baptism for salvation?

[JLB]

Part 2 of my "community response" (again, from my church Elder):

Water and the new birth: God sent one prophet to prepare the way for Jesus. His name was John. He was called “the baptizer” because in preparation for the coming Messiah/Christ he baptized people; so many people that he was given the title of baptizer. So God sends one prophet to prepare the way for his son and gives that one prophet a baptism (John 1:29-34) and that one prophet baptized so many people that he was called “the baptizer”. Is this coincidence? Is it merely incidental? Another “John”, the apostle, wrote about John the baptizer saying that the prophet’s work was to testify about the Light who of course was Jesus, John 1:6-8.

John wrote the following very significant fact about those who believed in Jesus: “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13) John writes here that those who receive/believe in Jesus are given something. They are given the right to become children of God. Those who do not believe in Jesus evidently have no right to become God’s children. Belief in Jesus is said here to be the point at which we are given the right to become God’s children.

Having the right to be God’s children, however, is not the same as being God’s children. It seems obvious therefore, that the next question would be, “At what point to we become children of God?” Jesus answers this question in John 3:3-5. Nicodemus comes to Jesus and immediately expresses faith in him in 3:2 saying, “We know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him”. Having expressed faith, what can we assume Nicodemus had at that point? Can we not assume that based on his faith in Jesus, God had given Nicodemus the right to become one of His children according to John 1:12?

It seems to me that Jesus immediately introduced the next step Nicodemus needed to take to actually become one of God’s children according to this new covenant Jesus was bringing. Jesus told him that he needed to be “born again” by water and the Spirit of God, 3:3 & 5. Jesus stated it very exclusively laying down clearly and repeating it a second time to show that only those born by water and the Spirit of God would come into the kingdom. Logically, this means that all who are not born again by water and the Spirit of God will not become part of the kingdom. Some say that the “water” part of the new birth is when we are literally, physically born from our mother’s womb in childbirth. There are at least five reasons why I do not believe this is what Jesus was saying.

1) First, it just doesn’t make sense that Jesus would tell Nicodemus that he must be born physically first to be born into the kingdom. Consider that Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he needed to believe in him because Nicodemus already believed. So why would he tell him that he needed to be born when he was already born? It certainly seems redundant and unnecessary to me and Jesus did not do or say things that were redundant or unnecessary.

2) Secondly, John had previously described physical birth as being “born of blood” in 1:13. It doesn’t make sense that John would refer to physical birth as being born of blood and then shortly thereafter write that Jesus referred to physical birth as being born of water.

3) Thirdly, we are not born of water, but amniotic fluid, if that can even be said. Jesus designed the process of human birth and it just doesn’t seem to me that he would refer to such a precise and specifically designed process in such a bland way, especially when physical birth had just been described by his apostle as birth by blood. Technical? Perhaps some would think that. I like to think of it more as accurate. Jesus was always accurate. We say a woman’s “water breaks” just prior to birth because it appears that way to us and it is accommodative language. Jesus of course knows better.

4) Perhaps most important to me in making the point that Jesus was literally speaking of water baptism is the fact that just sixteen brief verses from this record is where John tells us that Jesus and his apostles are out in the countryside baptizing people, 3:22. Thirty-one verses away we are being informed that Jesus and his disciples were baptizing even more people than John the baptizer (4:1-2). Imagine….. Wouldn’t it seem odd to us to read that Jesus, for example, told Nicodemus after Nicodemus was raised up out of the water of baptism that this immersion in, and rising from water, was not what he was talking about concerning being born by water in their previous conversation?

5) The real clincher is when you compare John 3:3 & 5 with Romans 6:4 and 2nd Corinthians 5:17 as below. Jesus speaks of a “new birth” in John 3:5 when “born of water and the Spirit” while his apostle, Paul, speaks of “newness of life” in Romans 6:3-4 when one is baptized into Christ. It seems to me from each of these passages that there is no new birth and no newness of life without baptism in water. Are the two not parallel? Are the new birth and newness of life two different things, or are they the same thing? How could they not be the same?

Then there is that phrase “baptized into Christ” used in Romans 6:3 (and Galatians 3:27 as well). How does one get “into Christ”? The language of the NT teaches us in these two passages that we are baptized into Christ. There is no other passage in the NT that teaches any other way to get into Christ other than to be baptized into him. This is why when we read in 2nd Corinthians 5:17 that if any man be “in Christ” he is a “new creature” which to mean screams “born again” and “newness of life” from these other statements made by Jesus and Paul. This is in keeping with Luke’s account of the establishment of the church in Corinth from Acts 18:5-8. Luke wrote that Paul preached the gospel and that many of the Corinthians were “believing and being baptized”, 18:8.

