Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Jethro Bodine]

And you are able to judge the hearts of men - how exactly? Did you get this great "power" from God or out of grandiose delusion.

Who's judging hearts? The Bible tells us we can judge for ourselves who we consider belongs to the truth or not:

"7 Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8 NIV1984)

Remember, we're supposed to avoid unbelievers as far as receiving them into the fellowship is concerned. How are we to do that if we don't make a judgment about them first? The Bible gives us the guidelines for doing that...and it doesn't include whether or not they've been baptized. You do have to wonder why a professing believer is refusing to bet baptized, but the honest truth is that is simply not the signifying mark by which the Bible says to know believers from unbelievers. Character--the fruit of the Spirit, specifically love for the body of Christ--is the signifying mark.

Your sectarian dogma does not trump God's word...

And your dogma is not sectarian?

And what you are forgetting is that God's Word includes Cornelius' conversion experience. It's not about 'trumping' God's word with I believe. It's about knowing all of God's word and understanding scriptures in the context of all that the Bible says about a subject...and knowing what it doesn't say. It's just as wrong to impress one's opinions onto scripture and pass it off as plain scripture as it is to ignore parts of scripture.

 

[zeke]

Actually, the new birth is a spiritual birth, not a physical one. This is what Nicodemus could not understand. I'm not sure you're very much different than him in your understanding. Cornelius was born again by the Spirit without a drop of water.

But nowhere does the NT say Cornelius was saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized in water. The new birth – the birth of water (baptism) and the Spirit - is required before one can be saved. Cornelius was baptized in water – born of water and the Spirit and it took more than “a drop of water†– he was immersed in water – baptism is a burial in water.

And [Peter] commanded [Cornelius and his house] to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:48 (NKJV)​

 

[zeke]

I think we should not let people who willfully choose to ignore plain scripture that shows us Cornelius getting the Holy Spirit without his baptism lead us into legalistic teachings about the one and only time and place a person can be saved.

There is nothing 'legalistic' about doing that which God requires my friend and Jesus was clear - belief and baptism come before one "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Cornelius was no exception - he was baptized in water by Peter to have his sin "washed away" by the blood of Christ.

Where does Holy Writ say Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him? It doesn’t. The Holy Spirit fell upon King Saul and he prophesied. Did that make him a child of God? Not according to God who rejected Saul as a wicked man (I Samuel 10:10). Balaam’s donkey also spoke by the Holy Spirit (Numbers 22:27) does that make a donkey a child of God? I think not.

The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius BEFORE he heard the words that were to save his soul (Acts 11:14) but he was not saved until after he heard those words and obeyed from the heart the doctrine delivered. Are you saying one can be saved without hearing the word of God – doesn’t faith come by hearing that word – can one be saved without faith? I think not. Did the Holy Spirit fall on you before you heard the words that would save your soul? Your argument holds no water.

The conversion of Cornelius was a unique conversion in the NT – he was the first Gentile convert to the faith of Christ and the Holy Spirit fell on him to show the Jews that God accepted Gentiles of the same terms as the Jews. After the Spirit fell on him and after Peter finished preaching the full gospel, Cornelius he was baptized in water per Peter’s command and then his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ – Cornelius was saved just as those of the Day of Pentecost were saved – belief, repentance and baptism – God is not a respecter of persons. Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized…why…to have his sins remitted by the blood of Christ.

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Act 2:38 NKJV)​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But nowhere does the NT say Cornelius was saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized in water.

It plainly says he was given the Holy Spirit...before his water baptism.

The Holy Spirit is the promise of salvation. That is how we know we are saved:

"...having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance..." (Ephesians 1:13-14 NASB)

You say he wasn't saved before his water baptism. The Bible says he was saved before his water baptism because he has the Holy Spirit. Unsaved unbelievers do NOT have the promise of salvation through the Holy Spirit for a salvation they do not have. It's impossible to argue the truth of this. Unsaved people are not given the Holy Spirit promise of salvation for a salvation they do not have.

 

[zeke]

I wouldn't call it desperation, but I agree 'water' in John 3 is probably not symbolic of the breaking of a woman's water prior to physical birth. I personally am convinced it means the waters of the Red Sea.

Your interpretation makes no sense - are you saying we are to be born of the waters of the Red Sea and the Spirit to enter God's kingdom? I think not - the passage is clear the water of the new birth is the ordinance of baptism instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ. Your opposition to His ordinance is telling of your sectarian biases. Again, your opposition to what has been revealed does not trump God's word. God's word remains true...

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...†(Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary​

 

[former atheist]

You do have to wonder why a professing believer is refusing to bet baptized, but the honest truth is that is simply not the signifying mark by which the Bible says to know believers from unbelievers. Character--the fruit of the Spirit, specifically love for the body of Christ--is the signifying mark.

And by that mark, you would think that a professing Christian would obey Christ by undergoing the baptism of which he (Jesus the Christ) commanded of us to do.

Regardless, the act of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is what saves, not baptism, and the question being, “do you have to be baptized to achieve salvationâ€: is in and of itself an ignorant question, with regard to the entire issue of one’s salvation.

