Is baptismal regeneration biblical?

[Papa Zoom]

Good morn Papa
I agree God is able to preserve His word. Perhaps thats why Mk.16 is still included in Bibles although many (as you do) do not believe its inspiration. Am I to understand that you are now willing to include it? Let me know.

I think WIP has sent each of us a green light so lets check it out..

Hoping your day is great!
Billy

What you will have to do to convince me of anything is to show how Scripture as a whole delivers the exact same message of Mark 16. If pulling out one verse makes a doctrine sound, we're in big trouble.

 

[billybalke]

I am not saying that Mark 16:9-20 is to be ignored. I'm saying that it's not found in the most reliable manuscripts. That's true. So I hesitate to develop a doctrine surrounding verses that are suspect (and they are in my view). Can God protect his Word? Yes, but there are still 400,000 errors to be found in all the manuscripts we have. So clearly, we don't have an exact word for word, comma for comma, spelling for spelling copy of the original autographs. So what then did God deliver? What did He protect? Clearly it's the overall message. No major doctrines are affected and with all the manuscripts we have plus early Church Father writings, we can duplicate the original autographs within a 99 percent (or higher) accuracy. But let's not pretend we have a "perfect" transmission. And BTW, I think God likes it this way. We have to do the hard work to get the Bible we have today. (and don't read too much into what I'm saying which some of you will do anyway).

Papa--WIP gave us the GO signal. What do you think about calling our discussion "What must I do to be saved"? If you approve, who do you want to go first?

 

[Papa Zoom]

Papa--WIP gave us the GO signal. What do you think about calling our discussion "What must I do to be saved"? If you approve, who do you want to go first?

you're too late, I already have it set up with a title ;) See if you like it as I can change it

 

[JLB]

Then specifically refute anything I said. Just re-quoting the 2 verses does nothing. Please prove that "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" doesn't refer to literal water.

Of course it refers to water.

Peter is saying the water is not for removal of dirt on our flesh, but for the response from a heart that has faith towards God.

What else would clean dirt off our flesh, besides water?

Peter is teaching that the baptism of water is not for cleaning the flesh of dirt, but is obedience towards God.

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:20-21




JLB

 

[JLB]

OK, good. Now, what does this mean? What, specifically, is baptism with the Holy Spirit?

It means Jesus baptizing us with the Holy Spirit. :yes

No, and I've never argued that.

Sure seems like you are.

Why did you get baptized in water?

What did Jesus say He would do to those who deny Him before men.

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. Mathew 10:33

Added by some obscure scribe much later.

Says who?

Where have I ever "taught" such nonsense? Please provide a post # and direct quote, or apologize for your gross error.

Is water baptism required according to new testament doctrine? Yes or No?



JLB

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

Water baptism during the church age is a doctrine of man. The flesh can't stand that it has no part in salvation; it is only by the blood of Jesus.

I have asked before: Does water baptism witness to a lost and dying world of our faith in Christ? It only takes about 10-15 minutes to "water baptize" a person. Or is it a life which is led by the Holy Spirit that witnesses to a lost and dying world? A Spirit controlled life witness to many unbelievers during our lifetime; not just for 10-15 minutes only once.

It is my belief that water baptism is not necessary for salvation nor for a witness to a lost and dying world.

How many unbelievers are present when a person is "baptized" by water? I believe that it is safe to say none, or maybe a few; but how many unbelievers witness the life of Christ in a Spirit filled believer as they live for years?

 

[ezra]

What must I do to be saved"?

believe on the Lord Jesus Christ .if water baptism is essential for salvation then jesus was a sinner who was baptized .imo today we make to big of issue of baptism ..we rejoice we baptized x amount of people.. well did they truly get saved first. i know a man who been to at least 2 different churches and baptized at each one of them..maybe 3

 

[Windsong]

This is a great article that breaks down the text so as to inform being born again in the spirit is not to say we must be immersed in water in order to be saved. That is works salvation and not at all what Jesus taught.
Source for excerpts below: BAPTISM
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, 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? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.' (John 3:3-7)

Conclusion: A careful examination of John 3:5-7 reveals that when Jesus' referred to being "born of water" He was talking about the physical birth ("born of the flesh"), in contrast to being "born of the Spirit" or "born again." Jesus Himself never baptized anyone to our knowledge, although the disciples did baptize under His command. In all of His interactions with people, Jesus was never recorded as commanding anyone to be baptized, although He often commended people for their faith. It would seem that if baptism were required for salvation that Jesus would have made some mention of it. We conclude that faith, rather than baptism, is required for salvation, although the dutiful Christian will be baptized in obedience to Jesus command in Matthew 28:19.

