baptism for salvation?

[JLB]

Asyncritus said

This discussion has taken some strange turns.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Why would you say that?

That is truly strange.

I'm sorry you misunderstand.

The water that a baby lives in its mothers womb for 9 months is real water.

When the baby is ready to be born the water breaks and the baby is born.

In other words the baby comes into this world by water.

John uses this expression again, as in John 3:5, in 1 John 5:6

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Jesus is the Only One who came into this world by both water and blood, as His Birth was the only Virgin Birth.

Came by water is a reference to natural human birth.

The water was very much real H20.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

He came to turn people to repentance. He came to turn people from dead works to works of righteousness--IOW, to the righteous works of the law.

Jesus said -

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

John the baptist did not preach the righteous works of the law.

Jesus redeemed those who were under the law.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4-5

You are teaching "another gospel".


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus said -
John the baptist did not preach the righteous works of the law.

Well, actually he did:

8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” (Luke 3:8-14 NIV)

So again I say. John called people to repentance via water baptism which all by itself births an earthbound, natural nation and kingdom of God. As well and good as that is, Jesus said that is not enough. You must also be born of the Spirit, or from above.

Jesus redeemed those who were under the law.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4-5

You are teaching "another gospel".

This is another subject that needs to be in it's own thread. (You're being derailed by the curious habit of believers to instantly think 'self righteousness' at every mention of 'law'. This has NOTHING to do with that.)

The point I'm making, and which you are missing is, repentance to the righteousness of God and away from sin via water baptism only produces what Paul calls a person 'born according to the flesh'. Like Jesus, Paul says a person born only of the waters of repentance back to the righteousness of God is not the one who will see the kingdom. A person must also be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God.

 

[JLB]

Well, actually he did:

8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” (Luke 3:8-14 NIV)

So again I say. John called people to repentance via water baptism which all by itself births an earthbound, natural nation and kingdom of God. As well and good as that is, Jesus said that is not enough. You must also be born of the Spirit, or from above.





This is another subject that needs to be in it's own thread. (You're being derailed by the curious habit of believers to instantly think 'self righteousness' at every mention of 'law'. This has NOTHING to do with that.)

The point I'm making, and which you are missing is, repentance to the righteousness of God and away from sin via water baptism only produces what Paul calls a person 'born according to the flesh'. Like Jesus, Paul says a person born only of the waters of repentance back to the righteousness of God is not the one who will see the kingdom. A person must also be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God.

Your "theory" seems to conflict with what Jesus taught us -

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

As you can see, the law was until John.

Since that time, the kingdom of God is announced and made available by faith.

The law is not of faith.

Baptism was made available by John the baptist.

John did not follow the law of Moses.

John did not sacrifice animals for his sin, nor did he submit himself to the Levitical priesthood.

John believed [obeyed] God [His Voice] like Abraham, and it was credited to him as righteousness, like Abraham.

Abraham was the father on many nations, yet he did not keep the law of Moses.

For it is written -

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ...

The law of Moses has vanished away.

The righteous requirement of the law is obedience, which was from the beginning, as Adam disobeyed and brought death, through his sin upon all mankind.

God's Law has been in the earth since the beginning, as there were transgressions before the law of Moses.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

Where there is no law, there is no transgressions.

Paul said the very purpose of the law was because of the transgressions that took place prior to the law of Moses.

The Seed has come, the law of Moses has vanished away.

Can we learn principles from the law, yes.

Can we teach from the shadows and types from the law, yes.

Is the law good, yes.

Are we under the law, NO!


JLB

 

[Navigator]

Jesus is teaching Nicodemus about spiritual heavenly things using natural earthly things as an example.

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

• Born of water = that which is born of the flesh = earthly things

• Born of Spirit = that which is born of the spirit = heavenly things

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

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

Born of water is a reference to natural child birth, and contrasts that which is born of the Spirit, which is a reference to Spiritual birth.