First and foremost, we do not Achieve (gain as by hard work or effort) or (to bring to a successful conclusion; accomplish) our own salvation. Jesus Christ achieved our salvation on the Cross! I don’t know what other theme in the New Testament could be more clear about Salvation through his Sacrifice?

Now, all we do is accept this salvation through Christ. More-over, how we accept that salvation offered by Christ. Do we merely say we believe it? Or do we believe it, and do we act upon the offer of his salvation to begin here and now?

Part of salvation is the obedience to Gods word and his commandments. One of Gods commands was to be baptized. Christ our Lord commands us to go and be baptized and to baptize all who would believe in him. So, what happens when a person who accepts the Salvation of Christ and dies before fulfilling the command to be baptized? My hope is that, like all of our other short-comings and failures, that we might be forgiven; but most importantly, I would not fear that salvation hinges upon the act of baptism, but the act of Christ on the Cross.

 

[zeke]

You say he wasn't saved before his water baptism.

Cornelius - like all of us - was not finally saved until he believed, repented and was baptized "for the remission of sins". The Holy Spirit fell upon King Saul and he prophesied but God rejected Saul as a wicked man - he was not saved. The believer who will be saved is the one who will---"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

[dadof10]

I wouldn't call it desperation, but I agree 'water' in John 3 is probably not symbolic of the breaking of a woman's water prior to physical birth. I personally am convinced it means the waters of the Red Sea.

In order for this to logically work Nicodemus would have to have some clue that when Jesus said "born of water..." He was speaking of the 'baptism in the Red Sea". There would have to be a point of reference or some sort of Hebraic idiom that was well known enough for Nicodemus to recall it when Jesus made His discourse, because Jesus didn't explain it as a "baptism in the Red Sea".

Paul uses this symbolism in the verse you give, but was a "baptism in the Red Sea" known before this? Was it fairly common, or at least common enough for Nicodemus and Jesus to know it?

 

[dadof10]

And by that mark, you would think that a professing Christian would obey Christ by undergoing the baptism of which he (Jesus the Christ) commanded of us to do.

Regardless, the act of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is what saves, not baptism, and the question being, “do you have to be baptized to achieve salvationâ€: is in and of itself an ignorant question, with regard to the entire issue of one’s salvation.

I wouldn't call it an ignorant question, but one that has been answered by Scripture and not accepted by some. Of course baptism saves, Scripture says those exact words.

First and foremost, we do not Achieve (gain as by hard work or effort) or (to bring to a successful conclusion; accomplish) our own salvation....
Now, all we do is accept this salvation through Christ.

Is this a "work"? Certainly it's something we must DO.

Jesus Christ achieved our salvation on the Cross! I don’t know what other theme in the New Testament could be more clear about Salvation through his Sacrifice?

This is the Redemption. The application of the merits of Christ on the cross is salvation. Jesus redeemed all of mankind, but those who apply this redemption are saved.

More-over, how we accept that salvation offered by Christ. Do we merely say we believe it? Or do we believe it, and do we act upon the offer of his salvation to begin here and now?

Part of salvation is the obedience to Gods word and his commandments. One of Gods commands was to be baptized. Christ our Lord commands us to go and be baptized and to baptize all who would believe in him. So, what happens when a person who accepts the Salvation of Christ and dies before fulfilling the command to be baptized? My hope is that, like all of our other short-comings and failures, that we might be forgiven; but most importantly, I would not fear that salvation hinges upon the act of baptism, but the act of Christ on the Cross.

Of course it does. The argument here is how the "act of Christ on the cross" is applied; faith alone or baptism, charity, sacrifice, etc. all done in faith. That's the question.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is nothing 'legalistic' about doing that which God requires...

...unless we make it legalistic.

It's like thinking your car won't start because you left your drivers license on the night stand. That's legalism.

...and Jesus was clear - belief and baptism come before one "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Cornelius was no exception - he was baptized in water by Peter to have his sin "washed away" by the blood of Christ.

But are you just going to ignore that Cornelius violated the so-called divine order of things when he received the Holy Spirit before his water baptism? Do you understand? What I'm pointing out is, you say Cornelius had to only be saved after his water baptism, because that's what Holy Writ declares, but Cornelius did not have to receive the Holy Spirit after water baptism, even though Holy Writ declares that, too. The only honest conclusion to come to is God did not intend for it to be a hard and fast, legalistic order of events for salvation that some sectarian dogma insists it is.

Where does Holy Writ say Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him? It doesn’t.

Holy Writ says the Holy Spirit is the sign of redemption. Unsaved people are not given the sign of a redemption they do not have. Now that faith has been revealed in this New Covenant, only people who put their faith in Christ get the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit fell upon King Saul and he prophesied. Did that make him a child of God? Not according to God who rejected Saul as a wicked man (I Samuel 10:10). Balaam’s donkey also spoke by the Holy Spirit (Numbers 22:27) does that make a donkey a child of God? I think not.

The Holy Spirit was not given on the basis of faith in the old covenant. Any schmuck lucky enough to be born into the right family line and circumstances would have the Holy Spirit if that's where God ordained that it would be.