Wait, did Luke say “believing and being baptized”? Isn’t that the combination of the teachings of John 1:12 and John 3:5? #1 Those who believe in Jesus are given the right to become children of God and #2 then become children of God when they are born into the kingdom by water and the Spirit of God? Yes, it did say “believing and being baptized”! No wonder. This is in perfect harmony with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 where Jesus said that all who believe and are baptized will be saved. It is in perfect harmony with what happened on Pentecost when Peter preached Jesus and as soon as the people expressed their new belief in Jesus (Acts 2:36-37) he immediately told them to ask Jesus into their hearts…….. no, just kidding. He immediately told them to be baptized (Acts 2:38). This is the same pattern we see in all of Acts. People hear the gospel, believe and are then immediately baptized.
How could we not conclude that we are being shown that the new birth takes place when folks who believe in Jesus are baptized in water like those on Pentecost (Acts 2:36-38), those in Samaria (Acts 8:12), Simon (Acts 8:13), the eunuch (Acts 8:35-38), Saul (Acts 9:3-19), Cornelius (Acts 10:36-48), Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), the jailor (Acts 16:27-33), the Corinthians (Acts 18:8) and even, yes even the Ephesian men who had already been baptized with John’s baptism were baptized again in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:1-7)? Notice especially here with the Ephesians that water baptism had to be what is meant in 19:5 because the text carefully records that the Holy Spirit did not come upon them for the purpose of enabling them to do miracles until after Paul laid hands on them specifically for that purpose, Acts 19:6.

Isn’t it interesting that in all of the examples above we see the same thing? People hear about Jesus, they come to believe in him and then are immediately baptized? Isn’t it also interesting that with all these examples of conversion there is not a single instance of anyone being told to ask Jesus into their hearts or even to pray at all? Why would God’s Spirit inspire Luke to record the spread of the gospel as it took place over several decades and give us several examples of people becoming Christians, yet never show us or teach us or reveal to us in any way the most crucial aspect of salvation, namely, the “sinner’s prayer”? He didn’t reveal it to us because it is not of God.

Hear the Gospel, believe the Gospel, repent, publicly confess that Jesus is God's Son, and be baptized. Then you're saved. NOT BY THE WATER ITSELF (how many times do I have to repeat this?), but by Jesus' blood and by grace through faith (active, obedient faith. The only kind that isn't dead.). Then God adds you to His Son's church (Acts 2:47). That is all I've got for now on this subject; again, if anyone has any questions, send me a PM.

Thank you for you post.

There some good things in this post, however I must point out something that was not entirely accurate.

Jesus told him that he needed to be “born again” by water and the Spirit of God, 3:3 & 5.

Jesus did not say he needed to be born again by water.

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. John 3:5-6

Born of water, not born again of water.

Born of water is a reference to natural child birth.

The rest of the post is predicated on this one false statement, therefore it is rejected as false.

One is not born again by being Baptized in water.

JLB

 

[Kidron]

Show up for roll call in boot camp without the suit and see what happens.

JLB

friend, you wont be IN boot camp unless you sign up.

 

[Kidron]

Part 2 of my "community response" (again, from my church Elder):


Hear the Gospel, believe the Gospel, repent, publicly confess that Jesus is God's Son, and be baptized. Then you're saved. NOT BY THE WATER ITSELF (how many times do I have to repeat this?), but by Jesus' blood and by grace through faith (active, obedient faith. The only kind that isn't dead.). Then God adds you to His Son's church (Acts 2:47). That is all I've got for now on this subject; again, if anyone has any questions, send me a PM.

The "new birth" is a Spiritual regeneration that is outside of the baptismal fount and is in NO WAY associated with H20.
AFTER this spiritual regeneration, that is wholly and solely produced by the Holy Spirit in response to a person's FAITH in the "word of Truth", that is to say the "gospel, THEN, a person will publicly proclaim their CONVERSION that happened without water.. , by being submerged in it as a symbolic proclamation of their new identity "in Christ".
However, if they dont ever get baptised in water, their salvation is not affected, as water in a enclosure cannot affect or effect what the Blood of Christ has cleansed/.
Baptism in water has no power or capacity to redeem.
It if could, then Jesus could have stayed in Heaven, as what need is there for his Blood, if a creek, or a river, or a fountain of water could forgive sins and wash them away.
What need is there for nails and a cross and a bloody savior, if water can forgive your sins?

 

[JLB]

friend, you wont be IN boot camp unless you sign up.

When you sign up, if you are not in uniform you will be removed until you comply.