One refers to your natural body, the other refers to your spirit man.

In order for you to have a spiritual body at the resurrection of the dead, you must have a natural body.

You must be born of water.


44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.



JLB

I understand the context and what the passage actually says. I'm saying that I don't think born of water and spirit in the first verse is supposed to be taken as too separate things, unlike the born of flesh and born of spirit. If you can prove that born of water means natural childbirth then I might be more convinced, but you're just stating it as a matter of fact.

 

[JLB]

I understand the context and what the passage actually says. I'm saying that I don't think born of water and spirit in the first verse is supposed to be taken as too separate things, unlike the born of flesh and born of spirit. If you can prove that born of water means natural childbirth then I might be more convinced, but you're just stating it as a matter of fact.

That is your right. You can conclude whatever you want to conclude.

If you believe that natural water and Spirit are the same thing, then I for one can not convince you otherwise.

Did you read the rest of my post. I showed where John used this expression again in 1 John 5:6 -

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

This is John's testimony concerning the Virgin Birth.

Everyone comes into this world by water.

Only One came by water and blood.


JLB

 

[Navigator]

That is your right. You can conclude whatever you want to conclude.

If you believe that natural water and Spirit are the same thing, then I for one can not convince you otherwise.

Did you read the rest of my post. I showed where John used this expression again in 1 John 5:6 -

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

This is John's testimony concerning the Virgin Birth.

Everyone comes into this world by water.

Only One came by water and blood.

JLB

Okay, but there is no other evidence that people from that era described natural birth with the description of "water." It might be easier for us to say, yeah the amniotic fluid that the baby is living in could be seen as water to people back then. Even today, we have the phrase that "her water broke." But the truth is that there is little to no evidence that people back in the days of the NT or earlier described natural birth with the description of born by water.

I did get the reference to the 1 John passage. This is where my confusion came from, too. So I want to reiterate, I thought the same thing that you did, and my pastor did say that what you're saying is a popular take on the passage, but because that description doesn't make sense in the historical context, he said he tends to believe another popular take, which is that "came by water" in the 1 John passage refers to the baptism of Christ, and "came by blood" refers to the crucifixion of Christ.

This is another open handed issue like you said, so I'm not going to argue to the end of the Earth for this one. I just know I specifically asked my pastor about the two passages you brought up and held to the stance that you do now, and he was quick to dismantle that take and point me in a different direction, and while I tried not to just take what he said and run with it, I do trust his input as he has a seminary degree and has spent 10+ years pastoring and studying the Scriptures.

 

[farouk]

Okay, but there is no other evidence that people from that era described natural birth with the description of "water." It might be easier for us to say, yeah the amniotic fluid that the baby is living in could be seen as water to people back then. Even today, we have the phrase that "her water broke." But the truth is that there is little to no evidence that people back in the days of the NT or earlier described natural birth with the description of born by water.

I did get the reference to the 1 John passage. This is where my confusion came from, too. So I want to reiterate, I thought the same thing that you did, and my pastor did say that what you're saying is a popular take on the passage, but because that description doesn't make sense in the historical context, he said he tends to believe another popular take, which is that "came by water" in the 1 John passage refers to the baptism of Christ, and "came by blood" refers to the crucifixion of Christ.

This is another open handed issue like you said, so I'm not going to argue to the end of the Earth for this one. I just know I specifically asked my pastor about the two passages you brought up and held to the stance that you do now, and he was quick to dismantle that take and point me in a different direction, and while I tried not to just take what he said and run with it, I do trust his input as he has a seminary degree and has spent 10+ years pastoring and studying the Scriptures.

Navigator: There is also an interesting verse in Ephesians 5 about 'the washing of water by the Word', FYI.

Blessings.

 

[JLB]

Okay, but there is no other evidence that people from that era described natural birth with the description of "water." It might be easier for us to say, yeah the amniotic fluid that the baby is living in could be seen as water to people back then. Even today, we have the phrase that "her water broke." But the truth is that there is little to no evidence that people back in the days of the NT or earlier described natural birth with the description of born by water.