It's an illustration of how the Holy Spirit is given to us based on family line and the purposes of God. The family line being Christ's, and according to God's set foreknowledge and purpose. And faith is the way into that family line and the purposes of God in this New Covenant. Not so in the old covenant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In order for this to logically work Nicodemus would have to have some clue that when Jesus said "born of water..." He was speaking of the 'baptism in the Red Sea". There would have to be a point of reference or some sort of Hebraic idiom that was well known enough for Nicodemus to recall it when Jesus made His discourse, because Jesus didn't explain it as a "baptism in the Red Sea".

You have to understand what Jesus is saying from the viewpoint of the moment. There is no 'Great Commission'. There is no baptism as occurred later at Pentecost. There is only John's baptism for repentance. Jesus is saying it isn't enough to be 'born' into the kingdom of God through repentance and the turning back to God through the law (for the law is the standard by which we repent of our evil deeds). You must ALSO be born 'again', from above, by the Spirit. This is true, not only for the Jews alive in that moment. It is true for everybody in all of history. The full revelation of which did not come until Jesus' resurrection.

Jesus is drawing the parallel between being born of water, a metonymy for repentance, and being born of Spirit, a metonymy for faith in the promise. Faith and repentance is how one is declared righteous and sees the kingdom of God. But the Jews followed a law of righteousness--the repentance part, but not the faith (Spirit) part:

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it (righteousness) not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (Romans 9:30-32 NIV1984 parenthesis mine)

You see they understood the 'repentance' part, and being in the kingdom on the grounds of that stipulation, but they did not understand the 'faith' part--the 'being born from above' part through faith in the promises made to Abraham. Jesus is explaining to him both are necessary to see the kingdom--faith and repentance. For us that means faith in Jesus (the part we understand best) must also produce repentance for a person to be saved. The very thing James is teaching in James 2.

Paul uses this symbolism in the verse you give, but was a "baptism in the Red Sea" known before this? Was it fairly common, or at least common enough for Nicodemus and Jesus to know it?

I think what was understood at the time was a birth and baptism into the kingdom through repentance according to Moses--a baptism into Moses, as Paul says. Which was traditionally accomplished through John's water baptism. But, as I say, and Paul points out, it was the faith part they didn't get, but which is also necessary in order for one to see the kingdom.

 

[dadof10]

You have to understand what Jesus is saying from the viewpoint of the moment.

I don't have to understand anything, Nicodemus does. If Jesus is teaching him a lesson, he has to UNDERSTAND what the lesson is. There has to be some reference that he will understand or your theory falls flat. Is there any mention of the "baptism into Moses" anywhere before Jesus said these words?

There is no 'Great Commission'. There is no baptism as occurred later at Pentecost. There is only John's baptism for repentance.

There is no Holy Spirit given as at Pentecost either, yet you have no problem taking Jesus literally when he says "Spirit". Baptism with water was prevalent throughout the region during the time Jesus said this. In fact, DIRECTLY after Jesus' discourse to Nicodemus, "...Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." (Jn. 3:22)

I'm curious if you think this baptism performed by Jesus (or His disciples) carries more weight than "John's baptism".

Now, if you look at it without a bias, which view seems more reasonable, that Jesus meant the kind of baptism He (or His disciples) performed right after this discourse, or the non-existent "baptism into Moses" that was not even heard of until Paul used the metaphor to make a point.

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did. (1Cor. 10:1-6)

This is an obvious metaphor. His main point wasn't that there was such a thing as a literal "baptism into Moses" as a "baptism into Christ", but that even though "our fathers" received these spiritual blessings, they still desired evil.

Jesus is saying it isn't enough to be 'born' into the kingdom of God through repentance and the turning back to God through the law (for the law is the standard by which we repent of our evil deeds). You must ALSO be born 'again', from above, by the Spirit.

C'mon, Jethro, there is no mention of the Law here. You are reading your own view into the text again.

This is true, not only for the Jews alive in that moment. It is true for everybody in all of history. The full revelation of which did not come until Jesus' resurrection.

Jesus is drawing the parallel between being born of water, a metonymy for repentance, and being born of Spirit, a metonymy for faith in the promise. Faith and repentance is how one is declared righteous and sees the kingdom of God. But the Jews followed a law of righteousness--the repentance part, but not the faith (Spirit) part:

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it (righteousness) not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (Romans 9:30-32 NIV1984 parenthesis mine)

You see they understood the 'repentance' part, and being in the kingdom on the grounds of that stipulation, but they did not understand the 'faith' part--the 'being born from above' part through faith in the promises made to Abraham. Jesus is explaining to him both are necessary to see the kingdom--faith and repentance. For us that means faith in Jesus (the part we understand best) must also produce repentance for a person to be saved. The very thing James is teaching in James 2.

So, "water" is not really water it is "baptism into Moses" (a term he probably never heard), yet "Spirit" is really Spirit? And Nicodemus got this, huh?

I think what was understood at the time was a birth and baptism into the kingdom through repentance according to Moses--a baptism into Moses, as Paul says. Which was traditionally accomplished through John's water baptism.

WHAT??? Where are you getting this? First "water" means the "baptism into Moses", then "baptism into Moses" means REPENTANCE??? Are you kidding me? Where is the term "baptism into Moses" EVER tied to "repentance according to Moses"? Where does Scripture teach that repentance was EVER called a "baptism into Moses" or that the "baptism into Moses" means "repentance"? Where does Paul make this connection? He is not even referencing "repentance" in 1Cor. 10, but not giving into temptation, that is the theme here.