 

[JLB]

The "new birth" is a Spiritual regeneration that is outside of the baptismal fount and is in NO WAY associated with H20.
AFTER this spiritual regeneration, that is wholly and solely produced by the Holy Spirit in response to a person's FAITH in the "word of Truth", that is to say the "gospel, THEN, a person will publicly proclaim their CONVERSION that happened without water.. , by being submerged in it as a symbolic proclamation of their new identity "in Christ".
However, if they dont ever get baptised in water, their salvation is not affected, as water in a enclosure cannot affect or effect what the Blood of Christ has cleansed/.
Baptism in water has no power or capacity to redeem.
It if could, then Jesus could have stayed in Heaven, as what need is there for his Blood, if a creek, or a river, or a fountain of water could forgive sins and wash them away.
What need is there for nails and a cross and a bloody savior, if water can forgive your sins?

I agree that you are not born again by being Baptized in water.

Being Baptized in water is the outward expression of obedience to the Gospel Message.

It come after you are born again.


JLB

 

[veryberry]

Since this thread covers a very hot topic, I now see that responding to one person at a time, one per day, is going to be an endless endeavor. I'm still responding to arguments from page 1, and we're on page 5 already! So what I'll do is just put up a 2-part response, to EVERYONE on this thread. And then if anyone has any further questions for me, send me a PM and I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. So here's my first response (and both responses, BTW, were also shared with me by my aforementioned Elder).

First of all, I believe the best place to begin is Ephesians 4:5, to see if the “one baptism” is Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism which I also call “great commission baptism” (gcb for short) from Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16 and Luke 24:44-47. I believe it especially noteworthy that Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Talk about authority! I know of no other command we are given to do in the name of all three members of the Godhead. Since there is only one baptism wouldn’t that be the one the apostles practiced and continually taught us about? Also, if Holy Spirit baptism is the one baptism, why then was water baptism practiced so prolifically and then recorded for us to read about in the NT? If gcb is not the one baptism, why should it still be done today at all?

There are only two instances of Holy Spirit baptism that are identified as such in the NT. The first is in Acts 2:1-4 which Jesus had foretold the apostles would happen in 1:5-8. The other was in Acts 10:34-48 when Cornelius and his family received it from God just as the apostles had. No other baptism recorded in the NT is specifically said to be Holy Spirit baptism so it is left up to us to decide which it is by the contextual evidence. There are several differences between Holy Spirit baptism and great commission baptism; to note a few:

1) Holy Spirit baptism was administered by God, not men (and)
2) Holy Spirit baptism was never commanded by God to be done by men but gcb certainly was (hence “great commission baptism)
3) Holy Spirit baptism was done to show God’s approval according to Acts 10:47, 11;16-17 & 14:26-15:9
4) Holy Spirit baptism is not said to “put us into Christ” or “into his death” as great commission baptism is said to do, Romans 6:3-6 & Galatians 3:26-27
5) Holy Spirit baptism was a means to receive miraculous gifts as with the apostles in Acts 2 and Cornelius and family in Acts 10
6) Holy Spirit baptism was accompanied by obvious signs such as a sound like wind, fire-like appearances and miraculously speaking in human languages previously unknown to the speakers. Gcb had no such signs.

(note: When explaining to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 11 about the Gentiles coming into the kingdom, Peter said that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family just as He had upon them “at the beginning”, 11:15. Peter did not say “just as it has fallen on all converts to Christianity since Pentecost”. He goes back to reference the one other point in time when this happened at Pentecost to explain the significance of God baptizing a Gentile family with His Spirit. To me, this is good evidence that Holy Spirit baptism was not taking place on a regular basis.)

In my estimation, the evidence clearly shows that gcb is the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. Why else would Philip go down into the water with the eunuch in Acts 8:35-38? Philip preached Jesus from Isaiah 53 according to the text and obviously convinced the eunuch that he needed to be baptized in water. When the eunuch asked to be baptized in water, Philip did not respond by saying, “Oh, you have misunderstood, I was talking about Holy Spirit baptism”. Nor did Peter say to Cornelius and his family in Acts 10 that they did not need gcb because they had already been baptized by God in His Spirit. In fact, Peter commanded/ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus, Acts 10:48. This shows very clearly that Holy Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus were two very different and distinct things. God does one, but commands us to keep the other.

The Lord Jesus Christ says to give to them who ask of thee. Matthew 5:42
Can I please have $100.00

There is a reason why this is a hot topic. Salvation! This is a subject, that who ever is wrong will suffer eternal damnation. It is a subject that you need to be very clear about and not going off what your Elders, pastors, teachers, etc... say. All interpretations belong to God, not man.

2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Please give this verse some consideration.

 

[Mark1616]

The Lord Jesus Christ says to give to them who ask of thee. Matthew 5:42
Can I please have $100.00

There is a reason why this is a hot topic. Salvation! This is a subject, that who ever is wrong will suffer eternal damnation. It is a subject that you need to be very clear about and not going off what your Elders, pastors, teachers, etc... say. All interpretations belong to God, not man.