I did get the reference to the 1 John passage. This is where my confusion came from, too. So I want to reiterate, I thought the same thing that you did, and my pastor did say that what you're saying is a popular take on the passage, but because that description doesn't make sense in the historical context, he said he tends to believe another popular take, which is that "came by water" in the 1 John passage refers to the baptism of Christ, and "came by blood" refers to the crucifixion of Christ.

This is another open handed issue like you said, so I'm not going to argue to the end of the Earth for this one. I just know I specifically asked my pastor about the two passages you brought up and held to the stance that you do now, and he was quick to dismantle that take and point me in a different direction, and while I tried not to just take what he said and run with it, I do trust his input as he has a seminary degree and has spent 10+ years pastoring and studying the Scriptures.

Not open handed at all.

If you or your Pastor think that came by blood refers to the crucifixion, then that is your right.

However if that were the case, it would say He went by blood, not came by blood.

Came by water and blood is a reference to the Virgin Birth.

What does your Pastor teach concerning the Baptism of the Holy Spirit vs the Baptism in water.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Navigator: There is also an interesting verse in Ephesians 5 about 'the washing of water by the Word', FYI.

Blessings.

That is a reference to the Laver that was set before the Tabernacle.

The laver was lined with brass mirrors so that the priest that was to attend to the ministry of the tabernacle could look into the laver and see where he need to be clean, and then would wash with the water.

Likewise we look into the word of God and see where our lives need to conform to His, and we wash and are cleansed by the Spirit, as we turn...

We don't wash with the word, we wash with the water of the word.

They didn't wash with the mirror, but with the water.

The Spirit and the word agree.


JLB

 

[farouk]

That is a reference to the Laver that was set before the Tabernacle.

The laver was lined with brass mirrors so that the priest that was to attend to the ministry of the tabernacle could look into the laver and see where he need to be clean, and then would wash with the water.

Likewise we look into the word of God and see where our lives need to conform to His, and we wash and are cleansed by the Spirit, as we turn...

We don't wash with the word, we wash with the water of the word.

They didn't wash with the mirror, but with the water.

The Spirit and the word agree.


JLB

I'm not sure what your point is in relation to your overall argument.

 

[JLB]

I'm not sure what your point is in relation to your overall argument.

The main point of my post's is to dispel the notion of being born again by water baptism.

In John 3, the word baptism is not mentioned and should not be associated with being born again.

Water Baptism like the Baptism of the Holy Spirit come after a person is born again, as the scriptures concerning this subject teach.

Water Baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are two distinct and separate baptisms, and come as a result of being born again.

Water baptism is an outward expression of an inward reality.

Receiving the Holy Spirit comes from the laying on of hands as it was in the days of Moses.

Now Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; so the children of Israel heeded him, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Deuteronomy 34:9

The Lord also placed His Spirit upon those who were to assist Moses and carry the burden of leadership.

25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again. Numbers 11:25

Or sovereignly as The Spirit wills, as in the house of Cornelius, or the day of Pentecost.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your "theory" seems to conflict with what Jesus taught us -

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

How is repentance only until John? Explain.

What I'm saying is hardly a theory. I showed you the plain words of scripture where John is teaching repentance according to the righteousness of the law (do not covet, do not charge excessive usury, do not turn away from your brother in need, do not bear false witness).

But you're missing the point. This is about repentance, not about whether or not, and how, the law is in effect or not today (for all that means to the Protestant Church). John taught repentance. But repentance (according to the righteousness of the law--what other standard by which a person repents can he be talking about?) births natural people--people birthed after the flesh Paul says.

