The New Birth

[A-Christian]

If you want to be one of the people, who stand before the Lord, and boast in your works, you will be lost.
The focus of the Gospel is the Lord Jesus Christ and His work of salvation.

Hi Herald,
Be fair now. I never read here that BibleCatholic wanted to stand before the Lord and boast of his works. I agree that the focus of the Gospel is Christ and his work of salvation.

Peace

 

[mutzrein]

. . . We are not Gnostics, the flesh is not worthless, nor is the spirit the only reality. Spirit is superior in that it gives life to flesh, but the spirit is made known, made incarnate, made more expressible through the flesh. . .

What? Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." The flesh has NOTHING to do with the spirit.

And since when was man born of the Spirit at the time of his natural birth?

 

[Devekut]

What? Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." The flesh has NOTHING to do with the spirit.

Well...I'll rephrase myself. I AM not a Gnostic...maybe you are. lol.

This is the problem with some interpretations of Christian spirituality. It's misreading of the text, severed from historic Christianity, has led to a psuedo and apparently acceptable dualism of the "gnostic kind".

You are taking this verse without considering the whole of Christian revelation. The flesh and spirit are completely related. The flesh is without value when it has become separated from its ultimate source, which is indeed the spirit. But this is unnatural.

But if the flesh was of no value, why the emphasis that the Logos "became flesh"? Why Incarnate the Son at all? Why does Christ says to us "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood".

-Why do Christians preach the "resurrection of the body"?
- Why does Acts say the body of the Lord did not see decay?
- why did God create Adam out of the dust of the earth?

Matter, or flesh, is part of the original plan of creation. Look to what God created in Eden. He created the world and he saw that it was good. It is man's moral and spiritual rebellion, through Adam, that has disrupted the flesh's natural relation to the spirit. Christ incarnated, became flesh, in part that this relationship between flesh and spirit might be repaired.

Lastly, when a person is born of woman, they are born of spirit in the sense that the spiritual is still part of their individual reality; they do have a soul. My point was to highlight the wholism of man. We are both spiritual and fleshly from the moment of birth, and will be so in the World to Come.

 

[Veritas]

What think ye? Does the context really have such a plain meaning as to demand a sacramental view of water baptism?

I'm not sure how Catholics define a sacrament, but I would define a sacrament as something that is:

1.) instituted by God;
2.) in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to a visible element;
3.) and by which He gives the forgiveness of sins earned by Christ

Defined as such; the lords supper and baptism are both sacraments.

What do you guys think about the following:

The Holy Spirit can work through the water similar to the way the Holy Spirit can work through His Word.

 

[mutzrein]

What? Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." The flesh has NOTHING to do with the spirit.

Well...I'll rephrase myself. I AM not a Gnostic...maybe you are. lol.

Perhaps I am - although I'm really not sure what a gnostic is.

One thing I know is that your (Catholic?) interpretation of the flesh and spirit is not mine. Enough said I suppose.

 

[JayR]

Baptism is an outward indicator of an inward reality. Someone I believe in the book of Acts recieved the Holy Spirit and then was baptized by water. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) I was first born of the Spirit and then I was baptized by water. The Baptism that biblecatholic refers to in Romans and Collossians in which we die to sin is not the water baptism, but the baptism of the Spirit Himself. Human beings don't die to sin by being water baptized, if that was true, then we could run into the streets, hog tie men and women, throw them into a lake, and baptize them in the name of the Lord, and they would die to sin. Of course that's rediculous. The baptism those texts are reffering to are the baptism of the Spirit and of fire which Christ Himself performs on us upon conversion, and water baptism is an outward indicator of an inward reality which God Himself commands His followers to perform upon those genuinely converted to the Lord. We should not baptize unconverted men. Baptism is a holy thing of God. It isn't a trifle that we can perform on wicked God-hating sinners. It is a wonderful public declaration that we perform on fruit bearing born again believers to declare to the world that this man or woman has died to self and been born of the Spirit, and this public declaration is an act of obedience of someone who has recieved an inward indication and who displays outward fruit of their salvation.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Baptize a wicked, God-hating unconverted man and tell him that doing so will cause him to die to sin, and then watch him turn around, trample the blood of Christ and the church, and claim that there is nothing in it. That is why we don't give what is holy to the dogs.

1 Peter 3:20-21 ."...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 usâ€â€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..."

Water baptism doesn't remove the filth of our flesh, it doesn't cleanse us of our sin, only God can do that, but water baptism is the answer of a converted man with a good conscience toward God. In other words, we shouldn't baptize men for the sake of cleansing them from their sin, but only as an outward indicator that God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit has cleansed their conscience and made them to die to sin, and cleansed them from the filth of the flesh, and upon doing this God has prepared them to answer or respond to that by being baptized by water with a good conscience towards Him.