2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Please give this verse some consideration.

First of all, I'm well aware of WHY this is a hot topic. We're all aware that this is life or death stuff.......an eternity in Heaven or Hell.......which is exactly why I started this thread to begin with. Secondly, I HAVE been very clear on this subject (if you've read my posts, then you know this). Thirdly, your assumption that I'm just "going off what my Elders say" is unjustified and uncalled for. I've gotten a lot of information on this subject from various sources: the Bible, a book called "Muscle And A Shovel", my Elders, various internet sources (for AND against baptism for salvation), etc.......and I don't just "go off" anyone. I've done a lot of careful research into this subject, and I have presented the arguments that I have (thus far) found to be the most compelling, and the most Biblically consistent. If my Elder had given me bad, flimsy arguments, I would have rejected them.

Of my many posts in my thread, only 3 of them came from my Elder, and I identified them accordingly. And I also have identified arguments as coming from "Muscle And A Shovel". I do this to avoid any potential accusations of plagiarism. Nothing more. I simply give credit where credit is due. Your implication that I am an intellectually lazy "sheep", having my arguments spoon-fed to me by my Elders.......is nothing more than an unnecessary cheap shot. And finally, you put the cherry on top of your "condescension sundae", with an (again, unjustified) assumption that I haven't considered 2 Timothy 2:15. I have. And I trust that the above paragraph makes that crystal clear.

I don't know you. I don't know what your study habits are. So I would never assume that you don't know the importance of the subject at hand.......I would never assume that you just got all your information spoon-fed to you by some mega-church pastor on TBN.......and I would never assume that you have not studied to shew thyself approved unto God. I would never say such things about you, because I don't know you well enough to make such assumptions. I find your assumptions about me, and your sharp tone, very unfortunate. Please don't talk down to me. I've presented my carefully-researched arguments, you've presented yours, and this is the part where we agree to disagree, with gentleness and respect (IAW 1 Peter 3:15).

 

[veryberry]

First of all, I'm well aware of WHY this is a hot topic. We're all aware that this is life or death stuff.......an eternity in Heaven or Hell.......which is exactly why I started this thread to begin with. Secondly, I HAVE been very clear on this subject (if you've read my posts, then you know this). Thirdly, your assumption that I'm just "going off what my Elders say" is unjustified and uncalled for. I've gotten a lot of information on this subject from various sources: the Bible, a book called "Muscle And A Shovel", my Elders, various internet sources (for AND against baptism for salvation), etc.......and I don't just "go off" anyone. I've done a lot of careful research into this subject, and I have presented the arguments that I have (thus far) found to be the most compelling, and the most Biblically consistent. If my Elder had given me bad, flimsy arguments, I would have rejected them.

Of my many posts in my thread, only 3 of them came from my Elder, and I identified them accordingly. And I also have identified arguments as coming from "Muscle And A Shovel". I do this to avoid any potential accusations of plagiarism. Nothing more. I simply give credit where credit is due. Your implication that I am an intellectually lazy "sheep", having my arguments spoon-fed to me by my Elders.......is nothing more than an unnecessary cheap shot. And finally, you put the cherry on top of your "condescension sundae", with an (again, unjustified) assumption that I haven't considered 2 Timothy 2:15. I have. And I trust that the above paragraph makes that crystal clear.

I don't know you. I don't know what your study habits are. So I would never assume that you don't know the importance of the subject at hand.......I would never assume that you just got all your information spoon-fed to you by some mega-church pastor on TBN.......and I would never assume that you have not studied to shew thyself approved unto God. I would never say such things about you, because I don't know you well enough to make such assumptions. I find your assumptions about me, and your sharp tone, very unfortunate. Please don't talk down to me. I've presented my carefully-researched arguments, you've presented yours, and this is the part where we agree to disagree, with gentleness and respect (IAW 1 Peter 3:15).

You assume alot!

Did you not notice what I put in BOLD? "Rightly dividing the word of truth". But, by your assumption, You thought I was directing "study to shew thyself approved unto God" to you.

I also read books, and listen to several different people. But yes, we do disagree.

 

[JLB]

First of all, I'm well aware of WHY this is a hot topic. We're all aware that this is life or death stuff.......an eternity in Heaven or Hell.......which is exactly why I started this thread to begin with. Secondly, I HAVE been very clear on this subject (if you've read my posts, then you know this). Thirdly, your assumption that I'm just "going off what my Elders say" is unjustified and uncalled for. I've gotten a lot of information on this subject from various sources: the Bible, a book called "Muscle And A Shovel", my Elders, various internet sources (for AND against baptism for salvation), etc.......and I don't just "go off" anyone. I've done a lot of careful research into this subject, and I have presented the arguments that I have (thus far) found to be the most compelling, and the most Biblically consistent. If my Elder had given me bad, flimsy arguments, I would have rejected them.