For you to hold this view, you have to believe that when Jesus said "water and Spirit", He meant "baptism into Moses", which means REPENTANCE, and that He expected Nicodemus to understand this. Really?

I don't think this convoluted attempt to circumvent the plain words of Scripture "was understood at the time" or is understood in this time or will ever be understood at ANY time. Sheesh...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Since you don't even know what John's baptism was there is no way you'll get what I'm saying. You'll just continue to twist what I say.

 

[dadof10]

Since you don't even know what John's baptism was there is no way you'll get what I'm saying. You'll just continue to twist what I say.

The problem is, I DO understand what "John's baptism" is, and it has nothing to do with Paul's "baptism into Moses". I'm not twisting your words, Jethro, just pointing out a theological mistake that you should maybe rethink. Here are your EXACT words:

"I think what was understood at the time was a birth and baptism into the kingdom through repentance according to Moses--a baptism into Moses, as Paul says. Which was traditionally accomplished through John's water baptism."

"Baptism into Moses" was Paul's, and only Paul's, idiom. NO ONE ELSE has used it. It is a literary device used by him to make a point, therefore to draw the parallel between "repentance according to Moses" and "a baptism into Moses" and say it was "understood at the time" is specious. When Paul says "baptism into Moses" he is NOT talking about repentance.

None of this has anything to do with "John's baptism". You are trying to make the point that "water" in John 3 means "baptism into Moses", which means repentance. I think you are reaching in an attempt to explain away anything that proves "sola-fide" the heresy it obviously is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem is, I DO understand what "John's baptism" is, and it has nothing to do with Paul's "baptism into Moses". I'm not twisting your words, Jethro, just pointing out a theological mistake that you should maybe rethink. Here are your EXACT words:

"I think what was understood at the time was a birth and baptism into the kingdom through repentance according to Moses--a baptism into Moses, as Paul says. Which was traditionally accomplished through John's water baptism."

"Baptism into Moses" was Paul's, and only Paul's, idiom. NO ONE ELSE has used it. It is a literary device used by him to make a point, therefore to draw the parallel between "repentance according to Moses" and "a baptism into Moses" and say it was "understood at the time" is specious. When Paul says "baptism into Moses" he is NOT talking about repentance.

None of this has anything to do with "John's baptism". You are trying to make the point that "water" in John 3 means "baptism into Moses", which means repentance. I think you are reaching in an attempt to explain away anything that proves "sola-fide" the heresy it obviously is.

It's funny that you seem so dead set on opposing me just for the sake of opposing me that you don't realize how you can capitalize on what I'm saying and attempt to use it against me...if you would just recognize the merit in what I'm saying. But your response is showing me you don't understand what I've been saying. You're not processing it properly. You're spinning it in an attempt to make it appear 'out there'.

This is easy:

water>>>repentance

Spirit>>>faith in God's promise


A person must have BOTH to see the kingdom. It isn't enough to turn to God in repentance and now start thinking and doing lawful things. Those lawful things must be accompanied by faith, that repentance being the result of faith, and not just an attempt to 'earn' a place in the kingdom.

Nicodemus, being a Pharisee, would understand the repentance (obedience to the requirements of the law) part perfectly. What Jesus brought to the Jews was the unveiling of the concept of faith. Without holiness no one will see the kingdom. But that holiness must be a holiness born of faith in the promise of God, not a holiness born only of the best efforts of a man to produce it. You must be born not just of water (repentance--as symbolized in John' baptism). You must ALSO be born again, of the Spirit, from above, by faith in Jesus Christ the Son promised to Abraham. This is the great stumbling block of the Jews...and to every person actively pursuing a "law of righteousness" as if righteousness is secured by what you do right instead of by what you believe (the 'doing' then being the result of the believing in that case).

The maturing born again person knows the righteousness he has is a free gift given to him by God through faith in the forgiveness of God, not something earned or secured through the accomplishment of righteous duties. The born again person knows that what he does is because he has faith in the promise of God. Only that person, born into the kingdom through repentance AND faith will see the kingdom. Some in the church gravitate toward the repentance, the doing part, and have little to no reliance on the merits of faith in Christ, while some gravitate toward the faith, the believing part, with little or no visible repentance. But Jesus said you must be born of both to see the kingdom of God.

It's really a very simple message.

 

[dadof10]

It's funny...

Funny "ha-ha" or funny peculiar? ;)

...that you seem so dead set on opposing me just for the sake of opposing me that you don't realize how you can capitalize on what I'm saying and attempt to use it against me.

I'm not trying to use anything against you, contrary to what you may think. I'm not into "gotcha". All I'm trying to do is understand why a seemingly intelligent person would go to "baptism into Moses" and "repentance" when the obvious meaning of Jesus is baptism. The desperation in your view (and the amniotic fluid argument) is amazing. It seems patently ridiculous to take the word "water" to such extremes in an obvious attempt to explain away the plain words of Scripture.

...if you would just recognize the merit in what I'm saying.

