Born Again?

[GodsGrace]

I actually want to start a thread in the Bible Study forum to discuss the roots of baptism in the OT, but my reservations are folk would only dwell on weather or not it is necessary for salvation.

I honestly get sick of everything being watered down to its either a salvation issue or not with pages of the same old...and the beauty and nuances of baptism never get to be explored

I agree. And I'd like that thread.
I know for sure baptism is a lot more complicated than we think it is....There are many references about it in the O.T....what about the parting of the Red Sea? (which probably wasn't the Red Sea...)

Everything comes down to salvation issues because this is all that's taught these days. Are you saved? Is baptism necessary? Can we become lost again? Are the gifts still available to us? etc.

I must say, however, that I still learn things here and I'm thankful for that....I find it more encouraging if I'm forced to learn, and in a group.

 

[GodsGrace]

A lot of people believe that but it's not the case. Look up the Granville Sharp rule. The birth spoken of in "born again" is a two part process, water and spirit. It's not two separate births, one physical and one spiritual. This is also born out in reading the writings of the early Christians.

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life” ),

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I didn't post the whole chapter but it can be found here

I like the ECFs too...but they did say slightly different things about different concepts.

They did agree on all the big stuff and I wish more people respected what they taught.

I can guarantee 80% of all discussion would end and I'm sure you'd agree.

But then what would happen to this forum???

 

[JohnDB]

JohnDB s most probably right...why would he post something like this unless he was sure?

Ditto for baptism....why weren't they VERY CLEAR about what it's all about?

Because they thought things would just go on and on and get passed from one generation to the next.

When I'm not sure about something, I go to the Early Church Fathers. I've been told they weren't inspired...and that it's not scriptural, and other stuff.

THEY are the ones that put the N.T. together.
They are the ones that were taught by the Apostles.
Who could know better what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught?

Maybe studying some history would do as much good as studying scripture...Jewish kids that are orthodox know their bible inside out....I feel like we don't. Not in that way, anyway.

But it gets to a point where you can't see the forest for all them trees in the way.
And I have to believe that this is deliberate.

When Jesus told his parables there were so many allusions and metaphors that the Pharisees heads would be spinning too fast to really understand what Jesus was saying. They would get so caught up in the metaphors (which Jesus used correctly) that they missed the message.

And one other thing has become exceedingly clear over the years...when people translated the scriptures they used their own lense of theology to do it with.
Even the KJV has a definite Anglican Church view to how the scriptures were translated.

Is there a completely straight English translation of the scriptures?
No. Sorry. The Old, original NIV (no longer in print) comes close...so did the first HCSB. But they have gone through some updates and finding the originals is getting difficult if not impossible.
I happen to like the ISR 98 version and ignore the notes. (Messianic Jews from South Africa)
All translations together with translation, grammar, and definition guides going I can usually get to the actual truth outside of the denominational biases out there.
The basic truths of scriptures is available and acceptable for consumption by the masses...but some of us want more. And I've invested the money carefully into rescources I trust for various reasons.

You are most definitely right about one thing though...Things are definitely changing...and it doesn't look like for the better. Scholarship is way down. Hermeneutics is a word that people know but don't understand. They think it's just flat reading and knowing a few side facts.

 

[stovebolts]

I agree. And I'd like that thread.
I know for sure baptism is a lot more complicated than we think it is....There are many references about it in the O.T....what about the parting of the Red Sea? (which probably wasn't the Red Sea...)

Everything comes down to salvation issues because this is all that's taught these days. Are you saved? Is baptism necessary? Can we become lost again? Are the gifts still available to us? etc.

I must say, however, that I still learn things here and I'm thankful for that....I find it more encouraging if I'm forced to learn, and in a group.

Did you know Jewish women are considered unclean after giving birth as well as their monthly menstrual cycle? As a result, part of their purification includes baptism and it's actually a beautiful picture, not a burden.
If we could study this type of thing without having it turn into another salvation topic, it would bring much into what we think about our own baptism.

 

[JohnDB]

Did you know Jewish women are considered unclean after giving birth as well as their monthly menstrual cycle? As a result, part of their purification includes baptism and it's actually a beautiful picture, not a burden.
If we could study this type of thing without having it turn into another salvation topic, it would bring much into what we think about our own baptism.

And to top that...
No woman was recorded as being baptized either. Only men.

 

[GodsGrace]

Did you know Jewish women are considered unclean after giving birth as well as their monthly menstrual cycle? As a result, part of their purification includes baptism and it's actually a beautiful picture, not a burden.
If we could study this type of thing without having it turn into another salvation topic, it would bring much into what we think about our own baptism.

I did know about it but from the NT.
I've read Leviticus too. But I've said I'm not familiar enough with the O.T. to really discuss it. There's just too much. I would have liked to really study it, but no luck.
I took an OT theology course here, but it was a waste of time ,,,already knew all that.

Too much to know...
This has been a good thread.

 

[GodsGrace]

But it gets to a point where you can't see the forest for all them trees in the way.
And I have to believe that this is deliberate.

When Jesus told his parables there were so many allusions and metaphors that the Pharisees heads would be spinning too fast to really understand what Jesus was saying. They would get so caught up in the metaphors (which Jesus used correctly) that they missed the message.

And one other thing has become exceedingly clear over the years...when people translated the scriptures they used their own lense of theology to do it with.
Even the KJV has a definite Anglican Church view to how the scriptures were translated.