Of my many posts in my thread, only 3 of them came from my Elder, and I identified them accordingly. And I also have identified arguments as coming from "Muscle And A Shovel". I do this to avoid any potential accusations of plagiarism. Nothing more. I simply give credit where credit is due. Your implication that I am an intellectually lazy "sheep", having my arguments spoon-fed to me by my Elders.......is nothing more than an unnecessary cheap shot. And finally, you put the cherry on top of your "condescension sundae", with an (again, unjustified) assumption that I haven't considered 2 Timothy 2:15. I have. And I trust that the above paragraph makes that crystal clear.

I don't know you. I don't know what your study habits are. So I would never assume that you don't know the importance of the subject at hand.......I would never assume that you just got all your information spoon-fed to you by some mega-church pastor on TBN.......and I would never assume that you have not studied to shew thyself approved unto God. I would never say such things about you, because I don't know you well enough to make such assumptions. I find your assumptions about me, and your sharp tone, very unfortunate. Please don't talk down to me. I've presented my carefully-researched arguments, you've presented yours, and this is the part where we agree to disagree, with gentleness and respect (IAW 1 Peter 3:15).

Mark 1616,

Could you address what I posted in my response to your second post.

Jesus did not say he needed to be born again by water.

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. John 3:5-6

Born of water, not born again of water.
Born of water is a reference to natural child birth.


One is not born again by being Baptized in water.


I would like to hear where you are coming from on this matter.

As you say, it seems to be a hot topic.

Just because we may disagree, doesn't mean we can't learn from our discussion.

I would like to hear from your perceptive, that you believe from your own studies. I see what the Elders are teaching, but I would like to hear what you yourself believe.

Thanks for starting this thread, and your discussion.

Most reject what I have to say on this Forum, so don't feel like the lone stranger.


JLB

 

[Mark1616]

Could you address what I posted in my response to your second post.

Jesus did not say he needed to be born again by water.

Born of water, not born again of water.
Born of water is a reference to natural child birth.

I would like to hear where you are coming from on this matter.

Just because we may disagree, doesn't mean we can't learn from our discussion.

I would like to hear from your perceptive, that you believe from your own studies. I see what the Elders are teaching, but I would like to hear what you yourself believe.

Thanks for starting this thread, and your discussion.

Most reject what I have to say on this Forum, so don't feel like the lone stranger.

Thank you, JLB, for your civility and respect. I was going to stop posting and just take this to one-on-one PM discussions, but since you were so.....so.....so "last-4-words-of- 1 Peter 3:15" just now, I'll gladly answer your question, my friend!

So, you're saying that you see what the Elders are teaching, but you want to know what I believe myself, from MY OWN studies. Well, first of all, what I shared before about John 3:5, didn't come from ALL of my Elders; only one (Marty). I haven't asked the others yet, what they think about this verse. Secondly, my own studies have included a lot of other sources; not just Marty, but many other sources of arguments and reasoning have been considered, some in favor of John 3:5 referring to water baptism, and some to natural childbirth. I've posted Marty's arguments, because not only do they make the most Biblical sense to me, but they also are very consistent with, and similar to, other arguments in this same direction. So Marty's thoughts, for me, sum up the overall Biblical case for a John 3:5 water baptism, very effectively.

I'll briefly review those arguments........and rest assured, this is not merely a mindless regurgitation of Marty's talking points. This IS what I believe, having thoroughly researched all the "for" and "against" arguments myself, and having reached my own conclusions. First of all, there's the redundancy and lack of necessity of telling someone they need to be born naturally. We've all done that already, so there's no need to tell us. Jesus didn't waste words like that.....for example, Nicodemus already believed, so Jesus didn't feel the need to tell Nicodemus "you must BELIEVE and be born again". Then there's the fact that physical childbirth had just been described, 2 chapters ago (John 1:13) as being "born of blood". Why would we be now switching it to "born of water" all of a sudden? Also, why would Jesus, who was known for His accuracy, and who designed childbirth very specifically and precisely, refer to it in such a bland way? Especially when "born of blood" is a much better way to describe it, and had just been used by His apostle? If Jesus was referring to physical birth here, then surely the Son of God could come up with a better way of describing it than John.....