There is merit in much of what you say below, but that's not the reason we're going down this path. It's your view that "water" in John 3 is "baptism into Moses" or "the Red Sea". That is the argument that has no merit.

But your response is showing me you don't understand what I've been saying. You're not processing it properly. You're spinning it in an attempt to make it appear 'out there'.

Because it is. You can't explain it rationally, which is why you don't address it at all in this post.

This is easy:

water>>>repentance

Spirit>>>faith in God's promise


A person must have BOTH to see the kingdom. It isn't enough to turn to God in repentance and now start thinking and doing lawful things. Those lawful things must be accompanied by faith, that repentance being the result of faith, and not just an attempt to 'earn' a place in the kingdom.

Agreed.

Nicodemus, being a Pharisee, would understand the repentance (obedience to the requirements of the law) part perfectly. What Jesus brought to the Jews was the unveiling of the concept of faith.

Agreed. Nicodemus WOULD understand obedience to the Law, IF that was what Jesus was talking about. It isn't, though.

Without holiness no one will see the kingdom. But that holiness must be a holiness born of faith in the promise of God, not a holiness born only of the best efforts of a man to produce it.

Agreed. We are justified by Grace alone. We must cooperate (become holy) with that Grace to be saved.

You must be born not just of water (repentance--as symbolized in John' baptism).

Here is where we disagree. Where does scripture call John's baptism (or any other baptism) symbolic for anything? You accuse me of not understanding John's baptism, but I'm not the one adding non-Scriptural caveats to it.

You must ALSO be born again, of the Spirit, from above, by faith in Jesus Christ the Son promised to Abraham.

Agreed. We can't be saved by baptism, then simply live our lives as we please. Justification is a PROCESS, and faith is absolutely necessary.

This is the great stumbling block of the Jews...and to every person actively pursuing a "law of righteousness" as if righteousness is secured by what you do right instead of by what you believe (the 'doing' then being the result of the believing in that case).

Half agree. Believing is something you must DO. I have asked you this before and not received an answer. If a person MUST trust in Jesus to be saved, as you have said numerous times, how is this ACTION not considered a "work"?

The maturing born again person knows the righteousness he has is a free gift given to him by God through faith in the forgiveness of God, not something earned or secured through the accomplishment of righteous duties.

Except the "righteous duty" of having faith.

The born again person knows that what he does is because he has faith in the promise of God. Only that person, born into the kingdom through repentance AND faith will see the kingdom. Some in the church gravitate toward the repentance, the doing part, and have little to no reliance on the merits of faith in Christ, while some gravitate toward the faith, the believing part, with little or no visible repentance. But Jesus said you must be born of both to see the kingdom of God.

It's really a very simple message.

Then why make it so complicated by attempting to change the meaning of "water" to "baptism into Moses" and the meaning of "baptism into Moses" into "repentance"? It is a simple message if it's taken as it was said, "water and Spirit" means WATER and Spirit. Water obviously means baptism, because THIS was prevalent at the time and Jesus actually went and DID it. You can choose to believe whatever you want, I just think, in this instance, you are driven by your a'priori view that justification is by faith alone, so you HAVE to find an alternative to the plain words of Scripture, no matter how ridiculous the alternative.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

All I'm trying to do is understand why a seemingly intelligent person would go to "baptism into Moses" and "repentance" when the obvious meaning of Jesus is baptism.

You're still not getting it. You obviously still really do not know what John's baptism was for. The water of John's baptism is for repentance.

I'm amazed that you, a 'baptism for salvation' adherent, can not bring himself to acknowledge what someone with your belief should know--baptism is for REPENTANCE--and agree with wholeheartedly with when pointed out to you. But instead you blindly resist what you really should be very prepared to agree with.

Where we differ is on whether or not you HAVE to repent via water baptism to be saved. I say, 'no'. The repentance itself is what brought forgiveness of sins for everyone who came to John to be water baptized "for the forgiveness of sin". But somehow after the resurrection, water baptism is now a legalistic ritual that ushers one into the forgiveness of sin and salvation.

The desperation in your view (and the amniotic fluid argument) is amazing. It seems patently ridiculous to take the word "water" to such extremes in an obvious attempt to explain away the plain words of Scripture.

It's ridiculous and extreme to you because you are locked into the thinking that water baptism is a legalistic ritual that turns on salvation for a person, like a light switch. It's impossible for you to see that water baptism is representative of what does save a person--repentance. Do you even know what repentance is? Every time I mention it you resist any connection it has with the law, "do not steal, do not covet...", etc. But I guess that's not surprising in a church that thinks we turn to God in faith and then don't uphold any requirements of the law in any way shape or form.

There is merit in much of what you say below, but that's not the reason we're going down this path. It's your view that "water" in John 3 is "baptism into Moses" or "the Red Sea". That is the argument that has no merit.

The water is not literally the Red Sea. Just as a nation was 'born' and 'baptized' through the Red Sea to become the nation and kingdom of God's people set apart to obey the commandments of God, so water baptism is a birth and baptism of a people set apart for God for obedience to the commands of God. The parallels are unmistakable. You can say you don't get it because it seems ridiculous and irrational in order to try to undermine it, but I'm confident that I've made the point very clearly, reasonably, and rationally.

