Is baptismal regeneration biblical?

[Papa Zoom]

God is good!

All the time.

 

[Jim Parker]

Of course not in the sense Jim means it. It's easily proven to be a non-Biblical claim that we are born again (regenerated) in water as a requirement to salvation (entering God's kingdom).

Referring to Israel passing through the Red Sea, Peter tells us: (1Pe 3:21) There is also an antitype (of passing through the sea) 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,
Also, Mark tells us at 16:16 (NKJV) that: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Therefore, according to the word of God as written for us by Peter and Mark, baptism saves us.

Not to mention being an irrational claim to make that God would use a created thing (H2O) to birth again something which has already been born of water.

(1) God used a created thing to save mankind when he used Jesus human body as a sacrifice for our sins.
(2) Jesus said we needed to be born AGAIN of water. (John 3:5)

It may seem irrational to you but that perception merely speaks to the limitations of man's ability to think rationally, not of scripture.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

But you can believe or not believe whatever suits your fancy.

The Church has taught from it's earliest days that we are born again of water in baptism and born again of the Spirit as well.
At Eph 5:14, Paul quotes the earliest recorded baptismal hymn:
“Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”
To arise from the dead refers to having been crucified with Christ, buried with Him in baptism, and then rising to new life in Christ and receiving the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Your comments are described by Jude at verse 10; "But these men revile whatever they do not understand,..."

 

[chessman]

Here is my original post again, which should clarify my position.

Your original post doesn't clarify your position on what you called water baptism in Acts 8 as it doesn't address Acts 8.

Nor does it explain what water baptism is necessary for. You should be able to explain what water baptism accomplished for Simon in Acts 8, if it's "necessary".

 

[Jim Parker]

Did Peter say to water baptize them (Gentiles) before or after they had received the Holy Spirit "just as we (Jews) have"?

The sequence of events is irrelevant.
What IS relevant is; seeing that they had been baptized in the Spirit, Peter then proceeded to baptize them in water IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMANDMENT OF JESUS.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Please invest in a study Bible. You'll learn that Mark 16:9-20 (end of chapter) isn't found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts. It was obviously added later. Therefore, NOT inspired. But go ahead, if you think so, and handle some poisonous snakes and drink some poison and see what happens."

Its hilarious that your only answer to scripture, is to claim it's not really scripture.

If it wasn't in the original autograph, it isn't Scripture. It's just an add on.

But again, go ahead and handle poisonous snakes and drink poison to prove v.9-20 are inspired

 

[FreeGrace]

If you have been baptized in water then why do you teach its not necessary?

To demonstrate my faith publicly. Why else?

btw, where did I ever even suggest that water baptism wasn't necessary?

Define what is meant by "necessary" so I can properly respond to your false charge.

 

[FreeGrace]

I read and studied Mark 16, and verse 15-16 are in my bible.

It's in all the Bibles. But a study Bible will add this phrase "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20".

[QOUTE]When you say "invest in a bible study", do you mean purchase some commentary that tells you Mark 16:9-20 isn't really scripture?[/QUOTE]
Once again, the misreading bug has bit. I never said what is being claimed. I suggested that you invest in a study Bible. They have added notes along the margins, for, you know, studying. Cross references, etc.

Did you ever stop to wonder why those signs followed believers in the New Testament scriptures?

What evidence do you have that any of them did, in fact?

Is that why your posts just have opinion?

For those who actually read my posts, they see Scripture in them.

 

[FreeGrace]

FreeGrace,

I find that to be an excellent exposition the rejects baptismal regeneration.

Thanks. It was my pleasure.

There is one point I'd question (not disagree with) and that is your statement:
"Peter further clarifies his point by adding "not the removal of dirt from the body". This is clearly a reference to literal water. And he says "NOT the removal of dirt". iow, it's NOT water baptism that saves us. That's just a symbol. It's the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves."