Then shortly after His discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples are out baptizing people! Now, some say that "Jesus didn't baptize them Himself; His disciples did the baptizing". Please! That's like saying that Charles Manson didn't kill anyone; his girls did it. Or that Hitler didn't kill anyone; his soldiers did it. Jesus' disciples were baptizing people, under Jesus' authority, direction, and approval. And not only that, but Jesus' disciples (again, under Jesus Himself) were baptizing even more people than John the BAPTIZER (John 4:1-2)! Think about it: a guy who baptized so many people, that he was KNOWN as "the baptizer".......and Jesus and pals are baptizing even MORE people than him! All this, almost immediately after He told Nicodemus that he must be "born of water". Hmmmm.....

Then we put the John 3:5 "puzzle piece" together with the Romans 6:4 and 2 Corinthians 5:17 "puzzle pieces". John 3:5 talks about a new birth (born of water). Romans 6:4 talks about newness of life (when we're baptized into Christ). 2 Corinthians 5:17 talks about being a new creature (again, in Christ). New birth, newness of life, new creature.......the puzzle pieces are fitting together in perfect harmony. Then we combine these puzzle pieces with many others (Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, 8:12, 8:13, 8:35-38, 9:3-19, 10:36-48, 16:14-15, 16:27-33, 18:8, 19:1-7, 22:16, etc.) throughout the New Testament, and as this puzzle comes together, we begin to see a beautiful picture of a very important part of God's plan of salvation.

 

[JLB]

Mark 1616 said -

Why would we be now switching it to "born of water" all of a sudden? Also, why would Jesus, who was known for His accuracy, and who designed childbirth very specifically and precisely, refer to it in such a bland way? Especially when "born of blood" is a much better way to describe it, and had just been used by His apostle? If Jesus was referring to physical birth here, then surely the Son of God could come up with a better way of describing it than John.....

John 1:13 describes three different expressions that refer to a type of natural child birth, however the point he is making is the will of God over the will of man.

A different point is being made here, one of which is , nor of blood, is a reference to the bloodline of Abraham as being the basis for salvation.

John is dispelling the notion that being of the bloodline of Abraham entitles one to salvation by being in covenant with God.

Look at the context; 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him...

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jesus on the other hand is teaching Nicodemus using a parabolic image of natural childbirth to explain spiritual birth.

Verse 6 is the proof of what is being taught. -

That which is born of flesh, is flesh.

Born of water = that which is born of flesh.
Born of Spirit = that which is born of the Spirit.

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.

John uses this reference again in 1 John 5:6 to describe the Virgin Birth of Jesus -

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

In addition to teaching a spiritual principle by using a natural example, Jesus is declaring that spirit beings are not eligible for salvation through the Gospel message, even though they long for it.

12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:12


JLB

 

[Mark1616]

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. John 3:5-6

I almost forgot, JLB.......to address John 3:6 as well. At first glance, the context of verse 6 seems to back up the notion that verse 5 is speaking of physical birth. But upon closer inspection.......I don't think so. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that if we're born of FLESH (that part of us that is alienated from God), then that is what we are. Flesh. All we are is dust in the wind (I love that song! LOL). That's all we'll ever be, and to dust we shall return. BUT.......if we're born of the Spirit (that part of us that is plugged back into God), then that is what we are. Spirit. So instead of our flesh pulling us back down to the earth from whence it came.......our Spirit lifts us upward, to an eternity in Heaven with God.

So the only way to be saved is to be born of water and the Spirit (verse 5). But wait a minute! How can that be? If being born of water is our physical birth into this world, and if verse 6 refers to this being "born of flesh", then this forces verse 5 to read: ".....unless one is born of THE FLESH and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So.......we need to be born of the flesh to get into the kingdom? I don't think so. Galatians 5:19-21 says: "now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So if John 3:5-6 says that we must be born of the flesh to get into the kingdom.......and Galatians 5:19-21 says that the flesh is the very thing that keeps us OUT of the kingdom........then we have ourselves a contradiction here. And I'm sure we can agree that the Bible NEVER contradicts itself. So, John 3:5-6 couldn't possibly be saying that we must be born of the flesh as an essential step in the salvation process, could it? It seems more plausible, and less contradictory, that in verse 5, Jesus was referring to water baptism (born of water) and our Spiritual "newness of life" when we come up out of the water (born of Spirit).......and then was informing us in verse 6 that if whatever we are born of, well, that's what we are, and that we're either headed upward to Heaven, or back downward to the dust, based on what we are "born of".

 

[Webb]

Anyone interested in taking the subject of this thread to the one-on-one?
God bless,
w

 

[Mark1616]

John 1:13 describes three different expressions that refer to a type of natural child birth, however the point he is making is the will of God over the will of man.

A different point is being made here, one of which is , nor of blood, is a reference to the bloodline of Abraham as being the basis for salvation.

John is dispelling the notion that being of the bloodline of Abraham entitles one to salvation by being in covenant with God.