Is there a completely straight English translation of the scriptures?
No. Sorry. The Old, original NIV (no longer in print) comes close...so did the first HCSB. But they have gone through some updates and finding the originals is getting difficult if not impossible.
I happen to like the ISR 98 version and ignore the notes. (Messianic Jews from South Africa)
All translations together with translation, grammar, and definition guides going I can usually get to the actual truth outside of the denominational biases out there.
The basic truths of scriptures is available and acceptable for consumption by the masses...but some of us want more. And I've invested the money carefully into rescources I trust for various reasons.

You are most definitely right about one thing though...Things are definitely changing...and it doesn't look like for the better. Scholarship is way down. Hermeneutics is a word that people know but don't understand. They think it's just flat reading and knowing a few side facts.

It's not getting better because we're getting lazy and we want our faith/religion to be easy.

I started a thread that I hope addresses this. In theology.

 

[ezra]

@JohnDB s most probably right...why would he post something like this unless he was sure?

so he could never be wrong ?

 

[GodsGrace]

so he could never be wrong ?

It wouldn't be him that's wrong but his source.
I think he's pretty smart and confirmed the info with more than one source.

This is how it's done.

 

[ezra]

i for one do not agree with this theory born again = error

 

[stovebolts]

And to top that...
No woman was recorded as being baptized either. Only men.

Ohh, so that means a cooking utensil had more spiritual value than a woman!
What do you think about that wondering?

 

[JohnDB]

so he could never be wrong ?

I'm married...
I'm wrong at least 3 times an hour...
And according to my mother...I'm a breech baby...so I was even born wrong.

 

[JLB]

It's not fair to think Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus.

I never said Jesus was speaking those words to Nicodemus.


My point was for you to consider and think about that He said those words to those who believed.


That’s all.


I would like to think Nicodemus was born again.




JLB

 

[JLB]

I believe a lot of ideas in the N.T. are misunderstood by either one side or the other. I'm counting on God's mercy.

Amen to God’s mercy.


I’d be lost without it.



JLB

 

[JLB]

A lot of people believe that but it's not the case. Look up the Granville Sharp rule. The birth spoken of in "born again" is a two part process, water and spirit. It's not two separate births, one physical and one spiritual. This is also born out in reading the writings of the early Christians.

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life” ),

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I didn't post the whole chapter but it can be found here

Thanks for taking the time to share this.


Do you believe we are born again by water baptism rather than believing the Gospel?



JLB

 

[JLB]

In a way you made my point. Consider baptism. All we have to do is start a thread titled, "What is Baptism" and we would have quite a long discussion and debate about it.

Likewise, I don't think we really know what Jesus meant in regard to this thread and I believe this is what this discussion is trying to bring to clarity.

Ok. Fair enough.


Would you consider the exchange of what Jesus said and then what Nicodemus asked, and what Jesus confirmed as possible evidence.

IOW the very words of context of their discussion?



Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:3-6

1. I say to you, unless one is born again
2. Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
3. that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I believe, by reading the context we can conclude that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus about Spiritual birth; Being born again spiritually.
Being regenerated. Being born of God.
Being born of the Spirit.



JLB

 

[JLB]

I actually want to start a thread in the Bible Study forum to discuss the roots of baptism in the OT, but my reservations are folk would only dwell on weather or not it is necessary for salvation.

I honestly get sick of everything being watered down to its either a salvation issue or not with pages of the same old...and the beauty and nuances of baptism never get to be explored

Jesus asked the Pharisee’s a simple question.



The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?” Matthew 21:25


I believe the shadows and types from the Old Testament pointed to, not only John’s baptism but the others as well.


Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4


all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

• This points to the Spirit baptizing us into Christ.
• Johns water baptism
• Jesus baptizing is with the Holy Spirit.

JLB

 

[Butch5]

Some of the things he says about baptism really give me pause...and many of his quotes from scriptures are way off too.
Just saying.

Are you sure he's off? Maybe the way we understand things is off. After all, he lived no too long after the apostles. Here we are some two thousand years later, reading translations of copies of the Bible. We've had two thousand years of people manipulating doctrines to deal with. He didn't have that. He's not the only one. If you read the early writers they're pretty much all in agreement that salvation comes through baptism. That raises the question, where did they get this idea?

Jesus makes a pretty clear statement in Mark. He said,

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mk. 16:15-16 KJV)

He makes a grammatical argument that cannot be gotten around. Note that believes and baptized are present tense. He who believes, present tense, and is baptized, present tense, shall be saved. Shall is future tense, it therefore occurs after the present tense believes and is baptized. There's no way around that argument.

Also, Paul said,

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (Rom. 6:3-5 KJV)

Being baptized into Christ's death is water baptism. Paul said if one is baptized they were will be in the resurrection.

 

[JLB]

He makes a grammatical argument that cannot be gotten around. Note that believes and baptized are present tense. He who believes, present tense, and is baptized, present tense, shall be saved. Shall is future tense, it therefore occurs after the present tense believes and is baptized. There's no way around that argument.

Yes agreed.


Which baptism is He referring to?


The baptism where the Spirit baptizes us into Christ.


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


Or

Water Baptism


Or


Where Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.


In Mark, it lends itself to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which would mean we have already been baptized into Christ.


And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues. Mark 16:15-17


Speaking in tongues is associated with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.





JLB

 

[JLB]

Being baptized into Christ's death is water baptism. Paul said if one is baptized they were will be in the resurrection.

You might want to keep reading Romans 6 to the end.


But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. Romans 6:22


In other words just because we are baptized in water, we still have to walk in the new life of Christ, dwelling in us.




This topic may better be discussed in the thread Wondering started on “Abiding in the Vine”.




JLB