Is baptismal regeneration biblical?

[JLB]

Since these verses are NOT in the earliest manuscripts, there is no reason to accept the opinion of some obscure scribe who added his own thoughts to inspired Scripture.

Do you accept the opinion of this obscure scribe as being inspired by God to add to what was already writtten?

For some reason, I have doubts that I'll receive any answer to this.

Who said Mark 16:16-19 was not part of scripture?

• Jesus?
• Paul?
• Peter?
• James?
• Someone offering their opinion?

JLB

 

[JLB]

So, is this your assumed "ticket to heaven" then?

Please refer to scripture, so we can discuss what the scripture says.

Baptized for what reason?

Please refer to scripture, so we can discuss what the scripture says.


Here in Romans 6 Paul says it is necessary for being baptized into Christ, both into His death and resurrection.

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3-4


JLB

 

[chessman]

eight persons, were saved through water.

Yes, while high and dry in the Ark, not 'in the water' around it. Like Israel passed through the parted sea on dry ground.

1 Peter 3:20 (LEB) 20 who were formerly disobedient, when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while an ark was being constructed, in which a few—that is, eight souls—were rescued through water.​

You could have a 4th grader read Peter's statement above (or better yet, the detailed account in Genesis to which He points) and then ask him; Was Noah in the Ark or in the water? and he better answer; 'In the Ark' or you'd have to remediate his reading comprehension.

Genesis 7:1, 17-18, 23 Genesis 6:19 Then Yahweh said to Noah, “Go—you and all your household—into the ark, for I have seen you are righteous before me in this generation. And the flood came forty days and forty nights upon the earth. And the waters increased, and lifted the ark, and it rose up from the earth. And the waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth. And the ark went upon the surface of the waters. ​

And of every living thing, from all flesh, you must bring two from every kind into the ark to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. And he blotted out every living thing upon the surface of the ground, from humankind, to animals, to creeping things, and to the birds of heaven; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained. ​

I asked you (and you didn't answer):"Was the fact that God parted the sea before Israel passed through it on dry ground not relevant too?
Your reply:

That question is irrelevant (though I'm quite sure you have no idea why) and another demonstration of your dismal lack of reading comprehension skills which is the source of your confusion.

Let's test your comprehension skills:
Was Noah seen as righteous by God before or after the waters came?

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,

Yep. A type of baptism whereby you are first seen as righteous by God, then remain high and dry inside the Ark (Which is the resurrected Jesus Christ of flesh and bones, not flesh and blood) "now saves you". Poof! Washing with water does not save anyone (including Noah).

I didn't "insert" the word "water"; Peter was talking about passing through water.

Peter did NOT say water baptism saves you (neither did Justin).

in which a few (that is, eight souls) were brought-safely through the water [while dray in the Ark] which also as to you a corresponding-thing now saves— baptism (not a putting-off of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

"through the water" corresponds to (= to) "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (BTW not the human body of Jesus) as exampled by Noah and his family having been seen as righteous by God (before any water came) and residing safely and dray in the Ark, not in the water.

That says that passing through water by Noah and his family corresponds to (is the archetype of) believers being baptized in water.

Only to people who image that Peter actually said 'baptized in water' versus "through water" and have no comprehension whatsoever of the Biblical accounts/examples/types Peter points to of Israel passing through the parted sea on dry ground and Noah being inside the ark, not 'baptized in water'.

But you do get one thing right. It's believers who should then be baptized.

Speaking of comprehension of what's written:

To my comment:"The Church has taught from it's earliest days that we are born again of water in baptism."

Was Justin a part of the "earliest days" of the Church, or was Peter to who I provided His teaching?
Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD) The First Apology, Chapter LXI, “Christian Baptism"
1 Peter (80-110 AD)

BTW, as previously pointed out to you by many here: Jesus did NOT tell Nicodemus you had to be 'born again of water'. Your comprehension of the Text lacks correctness He said born of water AND the Spirit, which taken together = born again.

John 3 Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)
“Truly, truly, I say to you— unless one is born again, he is not able to see the kingdom of God”.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
"born of the flesh is flesh, and the thing having been born of the Spirit is spirit"​

Born again = born of water (1st) AND the Spirit (2nd)
born of water = born of the flesh
born of the spirit = born of the spirit (not reentering the waters of the mother's womb)

You are basing your response on your lack of reading comprehension skills and your total ignorance of the documents of the early church

You didn't say early church, you said; "The Church has taught from it's earliest days that we are born again of water in baptism."
And BTW, I'm not ignorant of the documents of the early church.