Agreed. Nicodemus WOULD understand obedience to the Law, IF that was what Jesus was talking about. It isn't, though.

But the water part is NOT what Nicodemus misunderstood. This is the point I'm trying to make. Water MEANS repentance. How could there be a single Jew alive during John the Baptist's ministry that didn't understand water baptism was for repentance? I suspect you can't get it because you've been trained to think of baptism as a salvation on/off switch instead of what it is--the way a person repents, and not the repentance itself; the repentance bringing the forgiving of sins, not the act itself. The 'Spirit' part is what Nicodemus did not get. Read the passage.

Agreed. We are justified by Grace alone.

Grace through faith, as Paul says. All by itself.

We must cooperate (become holy) with that Grace to be saved.

You must truly put your faith in the grace God has provided us in Christ Jesus. Doing that, all by itself, justifies a person, making them legally righteous and perfect before God. The genuineness of that faith being evidenced by the upholding of the law (Romans 3:31)--specifically, 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Romans 13:10).

Here is where we disagree. Where does scripture call John's baptism (or any other baptism) symbolic for anything? You accuse me of not understanding John's baptism, but I'm not the one adding non-Scriptural caveats to it.

"And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." (Mark 1:4 NIV1984)

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. How does water give you repentance? Repentance is from YOU, not the water, or the act of going into the water. Baptism does not forgive sins. Repentance does. But the 'baptism saves' crowd only thinks of the 'forgiveness of sins' part when they think of water baptism and conclude we are saved through the act of water baptism, not realizing it is the repentance that solicits the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is a metonymy for repentance. Repentance is what you can not be saved without. Water baptism represents repentance...the repentance that solicits the actual forgiveness of sins.

Agreed. We can't be saved by baptism, then simply live our lives as we please. Justification is a PROCESS, and faith is absolutely necessary.

You can be offended if you want to be, but the truth is you simply do not know the definition of 'to be justified'. Justification is a legal declaration of right standing, perfection, in regard to sin guilt in the eyes of God. Knowing that, you can see we get that in a single moment of faith and trust in the sacrifice of the blood of Christ that removes sin guilt to make us righteous (justified) before God. And, you can see it's IMPOSSIBLE for a human to stand righteous and perfect with no sin guilt before God (justified) by merit of what they do.

Half agree. Believing is something you must DO. I have asked you this before and not received an answer. If a person MUST trust in Jesus to be saved, as you have said numerous times, how is this ACTION not considered a "work"?

How is trusting in your heart an action??????

Except the "righteous duty" of having faith.

Duty...work accomplished. In regard to trying to earn righteousness, that is what 'work' is...something literally outwardly accomplished, like things specified to be done in the law. Just because something isn't specifically commanded in the law doesn't make it not a work. That's not even reasonable to think a duty is no longer something done just because it's not specifically commanded in the law.

Then why make it so complicated by attempting to change the meaning of "water" to "baptism into Moses" and the meaning of "baptism into Moses" into "repentance"? It is a simple message if it's taken as it was said, "water and Spirit" means WATER and Spirit.

No, you can't complicate it and turn it into the 'baptism saves' argument that water baptism is literally an 'on' switch for salvation. Water baptism means repentance to first century Jews alive during John's ministry of "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". But in ignorance we have turned the action of water baptism into the conduit of forgiveness instead of the repentance being the conduit through which forgiveness is given. Somehow repentance unto the law of God and a change of mind about things like "do not steal", etc. lost the focus and the water became a legalistic action/ work through which sins are forgiven...and forgiven in no other way. Historically, I'm saying that's a very nearsighted and uneducated twist on water baptism.

Water obviously means baptism, because THIS was prevalent at the time and Jesus actually went and DID it. You can choose to believe whatever you want, I just think, in this instance, you are driven by your a'priori view that justification is by faith alone, so you HAVE to find an alternative to the plain words of Scripture, no matter how ridiculous the alternative.

This is why I pointed out that your defensiveness caused you to miss something that you could have tried to use against me, but you didn't..which told me you're just too walled in by the hardness of your own indoctrination for you to be honestly hearing what I've been saying here. (Honestly, it's clear to me why you're in this Protestant forum, and I don't think it's to test Protestant beliefs for your consideration).

If you had been really hearing me you would have noticed I pointed out that 'water' probably does mean John's baptism, but figuratively as a symbol, a metonymy for repentance, not as a legalistic action performed that MUST be completed for one to be saved as the 'baptism saves' crowd can only see it as.

 

[heymikey80]

You misunderstand. You MUST HAVE faith, correct? You must "accept Jesus" to be saved, right? This accepting is an action that you MUST DO or you will not be saved. You think all actions (baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, sacrifice) are "works". Why are all those actions "works" to you, yet the ACTION of "accepting Jesus" or "having faith" is not?

Well, for one, because it's not an external action, so it's not a "work" per se. There's no physical work being performed.

That would be like saying "lie down" is a work (in fact, such an illustration is Biblical, Heb 4:3,11).

And for the record: I don't believe God looks at faith as if it's a work and punches your card, "OK, he's in." So it doesn't function as a work. It functions as a gift -- that is, as the way grace operates.