How to apply water baptism then to the whole scheme of salvation? The elect are going to be saved regardless of anything. If you are converted by God, get baptized as your Lord commands. If you die on the way to the water, you are still saved as the theif on the cross was saved without water baptism, if you purposefully deny being baptized by water for the sake of rebellion, you weren't saved in the first place, you are a worker of iniquity. Any saved man would want to be baptized, as the Etheopian eunuch did. He said, "See, here is water, what does hinder me to be baptized?" And Phillip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Nobody can truly believe in their heart that Jesus is the Son of God and trust in Him with saving faith unless God has revealed and given it to him. This man was saved and recieved the Spirit before he was baptized.

That text from Peter is interesting though. What does it mean when it says, "... an antitype which now saves us..."???

I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that people are saved absolutely if they get water baptized. If it does then we should just teach the world to baptize their infants, and upon doing so God will then be obligated to save them like His word says. That just wouldn't make sense. That would be works salvation. If that were true, we would be moving God to save us through our own efforts and by our own baptism. That's also proven false, as by the Great Awakening, because that is exactly what the reformers were exposing as a lie. The Catholic church said that if you baptize an infant he is saved and in the church, but then the infant would grow up and live like a demon, and prove that belief false, because God's regenerated converted people don't go and live like demons, but they become new creatures in Christ Jesus. So that's certainly not what it means.

It also doesn't mean that we are saved upon water baptism. We are saved when we are sealed by the Spirit of promise, which comes before water baptism. Baptism is a work of faith which we do after conversion, and "By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."

The good news is that if God has predestined a man to be glorified, then whatever needs to be done in order for that glorification to occur is going to happen, and all of it is going to be done by grace, and nothing is going to prevent it.

 

[GraceBwithU]

There are many scriptures that speak of works. None of them speak of us being saved by our works. We work because we are saved...we are not saved because we work.

I am speaking here of just being a good person and obeying the commandments. This alone does not save us.

Luke 18:18
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luke 18:20-22
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
KJV

WE MUST FOLLOW JESUS.

Rev 2:4-5
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
KJV

Notice in Rev 2:4-5 that Jesus talks about “first love†and “first worksâ€Â

Faith, belief and repentance are all inward. Jesus may also be speaking of the enthusiasm of the newly re-born Christian.

John 3:5
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.
KJV

This is obviously speaking of Baptism. And Jesus is obviously commanding us to also be baptized. This should be our first outwardly work.

Some refer to the thief on the cross and say we are not required to be baptized. Be careful how you interpret scripture. One of the main rules a person must follow is to consider the audience and the setting. Jesus was speaking to someone that he knew would have no chance for baptism. Jesus had the authority to accept him into paradise without baptism. This scripture was specifically for the thief, not the rest of us.

Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of faith; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God.

Baptism does not save us…it's a commandment...we are saved by grace and baptism should be one of our first outwardly works to show our faith. Obeying this commandment without first accepting Jesus will not save you.
:

 

[JayR]

John 3:5
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.
KJV

This is obviously speaking of Baptism. And Jesus is obviously commanding us to also be baptized. This should be our first outwardly work.

When Jesus is talking about being born of water, He isn't talking about water baptism, He is talking about our physical birth. Being water baptized doesn't make us born again. The Spirit makes us born again, that's why Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This is the next verse following the one you quoted, and notice how water is conjunctive with flesh and Spirit is conjunctive with Spirit. He is talking about how one is born of water, or of a physical birth, and then cannot be born again unless he is born of the Spirit. A man obviously must be born physically if he is to be born again, or else he doesn't exist, and Jesus is just clarifying His point by contrasting the two ideas to help us to understand what He is talking about.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

When Jesus is talking about being born of water, He isn't talking about water baptism, He is talking about our physical birth....

The first Christians did not believe that. The early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new lifeâ€â€a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5). Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . 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" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12). Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

 

[GraceBwithU]

When Jesus is talking about being born of water, He isn't talking about water baptism, He is talking about our physical birth. Being water baptized doesn't make us born again.

Wow...interesting interpretation even though I'm not sure it is accurate. I'm sure I could quote about 2 dozen commentaries that would disagree...Still...I can accept it in the context of the scripture. It still does not change Jesus' commandment of baptism. I apologize for using a scripture that most Calvist would disagree with. (I have his commentaries) Nothing wrong with the interpretation. Perhaps I was too hasty in choosing a scripture to illustrate my point. Perhaps you would perfer this scripture. Now...twist this one.

Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
KJV

 

[JayR]

Oh I'm not arguing that He doesn't give the command, I'm just saying that it isn't what brings about the new birth. I'm saying that the new birth happens when we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and we are then baptized as an outward declaration and in response to God for the work that He has done in us.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Notice how it doesn't say that he that is not baptized shall be damned, but only that he that believes not shall be damned. When God saves a man in His timing according to His will and converts Him by placing His Spirit within Him, like the Etheopian eunuch, I believe that God then places a desire within that man to be baptized. I was saved for a decent while before I got baptized. I had the Spirit and was bearing fruit and was experiencing God without a doubt, and I had the desire to get baptized, but I didn't actually do it for a little while after. If I had died before I got baptized, would I have been damned? I don't think so, and I don't think the Bible teaches that. It's the Spirit of promise that seals our salvation, and I had the gift of the Spirit before my baptism. Is God going to damn someone who He has sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise? No.