As necessary as repentance according to the righteousness of the law (do not steal, do not bear false witness, etc.) is, that it is not how a person inherits the kingdom Jesus tells Nicodemus that 'birth'--being birthed after the flesh through repentance--via the symbolic baptismal waters for repentance--is only one half of what is required to see and enter into the kingdom. You must also be born 'again', or from above. I'm surprised you don't get this since you champion repentance and obedience as a necessary component of salvation--not to be justified by that obedience, of course, but as a necessary obligation of the faith that justifies. But I understand all too well how the mere mention of 'law', even in the context of repentance sends most Protestant believers into a blind rage against self-righteousness.

The law is not of faith.

Yeah, we know that, but what does that have to do with repenting according to the righteous requirements of the law via a water baptism for the remission of sins? Explain.

Baptism was made available by John the baptist.

John did not follow the law of Moses.

What does this have to do with what I'm saying? I know what I'm saying here and it has NOTHING to do with water baptism being a work of the law. This shows me you are simply not hearing the argument.

The point is, the water of repentance (repentance according to the righteousness of the law--do not covet, etc.) that John commanded is not enough to see the kingdom of God. That water, that baptism, births a people born after the flesh (as Paul teaches), it does not birth an equally repentant, but spiritual people of God who will see the kingdom of God.

John did not sacrifice animals for his sin, nor did he submit himself to the Levitical priesthood.

That's an interesting theory. But since it has nothing to do with what I'm saying here I don't need to argue this interesting but unrelated point about whether John had to worship according to the old covenant, or not.




We spend a lot of time wondering what Jesus meant by being 'born of water', and how that equates to being 'born of the flesh', but Paul speaks plainly of being 'born according to the flesh' in his letter to the Galatians and we see that it means abiding by the law (repentance) without faith. And that is exactly what John preached--repentance according to the righteousness of the law prior to the revelation of faith in Jesus Christ. But as Paul and Jesus both teach, required repentance according to the righteousness of the law is not how a person sees and enters into the kingdom of God. You not only must repent of your unrighteousness, but you must also have faith in Christ to enter the kingdom of God. This is exactly the stumbling block of the Jews. They reject the new birth and rely on the symbolic waters of repentance alone to see the kingdom.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

How is repentance only until John? Explain.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

The law was until John.

The law was added till the Seed should come.

This what I said.

This is what the scripture says, word for word.

You either believe it, or you don't.

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

This is what John preached.

This is what Jesus preached.

You not only must repent of your unrighteousness, but you must also have faith in Christ to enter the kingdom of God.

You repent, turn away from the king and the kingdom you are serving and confess Jesus as your Lord.

That is the meaning of the Gospel.

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

That is what would be announced when one kingdom would come to overthrow another kingdom.

Example -

Repent and turn away from the king of Babylon and come and serve to king of Persia and his kingdom or you wil perish with him. Then you would come and bow your knee and confess the king of Persia is your lord, and you would swear to serve him even unto death.


That is what was meant when Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom which is -

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

The gospel was an expression used long before Christ was born.

It is a military term, not a religious term.

We repent of Satan being our lord, and we confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

We are translated out of the dominion of darkness in to the kingdom of God.

We are His bond slave for life.

The good news is, we are adopted as sons of God, in Christ.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Did you read the rest of my post. I showed where John used this expression again in 1 John 5:6 -

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

This is John's testimony concerning the Virgin Birth.

Everyone comes into this world by water.

Only One came by water and blood.

JLB

There are very serious problems with your interpretation.

"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood." (1 John 5:6 NASB)

What does 'water only' mean, if, as you say, water and blood mean natural child birth? Just the fact that John has to make the point that it is not by water alone, but by water and blood shows us this is not about natural child birth.

To further make the case for water and blood not meaning natural child birth, he says this:

"7 For there are three that testify:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (1 John 5:7 NASB)

John is saying the water, the blood, and the Spirit all have distinct and separate testimonies. We know how the Spirit testifies. But how does water testify, and how does blood testify in the birth of a child such that they can somehow testify separately. Explain.

 

[JLB]

There are very serious problems with your interpretation.