Here you refer to 1 Peter 3:21. The reason I question this is because of this verse:

'We were all baptized by one Holy Spirit into one body. It didn't matter whether we were Jews or Greeks, slaves or free people. We were all given the same Spirit to drink' (1 Cor 12:13 NIRV).​

Seems that this refers to the Holy Spirit baptising Christians into the body of Christ at salvation - no matter what our cultural background. The baptism of the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost (Acts 2). I appreciate that both 1 Peter and 1 Cor were written after the Day of Pentecost.

I'm not sure of what you're questioning here. Acts 2 records WHEN the FIRST believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit, which wasn't wet, but rather, dry. Or, as John the baptizer said, "by fire". There's no water in fire, from my experience.

We see th same occurrence when the first Gentiles believed and were baptized by the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 in the house of Cornelius. Which greatly shocked the 7 Jews who witnessed it.

Congratulations on an excellent post and especially your explanations. ed

Oz

Again, my pleasure.

 

[FreeGrace]

Again where does Paul say "I give-thanks to God that I baptized none of you" in Romans 6:3-4, the verse you quoted with your question.

1 Cor 1:14, but Paul didn't add "to God". But he was thankful that he didn't baptize any of them except Crispus and Gaius.

 

[billybalke]

1 Cor 1:14, but Paul didn't add "to God". But he was thankful that he didn't baptize any of them except Crispus and Gaius.

Papa Zoom and I have concluded our one on one on the subject of how those IN Christ got INTO Christ. It involved water baptism. We encourage all to read the discussion.

I invite any on this forum to enter a discussion with me on the one on one with me on what we discussed. ANY TAKERS?

 

[dirtfarmer]

[QUOTE="Jim Parker, post: 1361228, member: 7796"


(1) God used a created thing to save mankind when he used Jesus human body as a sacrifice for our sins.



[/QUOTE]t spot:

hello Jim Parker, dirtfarmer here

Jesus was not a created thing and it wasn't " Jesus human body as a sacrifice for our sins." It was his life without sin(nature) that was the sacrifice that was sufficient. Scripture tells us the " The life in in the blood", what was it that Jesus Christ applied to the mercy in heaven? his body or his blood?
Hebrews 9:14, " How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God."

The difference between the body that was prepared for Christ before the crucifixion and after was: the body before has blood as it's life and afer the crucifixion the Spirit was the life of that body, not blood.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Papa Zoom and I have concluded our one on one on the subject of how those IN Christ got INTO Christ. It involved water baptism. We encourage all to read the discussion.

I invite any on this forum to enter a discussion with me on the one on one with me on what we discussed. ANY TAKERS?

hello billybalke, dirtfarmer here

We are baptized(placed) in Christ by the Spirit baptism, not by water baptism( works of the flesh). I have no desire to discuss nor argue on this subject. It is a settled question because of 1 Corinthians 12:13 & Ephesians 4:5.

 

[chessman]

Referring to Israel passing through the Red Sea, Peter tells us: (1Pe 3:21) There is also an antitype (of passing through the sea) which now saves us—baptism

1 Peter 3:21 says zero about 'water baptism' saving us. If you cannot make a Biblical case, just insert your own, I guess.

Peter says the complete opposite, in fact. The removal of dirt from the flesh does NOT save us. An appeal to God recognizing the resurrection of Jesus Christ saves us. No exceptions. Including the one thief on the cross.

1 Peter 3:21 And also, corresponding to this, ___?__ baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ​

Israel pased through the sea on dry ground.

Exodus 14:21-22 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and Yahweh moved the sea with a strong east wind all night, and he made the sea become dry ground, and the waters were divided. And the Israelites entered the middle of the sea on the dry land. The waters were a wall for them on their right and on their left.​

God used a created thing to save mankind when he used Jesus human body as a sacrifice for our sins.

Who told you that?

1 Corinthians 15:50 But I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruptibility. ​

Do human bodies have flesh and blood?

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you in order that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

He (His resurrection body that's with the Father) is the propitiation for our sins.