 

[dadof10]

You're still not getting it. You obviously still really do not know what John's baptism was for. The water of John's baptism is for repentance.

I'm amazed that you, a 'baptism for salvation' adherent, can not bring himself to acknowledge what someone with your belief should know--baptism is for REPENTANCE--and agree with wholeheartedly with when pointed out to you. But instead you blindly resist what you really should be very prepared to agree with.

You must like the feeling of superiority you get from saying "you just don't get it". After you accused me of not getting it in the last post, you wrote:

A person must have BOTH to see the kingdom. It isn't enough to turn to God in repentance and now start thinking and doing lawful things. Those lawful things must be accompanied by faith, that repentance being the result of faith, and not just an attempt to 'earn' a place in the kingdom.

To which, I replied "AGREE". Instead of moving on you continue to harp on your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of my position.

Let's discuss the "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". Here is my position, as clear as I can make it.

You must come to baptism repentant. Let me say that again. To be baptized, a person MUST BE REPENTANT. This is what baptism is.

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2)

A person must repent AND be baptized, not just repent. Baptism is the operative means of "washing away" sins.

And he said, `The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.' (Acts 22)

Where we differ is on whether or not you HAVE to repent via water baptism to be saved. I say, 'no'. The repentance itself is what brought forgiveness of sins for everyone who came to John to be water baptized "for the forgiveness of sin".

If you realize this fact about my view, why do you keep complaining that I "don't get it"? So, a person repents of his sins, then he MUST be baptized for those sins to be "washed away". The difference between us is that you look at "repent and be baptized" as two things, I look at them as one single operation. This is HOW a person's sins are washed away and they are put right with God. According to Scripture, repentance and baptism TOGETHER is the means of washing sins away, that's what "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" means.

But somehow after the resurrection, water baptism is now a legalistic ritual that ushers one into the forgiveness of sin and salvation.

Let me get this straight. during APOSTOLIC TIMES AND UNDER THE DIRECT GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, baptism became, in your opinion, a legalistic ritual? This can't be your position.

It's ridiculous and extreme to you because you are locked into the thinking that water baptism is a legalistic ritual that turns on salvation for a person, like a light switch.

Me and the Apostles, apparently. Your view that "water" in John 3 is "baptism into Moses", and this "baptism into Moses" represents repentance, is ridiculous. There is no Scriptural evidence to back this up. "Baptism into Moses" is a one-time idiom of Paul and is NEVER tied to repentance. It has nothing to do with my view on baptism, or being "locked into" any other kind of thinking. It just simply doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for you to see that water baptism is representative of what does save a person--repentance.

This is what you need to PROVE Scripturally. Where does Scripture call baptism "symbolic" or "representative of" ANYTHING?

Do you even know what repentance is? Every time I mention it you resist any connection it has with the law, "do not steal, do not covet...", etc. But I guess that's not surprising in a church that thinks we turn to God in faith and then don't uphold any requirements of the law in any way shape or form.

Repentance is turning from sin, changing your life around. Certainly keeping the commandments is part of it, but that's not where it ends. God wants it all. My point is you are trying to tie the MOSAIC LAW to Nicodemus' question and assume Jesus' answer includes "the Law" WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. Why can't the word "water" simply mean water?

The water is not literally the Red Sea.

I never accused you of this.

Just as a nation was 'born' and 'baptized' through the Red Sea to become the nation and kingdom of God's people set apart to obey the commandments of God, so water baptism is a birth and baptism of a people set apart for God for obedience to the commands of God. The parallels are unmistakable.

And, in your opinion, THIS is what Jesus meant by "born of water", and Nicodemus understood what He was getting at? Where would Jesus or Nicodemus get this "parallel" from? In other words, where is the Jewish people's crossing the Red Sea called, or even loosely alluded to, as being "born of water"?

You can say you don't get it because it seems ridiculous and irrational in order to try to undermine it, but I'm confident that I've made the point very clearly, reasonably, and rationally.

If you say so, but the above was not written before. This was:

"I think what was understood at the time was a birth and baptism into the kingdom through repentance according to Moses--a baptism into Moses, as Paul says. Which was traditionally accomplished through John's water baptism."

This is what I was responding to, even though both takes are untenable, but for different reasons. The "Red Sea" take, because you made it up and it couldn't have been known by either Jesus or Nicodemus, and your "baptism into Moses" take because you made it up, and it has NOTHING to do with your main point, that the "water" is symbolic (or representative) of repentance.

But the water part is NOT what Nicodemus misunderstood.

He understood something you made up?

This is the point I'm trying to make. Water MEANS repentance. How could there be a single Jew alive during John the Baptist's ministry that didn't understand water baptism was for repentance?

Jesus said you must be "born again". This analogy was what Nicodemus misunderstood. He was confused, so Jesus clarified saying "You must be born of water and Spirit". Here it comes again. Although REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY for baptism and salvation, JESUS DOESN'T MAKES THIS CONNECTION HERE, IN JOHN 3. Please re-read that last sentence. Jesus doesn't make the connection that YOU are making. You are assuming that when Jesus said "born of water..." that Nicodemus would think of "John's baptism", then think "He probably only meant repentance and didn't literally mean the pouring of water, because the baptism of John is merely symbolic of repentance." Please. Of course Jesus was talking of baptism, the difference STILL remains, you hold that it's "representative" of what REALLY saves, repentance, and I hold it IS what saves. Which one of our views is actually taught in Scripture?

