Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Is baptismal regeneration biblical?
- Thread starter OzSpen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baptism regeneration salvation
Please prove that the verses do not mean baptized in water.
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17
Baptized in the name of Jesus is a reference to Baptism in water not the Holy Spirit.
Again
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:47-48
Again the term baptized in the name of the Lord is used to denote water baptism.
The same phrase used by Peter again in Acts 2:38
Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
JLB
Yes it does as I have shown from the scriptures, unlike you and your opinion.
Here it is again -
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17
Baptized in the name of Jesus is a reference to Baptism in water not the Holy Spirit.
Again
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:47-48
Again the term baptized in the name of the Lord is used to denote water baptism.
The same phrase used by Peter again in Acts 2:38
Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is a reference to water Baptism.
JLB
Last edited:
My position is not nonsense.
Please take your opinionated, mocking attitude elsewhere.
JLB
We are saved by obeying the Gospel, which is confessing Jesus as Lord.
If Jesus is your Lord, then you need to obey Him.
Believing Jesus is Lord but serving Satan is hypocrisy.
Jesus commands us to love.
Show me a scripture where a Christian brother can hate his brother and have eternal life abiding in him.
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15
20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 1 John 4:20
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:9-11
JLB
What's happens if they began to hate their brother because of an offense?
Here is what the book says -
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15
I said:
"Except there are scholars who are able to date the various manuscripts over the centuries. And NONE of the earliest manuscripts includes v.9-20. That in itself indicates that those verses were added later and NOT part of inspired Scripture.
Regardless, the only baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit, not water. Peter made that clear in 1 Pet 3:20-21."
In v.20, Peter noted that 8 people were saved THROUGH water. Note that he did not say "saved BY water". In fact, the literal water would have KILLED them, as it did the rest of humanity. It was the rest of humanity that got immersed IN the water who were killed.
So, what saved the 8? The ark, a picture of Christ Himself. Those who were "baptized" by the flood weren't saved, but perished. Those in the ark were saved FROM the water.
Then, in v.21 Peter speaks of "an antitype" which NOW SAVES US. Which is described as "baptism". But, Peter doesn't mean literal water, because of the parenthesis that follows the word 'baptism'; "NOT the removal of the filth of the flesh". What removes filth (dirt) from the flesh? Literal water. So the parenthesis means "NOT water baptism".
Peter was specifically excluding literal water baptism from what saves us.
Did Noah get immersed in the literal water? No. He stayed dry.
How about talking about the Jews going through the Red Sea? Paul described that event as the Jews being baptised into Moses and in the sea. Yet, they walked across the floor of that sea on DRY GROUND.
And, who got immersed? The Egyptian army. And they were KILLED by literal water.
So any argument about needing to be water baptised for salvation is ALL WET.
The Bible gives 2 clear examples of people being KILLED from being immersed in literal water, and others being SAVED by staying dry, and describing those events as a baptism.
"Except there are scholars who are able to date the various manuscripts over the centuries. And NONE of the earliest manuscripts includes v.9-20. That in itself indicates that those verses were added later and NOT part of inspired Scripture.
Regardless, the only baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit, not water. Peter made that clear in 1 Pet 3:20-21."
Not at all. He said exactly what I have said. Let's break it all down.
In v.20, Peter noted that 8 people were saved THROUGH water. Note that he did not say "saved BY water". In fact, the literal water would have KILLED them, as it did the rest of humanity. It was the rest of humanity that got immersed IN the water who were killed.
So, what saved the 8? The ark, a picture of Christ Himself. Those who were "baptized" by the flood weren't saved, but perished. Those in the ark were saved FROM the water.
Then, in v.21 Peter speaks of "an antitype" which NOW SAVES US. Which is described as "baptism". But, Peter doesn't mean literal water, because of the parenthesis that follows the word 'baptism'; "NOT the removal of the filth of the flesh". What removes filth (dirt) from the flesh? Literal water. So the parenthesis means "NOT water baptism".
Peter was specifically excluding literal water baptism from what saves us.
Yes, the rest of humanity WAS immersed in literal water, and were KILLED by the literal water. Unlike the 8, who were saved THROUGH the water, or FROM the water.
Did Noah get immersed in the literal water? No. He stayed dry.
How about talking about the Jews going through the Red Sea? Paul described that event as the Jews being baptised into Moses and in the sea. Yet, they walked across the floor of that sea on DRY GROUND.
And, who got immersed? The Egyptian army. And they were KILLED by literal water.
So any argument about needing to be water baptised for salvation is ALL WET.
The Bible gives 2 clear examples of people being KILLED from being immersed in literal water, and others being SAVED by staying dry, and describing those events as a baptism.
chessman said: ↑
Would please underline, bold and color red where Jesus or Peter said and every one of you be baptized in water? I'm having a hard time finding it in the verses you just posted.
Matt 3:11- "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Couldn't be more clear. John baptized with WATER. Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, NOT water. Clearly understood by adding the words "and with FIRE". When fire is involved, water ain't.
Would please underline, bold and color red where Jesus or Peter said and every one of you be baptized in water? I'm having a hard time finding it in the verses you just posted.
Quite easy. Just believe what John the baptizer said when he compared his baptism with the baptism of Jesus:
Matt 3:11- "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Couldn't be more clear. John baptized with WATER. Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, NOT water. Clearly understood by adding the words "and with FIRE". When fire is involved, water ain't.