The Church has taught from it's earliest days that we are born again of water in baptism

No it hasn't. The church and Peter in his first letter taught "baptism" saves us, not 'water baptism'. You insert water into a verse where Peter specifically says the washing of the flesh does NOT save us and used the passing of Israel on dry ground to prove his point.

The sequence of events is irrelevant.

Was the fact that God parted the sea before Israel passed through it on dry ground not relevant too?

 

[Jim Parker]

1 Peter 3:21 says zero about 'water baptism' saving us.

It does if you can read and understand English at a 4th grade level.

 

[chessman]

It does if you can read and understand English at a 4th grade level.

Yep, that's what it takes.

 

[JLB]

1 Cor 1:14, but Paul didn't add "to God". But he was thankful that he didn't baptize any of them except Crispus and Gaius.

Because of the division that was taking place among these Gentile believers.

Paul didn't want them to think he was baptizing in his own name.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Your original post doesn't clarify your position on what you called water baptism in Acts 8 as it doesn't address Acts 8.

Nor does it explain what water baptism is necessary for. You should be able to explain what water baptism accomplished for Simon in Acts 8, if it's "necessary".

Sorry you don't understand what I said.

Simon was baptized in water.

Verse 13 verse s a reference to water baptism.

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

I gave you my original post on my position.

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




JLB

 

[JLB]

It's in all the Bibles. But a study Bible will add this phrase "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20".

[QOUTE]When you say "invest in a bible study", do you mean purchase some commentary that tells you Mark 16:9-20 isn't really scripture?

Once again, the misreading bug has bit. I never said what is being claimed. I suggested that you invest in a study Bible. They have added notes along the margins, for, you know, studying. Cross references, etc.


What evidence do you have that any of them did, in fact?


For those who actually read my posts, they see Scripture in them.[/QUOTE]

If you want to discuss what the scriptures say, then post some scripture so we can discuss it.


JLB

 

[JLB]

To demonstrate my faith publicly. Why else?

btw, where did I ever even suggest that water baptism wasn't necessary?

Define what is meant by "necessary" so I can properly respond to your false charge.

Neccesary for public confession.

Why else?

 

[Jim Parker]

1 Peter 3:21 says zero about 'water baptism' saving us. If you cannot make a Biblical case, just insert your own, I guess.

1Pe 3:20b-21 (RSV) ...in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
That says that passing through water by Noah and his family corresponds to (is the archetype of) believers being baptized in water.
If you cannot see that it is because of a serious deficiency in your reading comprehension skills.

Peter says the complete opposite, in fact. The removal of dirt from the flesh does NOT save us.

Again, your inability to comprehend what you read has led you to a totally incorrect conclusion.
Baptism, which corresponds to this,
Corresponds to what?
Answer: to passing through water.
now saves you,
Baptism saves you.
not as a removal of dirt from the body
Being immersed in water is not a bath for the purpose of washing dirt off the body.
but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
It is obeying God's command that we be baptized. By obeying we have a clear conscience.
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
In baptism we are joined to Christ in His death and in His resurrection. (Ro 6:3-4)
It's really not that complicated.

Israel pased through the sea on dry ground.

My mistake. That was the wrong reference.
To my comment:"The Church has taught from it's earliest days that we are born again of water in baptism."
YOu replied:

No it hasn't.

You are basing your response on your lack of reading comprehension skills and your total ignorance of the documents of the early Church.
For example, even though I have posted this many times you consistently fail to grasp its message for you:
Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD) The First Apology, Chapter LXI, “Christian Baptism

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water,
and are regenerated ("Regenerated means "born again") in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean;...


And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses
to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; …… The illuminand is also washed in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus.

You insert water into a verse where Peter specifically says the washing of the flesh does NOT save us

Again: You completely failed to grasp the meaning of the words. Peter said the exact opposite.
As Noah & family were saved through water so baptism (in water) saves us.
I didn't "insert" the word "water"; Peter was talking about passing through water.
But you were not able to understand that.

Was the fact that God parted the sea before Israel passed through it on dry ground not relevant too?

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

Quite simply; you do not understand what you are reading.