I suspect you can't get it because you've been trained to think of baptism as a salvation on/off switch instead of what it is--the way a person repents, and not the repentance itself; the repentance bringing the forgiving of sins, not the act itself.

Sorry, again Scripture disagrees with you.

"Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

""Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

The 'Spirit' part is what Nicodemus did not get. Read the passage.

LOL...He seems to misunderstand the ENTIRE "part". Where do you see in the passage that Nicodemus "gets" that Jesus means "repentance"? That's your mistake, you are dividing "water" and "Spirit", as you divide "repent" and "be baptized". They are both one, single operation.

"And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." (Mark 1:4 NIV1984)

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. How does water give you repentance? Repentance is from YOU, not the water, or the act of going into the water. Baptism does not forgive sins. Repentance does. But the 'baptism saves' crowd only thinks of the 'forgiveness of sins' part when they think of water baptism and conclude we are saved through the act of water baptism, not realizing it is the repentance that solicits the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is a metonymy for repentance.

"Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" is the same as "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins". The baptism and the repentance can't be separated, and BOTH are NECESSARY for salvation. To separate them is un-biblical.

Repentance is what you can not be saved without. Water baptism represents repentance...the repentance that solicits the actual forgiveness of sins.

Scripture, please.

You can be offended if you want to be, but the truth is you simply do not know the definition of 'to be justified'. Justification is a legal declaration of right standing, perfection, in regard to sin guilt in the eyes of God. Knowing that, you can see we get that in a single moment of faith and trust in the sacrifice of the blood of Christ that removes sin guilt to make us righteous (justified) before God. And, you can see it's IMPOSSIBLE for a human to stand righteous and perfect with no sin guilt before God (justified) by merit of what they do.

Legal, huh? And you complain about my view of baptism as being "legalistic"? OK...I never made this claim, yet you have. I guess it's OK to be legalistic now...or no, wait, it's not...I'm lost...

So, what about sin? What happens to your legalistic view of justification when a person sins and the "guilt" is regained? I have posted these verses before and they have, of course, been ignored. I'll try again:

Justification (salvation) is a PROCESS, not a one time event:

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)

"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Cor. 2:15)

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12)


Continued...

 

[dadof10]

How is trusting in your heart an action??????

The same way NOT coveting, or NOT stealing is. It is an ACT of the will, so, by your own definition, a "work".

Duty...work accomplished. In regard to trying to earn righteousness, that is what 'work' is...something literally outwardly accomplished, like things specified to be done in the law.

I agree. By "works" Paul means the Law, which EXCLUDES "trusting in the blood of Christ", charity, keeping the commandments, etc.

Just because something isn't specifically commanded in the law doesn't make it not a work. That's not even reasonable to think a duty is no longer something done just because it's not specifically commanded in the law.

That's not what I think. I think that Paul specifically means ONLY "works of the Law" when he uses the word "works'. He is not making any judgments at all about anything else.

No, you can't complicate it and turn it into the 'baptism saves' argument that water baptism is literally an 'on' switch for salvation. Water baptism means repentance to first century Jews alive during John's ministry of "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins".

How is thinking that "water" means water baptism complicated? How is thinking that "baptism, which now saves you" means baptism now saves you, complicated? You have to make up non-biblical "baptism by the Red Sea" and use Paul's idiom "baptism into Moses" in a convoluted attempt to twist the simple word "water" into something it's not, so your square-peg theology will ostensibly fit into the round hole of Scripture.

But in ignorance we have turned the action of water baptism into the conduit of forgiveness instead of the repentance being the conduit through which forgiveness is given.

"We" being the Apostles of the first century?

Somehow repentance unto the law of God and a change of mind about things like "do not steal", etc. lost the focus and the water became a legalistic action/ work through which sins are forgiven...and forgiven in no other way. Historically, I'm saying that's a very nearsighted and uneducated twist on water baptism.

Again, "repent and be baptized" is one, single operation that washes away sin. It is "uneducated" to attempt to divide them.

This is why I pointed out that your defensiveness caused you to miss something that you could have tried to use against me, but you didn't

Again, I'm not trying to use anything against you.

..which told me you're just too walled in by the hardness of your own indoctrination for you to be honestly hearing what I've been saying here. (Honestly, it's clear to me why you're in this Protestant forum, and I don't think it's to test Protestant beliefs for your consideration).

I'll ignore this personal attack and the ignorance attached, so you won't have another excuse to go off in a huff and ignore the unanswerable questions posed.

If you had been really hearing me you would have noticed I pointed out that 'water' probably does mean John's baptism, but figuratively as a symbol,

And, again, where does Scripture teach this?

a metonymy for repentance, not as a legalistic action performed that MUST be completed for one to be saved as the 'baptism saves' crowd can only see it as.

Why is baptism a "legalistic act", yet "accepting Jesus" is not? They both take an act of the will, repentance and Scripture says they BOTH save. What's the difference?