Yes and here is my response to your unbiblical statement -
20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waitedin the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:20-21
Peter says just the opposite of what you are teaching.
Please read this statement - There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism
Although it is not my position that we are born again, by being baptized in water, Peter does in deed say - There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism.
My position remains that If people ask me if they need to be Baptized in water I tell them yes.
However, as I have said we are born again by faith in Jesus Christ, which is obeying the Gospel.
In addition, we need to obey the teachings and examples given to us in the bible, which include baptism in water.
If we don't obey what the scriptures teach about baptism in water, then we should not expect the Lord to Baptize us with the Holy Spirit.
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 5:32
- and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.
JLB
I already explained HOW Peter's words refute the notion that water baptism saves. It ain't the water that saves. Just ask the rest of the human race from Noah's time or ALL the Egyptian army about what happens when one is immersed in water.
Well, it seems rather obvious that my post wasn't even read.
The parenthesis immediately following the word 'baptism' clarifies that it isn't water that saves.
The "antitype" that Peter referred to in v.21 isn't about water, but about the ark, a picture of Jesus Christ, who saves us. When one believes, they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, a real and dry baptism, or identification of being a child of God.
John the baptizer made it quite clear that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, NOT water.
Yes I saw your "explanation" and don't agree, and neither does Peter.
How does 1 Peter 3:20-21 not pertain to water baptism?
- were saved through water.
- an antitype which now saves us—baptism
20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:20-21 is about water baptism.
JLB
I agree, Jesus is the one who Baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean we should not be baptized with water.
Peter walked in obedience to Jesus Christ who sent him.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Acts 10:47-48
Why would Peter COMMAND them to be baptized in water, if it was necessary?
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16
Why do you teach people they don't need to be baptized in water, when the scriptures teach us otherwise?
JLB
Then specifically refute anything I said. Just re-quoting the 2 verses does nothing. Please prove that "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" doesn't refer to literal water.
See my comment above. And my previous explanations of what Peter was talking about.
were saved through water.
an antitype which now saves us—baptism[/QUOTE]
Why would anyone assume "saved through water" indicates getting wet?? And you've still failed to explain how Noah and the 7 never got wet (immersed) in the flood, yet all those who were immersed in the flood weren't saved, but were KILLED by the water. Why keep ignoring that FACT?
Or the Egyptian army, who certainly were immersed in water and were KILLED by the water.
Since these FACTS cannot be denied, your view cannot be defended.
Clearly NOT. Certainly not about literal water immersion saving anyone.
Do you agree that there is a literal water baptism and a very real dry Holy Spirit baptism? If not, further discussion is pointless.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
Seems a reasonable expectation. Baptism follows belief in the same way works follows belief. Belief=salvation (by belief I mean putting one's faith in the saving power of Jesus and His finished work on the cross) and everything else follows that HS act of salvation. It's only Jesus that saves but after salvation, many things follow and one of those things is baptism.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
I am not saying that Mark 16:9-20 is to be ignored. I'm saying that it's not found in the most reliable manuscripts. That's true. So I hesitate to develop a doctrine surrounding verses that are suspect (and they are in my view). Can God protect his Word? Yes, but there are still 400,000 errors to be found in all the manuscripts we have. So clearly, we don't have an exact word for word, comma for comma, spelling for spelling copy of the original autographs. So what then did God deliver? What did He protect? Clearly it's the overall message. No major doctrines are affected and with all the manuscripts we have plus early Church Father writings, we can duplicate the original autographs within a 99 percent (or higher) accuracy. But let's not pretend we have a "perfect" transmission. And BTW, I think God likes it this way. We have to do the hard work to get the Bible we have today. (and don't read too much into what I'm saying which some of you will do anyway).
OK, good. Now, what does this mean? What, specifically, is baptism with the Holy Spirit?
No, and I've never argued that.
Added by some obscure scribe much later.
Where have I ever "taught" such nonsense? Please provide a post # and direct quote, or apologize for your gross error.
My point has been that water baptism doesn't save anyone. It's symbolic of our identification with being in union with Christ by faith.
It seems you're completely unaware of the real and symbolic baptisms in Scripture.
Please read up on the subject here: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/7-baptisms-in-the-bible/
Baptism of Moses was a real identification of the people of Israel with Moses. It was a dry baptism
Baptism of John was symbolic of spiritual repentance and coming Messiah (John's message) and was wet
Baptism of Fire was a real idenfication with the 3 things noted. And is a dry baptism
Baptism of Jesus was symbolic of His identification with God's plan for mankind and was wet
Baptism of the cross involved Christ being identified with the sins of mankind. It was real and dry
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a real identification of the believer being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which identifies the believer as "God's own possession" in Eph 1;13,14. It is real and dry
Baptism of the believer is symbolic of the believer's identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. It is wet
So, the Bible speaks of real and dry baptisms, or identifications, and symbolic and wet identifications.
The link ends with this very important statement:
"There are different types of baptism mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply every reference of baptism in the Bible to only one type of baptism. When you come across the word ‘baptism’ or the concept of baptism in the Bible, take some time to evaluate to which type of baptism the Bible is referring."
'nough said.
billybalke
Member
Good morn Papa
I agree God is able to preserve His word. Perhaps thats why Mk.16 is still included in Bibles although many (as you do) do not believe its inspiration. Am I to understand that you are now willing to include it? Let me know.
I think WIP has sent each of us a green light so lets check it out..
Hoping your day is great!
Billy