The thief on the cross I think is God's way of showing us that baptism isn't an absolute requirement for salvation. Thinking that is works based salvation in disguise. The thing that makes this issue controversial is that baptism is a command that is done in a certain time period, that is right after conversion, rather than a command that is done as a style of life. The verdict that I've come to is that God commands all men everywhere to trust and obey His Son, and any man who God has predestined to glory is going to be saved, and all of the things needed to be done in order for him to be saved are going to be accomplished and they will be accomplished by God's grace and by His grace alone.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Oh I'm not arguing that He doesn't give the command, I'm just saying that it isn't what brings about the new birth. I'm saying that the new birth happens when we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and we are then baptized as an outward declaration and in response to God for the work that He has done in us.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Notice how it doesn't say that he that is not baptized shall be damned, but only that he that believes not shall be damned. When God saves a man in His timing according to His will and converts Him by placing His Spirit within Him, like the Etheopian eunuch, I believe that God then places a desire within that man to be baptized. I was saved for a decent while before I got baptized. I had the Spirit and was bearing fruit and was experiencing God without a doubt, and I had the desire to get baptized, but I didn't actually do it for a little while after. If I had died before I got baptized, would I have been damned? I don't think so, and I don't think the Bible teaches that. It's the Spirit of promise that seals our salvation, and I had the gift of the Spirit before my baptism. Is God going to damn someone who He has sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise? No.

The thief on the cross I think is God's way of showing us that baptism isn't an absolute requirement for salvation. Thinking that is works based salvation in disguise. The thing that makes this issue controversial is that baptism is a command that is done in a certain time period, that is right after conversion, rather than a command that is done as a style of life. The verdict that I've come to is that God commands all men everywhere to trust and obey His Son, and any man who God has predestined to glory is going to be saved, and all of the things needed to be done in order for him to be saved are going to be accomplished and they will be accomplished by God's grace and by His grace alone.

I agree with 95% or more of what you said is this post.
Although baptism is not always our first act of obediance...it is still a comandment.

The way you explained Acts 16:16 is very simliar to how I would have.

However the thief on the cross scripture was directed and spoken for the thief only. For his circumstance, we are still commanded to be baptized. The thief on the cross scripture was to show our Lord’s authiority to break the general rules that are for the rest of us. Not to lead us to believe that we just simply do not need baptism.

How many people have been crucified beside Jesus since then. What he did for the thief is was to show His authority, not to give us an excuse to dodge baptism.

 

[JayR]

I didn't say that His giving salvation to the theif was an excuse for us to dodge baptism. I just said that this proves that it isn't an absolute necessity in the salvation process, and under circumstances where someone can't be baptized, they can still be saved.

 

[biblecatholic]

under circumstances where someone can't be baptized, they can still be saved.

Amen, I agree with this

 

[Catholic Crusader]

under circumstances where someone can't be baptized, they can still be saved.

Amen, I agree with this

... and, that is the Catholic Church's teaching

 

[Vic C.]

I don't usually post Adventist links, but this one is relevant to the topic. It's audio.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/Radio/Bible ... fault.aspx

 

[GraceBwithU]

I didn't say that His giving salvation to the theif was an excuse for us to dodge baptism. I just said that this proves that it isn't an absolute necessity in the salvation process, and under circumstances where someone can't be baptized, they can still be saved.

I know you didn't I was just clarifying . Like I said I basically agree with what you said. The important difference is the fact that Jesus was not speaking to all of us at the time. Only the thief. And showing his autority. not telling us to just go about our daily acts and not worry about the commandment. What if you had been killed before you where baptized. I'm only saying to not make lite of it. And don't teach it as something that you can do when you get around to it.
:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I don't usually post Adventist links, but this one is relevant to the topic. It's audio.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/Radio/Bible ... fault.aspx

And I would like to post this link: A 60 lesson in Baptism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2w9hapVJo

 

[mutzrein]

So this is a catholic doctrine then? One can choose to give eternal life to another or choose to receive it themselves by the act of baptism?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So this is a catholic doctrine then? One can choose to give eternal life to another or choose to receive it themselves by the act of baptism?

That is not what I am saying. Baptism does several things. As a sacrament it "effects what it symbolizes" which means it truly does wash away sin by the grace of God. (This is why we baptise babies, by the way.) Also, it replaces circumcision as the entrance into the covenant. This opens up a whole other can of worms. But basically, the Church, being the people of God, is a family. We are adopted sons and daughters of the Father. Adoption into a family, by Semitic understanding, is accomplished through covenants. And, in this case, this is what baptism signifies. (This is also why we baptise babies.) This is the Catholic understanding. I might add that it is also the understanding of the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptics, the Traditional Anglicans - well over 80% of Christianity.