Look at the context; 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him...

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jesus on the other hand is teaching Nicodemus using a parabolic image of natural childbirth to explain spiritual birth.

Verse 6 is the proof of what is being taught. -

That which is born of flesh, is flesh.

Born of water = that which is born of flesh.
Born of Spirit = that which is born of the Spirit.

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.

John uses this reference again in 1 John 5:6 to describe the Virgin Birth of Jesus -

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

In addition to teaching a spiritual principle by using a natural example, Jesus is declaring that spirit beings are not eligible for salvation through the Gospel message, even though they long for it.

12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:12


JLB

Okay, so Jesus came by flesh and blood. Yes. He did that according to God's plan to save us. And angels are not eligible for salvation. You're right about that. But that's because they don't NEED it. They're already in Heaven! It's like saying that humans are not eligible for dorsal fins. Okay, so what? We don't need them anyway! Paul probably said this just to drive home the point about how important "these things" are. It's like saying: "I'm so hungry, I could eat an entire cow". We don't believe that you can LITERALLY eat an entire cow, but we get the point about how hungry you are. Paul couldn't have been saying that angels literally desire to look into salvation, but can't. Why would they, when they are already in Heaven?

Also, if Jesus is saying that we MUST be physically born of flesh, and then of Spirit, to be saved.......then what about the millions of unborn babies who have been aborted over the past few decades? They never had a chance to be born of flesh. But we believe that their Spirits go to Heaven, right?

So, to say that we MUST be physically born of flesh, and then of Spirit, to be saved.......and that Spirit beings are not eligible to be saved.......then it seems to me that we have just sent millions of unborn babies to Hell, and that we have just kicked all the angels out of Heaven.

OR..........perhaps Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5. It just makes more sense, and is harmonious with the rest of the NT.

 

[Mark1616]

Anyone interested in taking the subject of this thread to the one-on-one?
God bless,
w

Sounds like a good idea! I'll look into it tomorrow; for now, gotta go! God bless you too, and everyone else on here!

 

[JLB]

Okay, so Jesus came by flesh and blood. Yes. He did that according to God's plan to save us. And angels are not eligible for salvation. You're right about that. But that's because they don't NEED it. They're already in Heaven! It's like saying that humans are not eligible for dorsal fins. Okay, so what? We don't need them anyway! Paul probably said this just to drive home the point about how important "these things" are. It's like saying: "I'm so hungry, I could eat an entire cow". We don't believe that you can LITERALLY eat an entire cow, but we get the point about how hungry you are. Paul couldn't have been saying that angels literally desire to look into salvation, but can't. Why would they, when they are already in Heaven?

Also, if Jesus is saying that we MUST be physically born of flesh, and then of Spirit, to be saved.......then what about the millions of unborn babies who have been aborted over the past few decades? They never had a chance to be born of flesh. But we believe that their Spirits go to Heaven, right?

So, to say that we MUST be physically born of flesh, and then of Spirit, to be saved.......and that Spirit beings are not eligible to be saved.......then it seems to me that we have just sent millions of unborn babies to Hell, and that we have just kicked all the angels out of Heaven.

OR..........perhaps Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5. It just makes more sense, and is harmonious with the rest of the NT.

Jesus came water and by blood.

Do you understand what that means ?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sounds like a good idea! I'll look into it tomorrow; for now, gotta go!

Don't do it without knowing what the EXACT point of discussion will be.

Church of Christ doctrine hinges on the Biblically indefensible argument that water baptism is the one and only place and time a person can receive the Holy Spirit in salvation. All the arguments about water baptism within their doctrine stem from this one basic belief.

 

[Navigator]

Okay, so as I said before, there a quite a few arguments to address. And I plan to address them all, in the order they appear. Unfortunately, I can only address one argument per day, since I've got a lot of other stuff going on this week too. So to farouk, JLB, turnorburn, gr8grace3, Eugene, and John D, I haven't forgotten about any of you, and I promise I will respond to your posts. But again, one per day is all I can handle this week. To Paul 1965, thank you for backing me up; God bless! And Reba, thank you for maintaining order and civility around here, and I promise that I will comply with the "gentleness and respect" that 1 Peter 3:15 calls for. Now, with all that out of the way, I will begin with farouk's first argument, based on Ephesians 2:8-9. (BTW, the following argument, as well as most of my OP, have come directly from the book that I recommended earlier: "Muscle And A Shovel")

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Is this passage pushing "faith only" for salvation? A lot of people HAVE used this scripture as their star witness in their case for "faith only", but they are pulling it out of context to do so. Here's the thing: Paul wrote this letter to the church at Ephesus to a group of Christians who were being heavily influenced by new Jewish converts to Christianity. These Jews, who formerly were under the Law of Moses, were now trying to teach new GENTILE Christians that they had to go back to the former works of the Mosaic Law. Those Jews were teaching those new Gentile Christians that they had to be circumsized. That was the "work" Paul was talking about in verse 9, a former work of the flesh. That old Mosaic Law, along with all Jewish works of the flesh, was abolished on the cross.