 

[JLB]

Sure. Was it for eternal salvation? Clearly NOT.


There isn't a thing you can do to dismiss what actual scholars have already done in dating the various manuscripts and finding that in NONE of the earliest manuscripts did they find v.9-20 in Mark 16.

If Jesus teaches up to be baptized in water then we need to obey Him.

If a person rebels against water baptism then they should not expect to receive the Holy Spirit.

And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 5:32

• the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.

JLB

 

[JLB]

believe on the Lord Jesus Christ .if water baptism is essential for salvation then jesus was a sinner who was baptized .imo today we make to big of issue of baptism ..we rejoice we baptized x amount of people.. well did they truly get saved first. i know a man who been to at least 2 different churches and baptized at each one of them..maybe 3

I agree a person needs to be born again first, then get baptized in water.


JLB

 

[Windsong]

If Jesus teaches up to be baptized in water then we need to obey Him.

If a person rebels against water baptism then they should not expect to receive the Holy Spirit.

And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 5:32

• the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.

JLB

Let me make sure I understand where you are coming from there. If we don't obey God you're saying God then takes away his Holy Spirit?

 

[JLB]

Conclusion: A careful examination of John 3:5-7 reveals that when Jesus' referred to being "born of water" He was talking about the physical birth ("born of the flesh"), in contrast to being "born of the Spirit" or "born again."

Absolutely correct.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Get saved then get baptized

 

[Windsong]

Absolutely correct.

Where does God say he will evict the Holy Spirit that indwells his faithful if they are not obedient always?

 

[JLB]

Where does God say he will evict the Holy Spirit that indwells his faithful if they are not obedient always?

I don't believe there is such a scripture.

Nor have I implied such a thing.

I did however quote a scripture that says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him.

And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” Acts 5:32

My point is why would a person expect To receive the Holy Spirit, if they stubbornly refuse to be baptized in water.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Get saved then get baptized

Saved by faith first, then get baptized in water.

We do not get saved because we get baptized in water.

Saved by faith, which is to say saved by obeying the Gospel is the first step in our continuing life of faith, which ends in us receiving the hope of our faith, the salvation of our soul.

Jesus Christ whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 1:8-9

• receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

And again

so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28

• He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

JLB

 

[Papa Zoom]

Saved by faith first, then get baptized in water.

We do not get saved because we get baptized in water.

Saved by faith, which is to say saved by obeying the Gospel is the first step in our continuing life of faith, which ends in us receiving the hope of our faith, the salvation of our soul.

Jesus Christ whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 1:8-9

• receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

And again

so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28

• He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

JLB

I think we're saying the same thing

 

[OzSpen]

We are saved by obeying the Gospel, which is confessing Jesus as Lord.

If Jesus is your Lord, then you need to obey Him.

Believing Jesus is Lord but serving Satan is hypocrisy.

Jesus commands us to love.

Show me a scripture where a Christian brother can hate his brother and have eternal life abiding in him.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15

20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 1 John 4:20

9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:9-11

JLB

JLB,

Do you realise that God hates?

16 There are six things the Lord hates.

In fact, he hates seven things.

17 The Lord hates proud eyes,

a lying tongue,

and hands that kill those who aren’t guilty.

18 He also hates hearts that make evil plans

and feet that are quick to do evil.

19 He hates any witness who pours out lies

and anyone who stirs up conflict in the community.​

(Prov 6:16-29 NIRV).​

Could that happen on this forum where 'anyone who stirs up conflict in the community', God hates?

Rom 9:13 (NIV), 'Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'".

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Good morn Papa
I agree God is able to preserve His word. Perhaps thats why Mk.16 is still included in Bibles although many (as you do) do not believe its inspiration. Am I to understand that you are now willing to include it? Let me know.

I think WIP has sent each of us a green light so lets check it out..

Hoping your day is great!
Billy

Billy,

I'm of the view that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in Scripture. You can read my reasons in my article, Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?

These verses are not in the earliest MSS, so they were added after that time. When the NIV states after Mark 16:8, 'The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20', it is not taking away from Scripture but highlighting the fact that vv 9-20 have been added and not the NIV deleting these words.

The ESV, NASB, NLT, and NRSV also conclude as the NIV regarding Mark 16:9-20.

I've written more on this issue in The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?

Oz

 

[FreeGrace]

What you will have to do to convince me of anything is to show how Scripture as a whole delivers the exact same message of Mark 16. If pulling out one verse makes a doctrine sound, we're in big trouble.

Wise words, Papa!!