But if you prefer Justin's later teaching to Peter's, I've had questions for you about Justin in the past and you never answered:

Justin said:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ ..

Umm, did he just say we had been made new through Christ and His resurrection or through water baptism?
Was he baptizing people who had been made new through Christ's resurrection to re-birth them or to dedicate themselves to God having already been made new?
[Ignore these questions and your case is left weak. But then again, you can always claim I'm ignorant of things and read/comprehend no better than a 4th grade and really 'improve' your case.]

Justin said:

"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"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html​

Did Justin teach water baptism should come before or after prayer and the remission of sins? [and yes, it is a relevant question, just as it is relevant that Noah was seen as righteous well before the rains ever came. Noah was seen as righteous inside the Ark, not inside the water.]
Did he teach the church to baptize people (dedicating ourselves to God in the process) who had been "made new through Christ" or baptize non-Christians who needed to be made new through water baptism?

 

[chessman]

If you don't think water baptism is necessary then that is on you.

I didn't say water baptism wasn't necessary. I simply asked you what it was necessary for and what it accomplished for Simon in Acts 8.

I'm interested in your opinion of what occurred to Simon in Acts 8.

I gave you my original post on my position.

If you don't agree with it, then so be it.

JLB

I haven't disagreed with you original post/position on 1 Peter 3. I thought it was excellent.

I'm asking you specifically about Simon's water baptism (public confession if you well). What did it accomplish for him?

 

[JLB]

I know what was posted. Which is why I responded.


I never said otherwise. Wasn't my post even read???


Define what "this water" refers to.
Since it's clear your view that the baptism that "now saves you" is [water baptism], you've created a problem The water of Noah's day KILLED all of humanity, save 8 persons, all of whom were in the ark, and SAVED FROM WATER.


Again, this is silly. Water is NEVER a symbol of water. Water actually IS water. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The water of the flood is a symbol of water baptism, that now saves.

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

• while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
• There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism

See what a difference posting the scripture makes?

Hopefully you have learned a good lesson from this.




JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Who said Mark 16:16-19 was not part of scripture?

• Jesus?
• Paul?
• Peter?
• James?
• Someone offering their opinion?JLB

Scholars who can read the ancient manuscripts and date them. But go ahead and dismiss those who know much more than you or me about ancient manuscripts.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here in Romans 6 Paul says it is necessary for being baptized into Christ, both into His death and resurrection.

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3-4
JLB

How many baptisms are referred to in Scripture?

 

[JLB]

How many baptisms are referred to in Scripture?

3

 

[JLB]

Scholars who can read the ancient manuscripts and date them. But go ahead and dismiss those who know much more than you or me about ancient manuscripts.

This explains a lot of where your doctrine comes from.

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Mark 16:15-18


I will believe this scripture every time, over some man's opinion.



JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

The water of the flood is a symbol of water baptism, that now saves.

This is just another opinion, which fails to agree with what Peter wrote in 1 Pet 3:20-21.

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

It seems the words "saved through water" isn't being grasped. It doesn't say "saved by water". So why should anyone claim that salvation means being saved by baptism? Noah and the 7 remained DRY. But it seems this isn't being grasped either. The water of Noah's flood KILLED the entire human race outside the ark. Only the DRY people were saved from drowning. The water had NO EFFECT on them.

Now, the next verse speaks of the symbol, or anti-type which "now saves us". Then Peter IMMEDIATELY notes "not the removal of the filth of the flesh". This is a direct reference to literal H2O. Which is wet. Remember that Noah and the 7 stayed DRY in the ark. It was actually the ark that saved them from being immersed in the flood (wet water) and drowning.

The anti-type isn't the water of Noah's flood. It's Holy Spirit baptism (identification), just as the ark represents the saving work of Christ.

See what a difference posting the scripture makes?

I've seen no difference at all. The clarity of Peter's writings continue to be misunderstood.

I invite anyone to take my points here and address each one and explain how they are in error.

 

[FreeGrace]

3

Then you are unaware of 4 more. Sad.

 

[FreeGrace]

This explains a lot of where your doctrine comes from.

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Mark 16:15-18


I will believe this scripture every time, over some man's opinion.

Even though it's STILL just an opinion of some obscure scribe.

I guess it all depends on who's opinion you take, over reality.

 

[JLB]

Even though it's STILL just an opinion of some obscure scribe.