Staying in this same chapter, let's look at verse 15. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace". Paul was correcting the new Christians at Ephesus, telling them in verses 10 thru 22 that Christians were no longer under the former works of Moses. The new Jewish converts to Christ had been boasting, evidently bragging that they were more righteous and more sinless because they had obeyed the previous law of circumcision. But Paul corrected their erroneous thinking, lest any Jewish-Christian should boast. Now, is Paul saying that we do nothing to access God's grace? No. As a matter of fact, "faith only" or "faith alone" is a false doctrine! There is only ONE place in the whole Bible where you find the phrase "faith alone", and it actually says "NOT by faith alone". James 2:24. "You see that a man is justified by works and not by
faith alone."

BTW, baptism is not a "works salvation" or "salvation by rite". Baptism is simply a PART of the process of obeying the gospel. And we are not saved until we obey the gospel (2 Thess 1:7-8). Belief, repentance, and confession of Jesus as God's Son, are all part of this process too. But we don't consider those "works", do we? And how is baptism a "work", when we don't even baptize ourselves? We passively submit to someone else, who baptizes US. Someone else does the "work" for us. Baptism is no more of a "work" than repentance or confession.

One down, many to go! Farouk, tomorrow I will address your argument about understanding baptism as "on account of the forgiveness of sins" instead of "FOR the forgiveness of sins", and about where exactly the regeneration comes from. I appreciate your patience, and to everyone else, as I said before, I'll get to you soon! It's my bedtime now; gotta get up at 3:30am.

I hate to be nitpicky, and maybe I shouldn't be, but I had certain things to comment on in this post, that simply don't line up. You make a good point about a church being influenced by false teachers who preached circumcision and Mosaic law as necessary for new believers, but that church was in Galatia; this theme was one that was prevalent in the book of Galatians rather than Ephesians.

I think this Ephesians passage IS an effective passage in teaching salvation by faith and not by works. We are SAVED by grace alone; there is nothing we can do to make us more appealing to be saved. That is what it means to be saved by grace through faith. Putting faith in Jesus Christ by the grace of God is enough for salvation, but the motivation for such faith can make the difference. If there is truly a movement of the Spirit in the believer as a result of this faith, the expectation is that good works will come out of that person as a RESULT. I believe it was JohnD who commented a while back that baptism is an "outward expression of a spiritual reality" and while baptism and its necessity for being saved is an open-handed issue for Christians, I think the Bible does not teach such a doctrine, as that would be a work being done first before being saved. I understand we don't baptize ourselves, but the act is a decision that we make.

 

[Webb]

Don't do it without knowing what the EXACT point of discussion will be.

Church of Christ doctrine hinges on the Biblically indefensible argument that water baptism is the one and only place and time a person can receive the Holy Spirit in salvation. All the arguments about water baptism within their doctrine stem from this one basic belief.

Well Jethro would you care to be my opponent in a one-on-one, then we will see how true your sentiments are.
God bless,
w

 

[JLB]

I hate to be nitpicky, and maybe I shouldn't be, but I had certain things to comment on in this post, that simply don't line up. You make a good point about a church being influenced by false teachers who preached circumcision and Mosaic law as necessary for new believers, but that church was in Galatia; this theme was one that was prevalent in the book of Galatians rather than Ephesians.

I think this Ephesians passage IS an effective passage in teaching salvation by faith and not by works. We are SAVED by grace alone; there is nothing we can do to make us more appealing to be saved. That is what it means to be saved by grace through faith. Putting faith in Jesus Christ by the grace of God is enough for salvation, but the motivation for such faith can make the difference. If there is truly a movement of the Spirit in the believer as a result of this faith, the expectation is that good works will come out of that person as a RESULT. I believe it was JohnD who commented a while back that baptism is an "outward expression of a spiritual reality" and while baptism and its necessity for being saved is an open-handed issue for Christians, I think the Bible does not teach such a doctrine, as that would be a work being done first before being saved. I understand we don't baptize ourselves, but the act is a decision that we make.

We are saved by faith, not the works of the law.

This is the point of Ephesians.

However, the work of obedience is a different matter.

That is where the knee jerk reaction to the work works comes from.

The work of obedience is the standard of faith and righteousness.

The question would be, is Baptism the work, or action of obedience.

Then we have to discern which Baptism.


JLB