"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood." (1 John 5:6 NASB)

What does 'water only' mean, if, as you say, water and blood mean natural child birth? Just the fact that John has to make the point that it is not by water alone, but by water and blood shows us this is not about natural child birth.

To further make the case for water and blood not meaning natural child birth, he says this:

"7 For there are three that testify:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (1 John 5:7 NASB)

John is saying the water, the blood, and the Spirit all have distinct and separate testimonies. We know how the Spirit testifies. But how does water testify, and how does blood testify in the birth of a child such that they can somehow testify separately. Explain.

You seem to take something I have posted and twist it into something that I didn't say.

We all came in to this world by water.

He alone came by water and blood. God became flesh, and was born of a Virgin.

No other person came claim this.

Do you understand what this means?

Do you understand how this is a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ?

This is what I stated.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

The law was until John.

The law was added till the Seed should come.

This what I said.

This is what the scripture says, word for word.

You either believe it, or you don't.

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

This is what John preached.

This is what Jesus preached.




You repent, turn away from the king and the kingdom you are serving and confess Jesus as your Lord.

That is the meaning of the Gospel.

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

That is what would be announced when one kingdom would come to overthrow another kingdom.

Example -

Repent and turn away from the king of Babylon and come and serve to king of Persia and his kingdom or you wil perish with him. Then you would come and bow your knee and confess the king of Persia is your lord, and you would swear to serve him even unto death.


That is what was meant when Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom which is -

Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

The gospel was an expression used long before Christ was born.

It is a military term, not a religious term.

We repent of Satan being our lord, and we confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

We are translated out of the dominion of darkness in to the kingdom of God.

We are His bond slave for life.

The good news is, we are adopted as sons of God, in Christ.



JLB

I see you still don't get it.

I showed where John explains to the people how to "bear fruits in keeping with repentance". So by that we know what repentance looks like, and what the standard by which repentance is measured. But Jesus says that repentance, that baptism for repentance, is not enough to see the kingdom of God. That's all. Don't turn this into a misguided, Protestant rant against the law as if 'law' always and categorically means 'trying to be justified by the law'. Start another thread if you want to talk about that...or pick up where we left off on the last one.

 

[JLB]

I see you still don't get it.

I showed where John explains to the people how to "bear fruits in keeping with repentance". So by that we know what repentance looks like, and what the standard by which repentance is measured. But Jesus says that repentance, that baptism for repentance, is not enough to see the kingdom of God. That's all. Don't turn this into a misguided, Protestant rant against the law as if 'law' always and categorically means 'trying to be justified by the law'. Start another thread if you want to talk about that...or pick up where we left off on the last one.

John preached the Kingdom of God, not the law of Moses.

John did not keep the law of Moses.

Jesus stated he was the greatest man born among women.

John walked with God and introduced baptism in water.

The law was until John.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You seem to take something I have posted and twist it into something that I didn't say.

We all came in to this world by water.

He alone came by water and blood. God became flesh, and was born of a Virgin.

No other person came claim this.

Do you understand what this means?

Do you understand how this is a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ?

This is what I stated.

JLB

I showed you where the Bible talks plainly about being 'born according to the flesh' and what it means. Given this plain teaching, there is no reason to make 1 John 5 mean natural child birth. As I showed you, it doesn't fit anyway. Who hasn't been born of water and blood? I have four kids, and every one of them was born by water and blood. The water and blood are not inseparable and distinct that they could somehow testify on their behalf separately. And the blood in each case hardly spoke of virginity, for obvious reasons.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

John preached the Kingdom of God, not the law of Moses.

John did not keep the law of Moses.

Jesus stated he was the greatest man born among women.

John walked with God and introduced baptism in water.

The law was until John.


JLB

I'm not casting any more pearls. You obviously can't 'hear' what I'm saying. You keep proving that over and over again. If you did hear what I was saying you would not be responding to my argument with things that I'm not even addressing or arguing for. Think about it.