- not after believing + water. The water is the consequence of salvation, not vice-versa.

3. Moreover, all the baptisms Boo seems to rely on are not John's baptisms, but baptisms in the name of Jesus Christ or the Trinity. Each of those, according to Paul, represents dying with Christ, being buried and raised with Him. So, if water baptism in Christ symbolizes that vicarious death, burial and resurrection with Christ, Boo's point makes perfect sense.

Look again at Luke12:50 --- the BAPTISM that Jesus engaged in, has nothing to do with water; and we are UNITED in His baptism (Rom6:3-4), by belief, also nothing to do with water. We are united in His death, burial and resurrection --- Paul is very clear in Romans6:3-7, "united/buried/immersed/crucified/died", and water is nowhere in view.

Yet, you act like you have this razor sharp logic ripping him to shreds. That is not fair argumentation in my view.

Perhaps I was not being clear before; do you understand better my view, and do you see any conflict with Scripture?

You have other reasons for your view, but I think you owe it to Boo not to unfairly invoke the reductio ad absurdum, just because his view is not yours. Here, you are the one arguing fallaciously and inconsistently with your own broader theology, to suggest there are never any outward actions when we get saved, yet such actions or lack thereof, get us unsaved. Really, now. ....

It's a question of if we do anything to BE saved, beyond merely believing and receiving what HE did, sufficiently and completely.

Perceiving that water is needed TO receive the Spirit and to BE cleansed from sins, adds something to what Jesus did. But we are not saved by the Cross and something additional; we are saved by grace through faith. If there is a work of ours involved, then "grace is no longer grace" (Rm11:6). We don't need a box to receive His box; our hands are empty when we receive His gift.

Anyway, good talking at you again.

Always a pleasure talking with you.

[Boo]

Gadgeteer, your whole problem with my understanding of scripture seems to be that you are deathly afraid of any idea that we must do anything to receive the salvation that Jesus offers us. Since Jesus is also the one who commands baptism, I fail to see why. I would liken it to my writing you a check for a million dollars, but you refuse to take it to be bank and cash it; yet you claim that you are a millionaire.

To see if you are even reading this, let me tell you something that you have missed in other statements: I already acknowledged that God has the power and authority to save anyone He chooses for any reason He chooses. He will have mercy on whomever he chooses to have mercy. If God wants to accept a person who refuses baptism, that is God's option. I cannot say that God cannot do that. If the "sinner's prayer" is all that is needed now, that is up to God. I cannot find that in the bible anywhere, though, and nobody has been able to show it to me either. I am NOT saying that those who are not baptized are not saved. I don't have heavenly knowledge that would allow me to make such a statement. I AM saying that I would never tell a person that baptism is not a necessary act - clearly scripture says it is.

Jesus said that the Lord wants us to believe. (But not belief alone.) We must also have faith. (But not faith alone.) We must have love. (The greatest commandment.) We must be "born again." (Ah! How do we do that?) We must be "in Christ." We must obey Jesus' commandments, or we are not "in him." (Is that, then, a work?)

Your statements that we are to be empty handed and do nothing to receive Christ does not appear to be scriptural. (Although you are finally admitting that there is a "work" involved in receiving Jesus based on your last post.) Do you have a verse that I have missed?

Would you show me how I am to take all these verses and scrub away any idea that baptism has anything to do with salvation? I don't need for you to just tell me again what you believe. I really need for you to show me how I am to read these verses other than how they are written.

Acts 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 Spirit. (King James)

Acts 16:29-33 :

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway. (King James)

Acts 18:8 :

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (King James)

Acts 22:16 :

And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (King James)

I Corinthians 12:13 :

For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. (K.J.)

Galatians 3:26-27 :

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (K.J.)

Colossians 2:11-13:

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. (K.J.)

I Peter 3:20-21 :

… when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 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. (K.J.)

Romans 6:3-5 :

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection. (K.J.)