I guess it all depends on who's opinion you take, over reality.

Actually Mark 16:15-18 is scripture.

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Mark 16:15-18


JLB

 

[chessman]

but he who does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:18 The one believing in Him is not judged. But the one not believing has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-born Son of God. ​

 

[JLB]

John 3:18 The one believing in Him is not judged. But the one not believing has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-born Son of God. ​

I agree with John 3:18

I'm asking you specifically about Simon's water baptism (public confession if you well). What did it accomplish for him?

You will have to ask him that.



JLB

 

[chessman]

I agree with John 3:18

Good. Me too.

The difference is, I don't tell people that anyone not believing has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-born Son of God, for a while.

 

[FreeGrace]

Actually Mark 16:15-18 is scripture.

Says you. Opinion only.

In fact, Mark 16:9-20 is only the opinion of some obscure scribe who thought he had the right to add to Scripture. Not that everything he wrote was incorrect, but none of it was inspired. Only what Mark wrote was inspired. And he stopped writing at v.8

So it seems you're rather picky-choosy about who's opinions you accept and who's you reject.

Scholars have figured out the dates of the various manuscripts (which were copies of copies of the original autographs). And the earliest dated manuscripts do NOT include v.9-20 in them. So those verses were added later. Duh. They are opinion only. Esp the verse about believe and be baptized.

Thats the ONLY verse in the Bible that includes both believing and being baptized for salvation. Why do you suppose?

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, then EVERY verse that speaks of how to be saved would have included water baptism.

 

[chessman]

I asked:
"I'm asking you specifically about Simon's water baptism (public confession if you well). What did it accomplish for him?

You will have to ask him that.

I'll have no opportunity to do that (even though he got water baptized) unless he ever prayed to receive the gift of God, rather than purchasing it.

Acts 8:9, 13 Now a certain man, Simon by name, was-previously in the city practicing-magic and astonishing the nation of Samaria, saying that he was someone great, ...
Now Simon himself also believed. And having been baptized, he was attaching-himself to Philip. He was astonished, seeing both signs and great miracles taking place.
...
Acts 8:16-23 For He [the Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been [water] baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then they were laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
Now Simon, having seen that the Spirit was given through the laying-on of the hands of the apostles, offered them money, saying, “Give this authority to me also, so-that on whomever I lay on my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit”. But Peter said to him, “May your silver be with you for destruction, because you thought to acquire the gift of God with money. There is no part nor share for you in this matter. For your heart is not straight before God. Therefore repent from this evilness of yours, and pray to the Lord, if perhaps the intention of your heart will be forgiven you. For I see you being in the gall of bitterness and the bond of unrighteousness”.​

Last chance; What did his water baptism accomplish for him?

 

[JLB]

Says you. Opinion only.

In fact, Mark 16:9-20 is only the opinion of some obscure scribe who thought he had the right to add to Scripture. Not that everything he wrote was incorrect, but none of it was inspired. Only what Mark wrote was inspired. And he stopped writing at v.8

So it seems you're rather picky-choosy about who's opinions you accept and who's you reject.

Scholars have figured out the dates of the various manuscripts (which were copies of copies of the original autographs). And the earliest dated manuscripts do NOT include v.9-20 in them. So those verses were added later. Duh. They are opinion only. Esp the verse about believe and be baptized.

Thats the ONLY verse in the Bible that includes both believing and being baptized for salvation. Why do you suppose?

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, then EVERY verse that speaks of how to be saved would have included water baptism.

I don't accept man's commentary over scripture.


JLB

 

[JLB]

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, then EVERY verse that speaks of how to be saved would have included water baptism.

That's your opinion, that every verse should include water baptism if it was neccesary.

Never the less, Peter mentions it as well.

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

Like you said, you did it as a public confession.

Here is what Jesus said about that -

32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:32-33

We should encourage people to get water baptized.


I have posted my original post for all, several times now.

Here it is again.

The only way to be regenerated is by being Baptized into the body of Christ, by the Spirit.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13

This is not water baptism.


There is no such scripture that says born again of water and Spirit.

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:5

• one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Born of water is a reference to natural birth.
Born of the Spirit is a reference to Spiritual birth; Born again


A person must be born first, in order to be born "again".

The next verse teaches us this truth -

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

Born of flesh = Natural birth
Born of the Spirit = Spiritual birth.


Jesus used natural birth to illustrate Spiritual birth.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? John 3:12

earthly thing = natural birth
heavenly thing = Spiritual birth




JLB