What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[Runmyramble]

If you think what I posted strengthens your case, perhaps you can provide an example of the telivah or the yadaim done sans water?


Similarly, at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, when our Blessed Lord instructs His Apostles to teach and baptize all nations, He gives the Apostles the the proper form for administering baptism, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt 28:19)

Do you know of anyone using this form to administer a baptism sans water? In other words, are "dry baptisms" administered by simply saying over someone, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" sans water?

Immerse them in the presence of the Holy Trinity....(Dallas Willard) by teaching them to Do all that I have commanded you....

 

[Runmyramble]

I Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

You are not going to get rid of the filth of the flesh body and it's nature until you pass away. However, just as the water floated the ark to give salvation to Noah from the flood, so also your baptism of a good conscience toward God, which is by your faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ shall save us today. The one is a type of cleansing, but don't loose sight of the fact that it is only a type. The only thing that can cleanse you from your sins is the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. Jesus was the only pure one that could pay the price because wee all fall short of God's law. You can't get rid of the flesh as long as you are in it, and flesh is sin.

Amen through His Faithfulness...He lives forever to interceed on our behalf...

 

[Mungo]

Again, I don't think your position holds up in light of the word's use in scripture. But let me ask for your interpretation on a few verses to see what your answers would be:

- When Namaan the Syrian was told by Elisha to wash in the Jordon seven times, were these seven ritual baptisms or merely seven washings? (καὶ κατέβη Ναιμαν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Ελισαιε, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σὰρξ παιδαρίου μικροῦ, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 2 Kings 5:14).

- When Judith went out by night, did she baptize herself or did she simply wash herself in a fountain of water? ( καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος· Judith 12:7)

Yes, they are examples of the purification rites.
According to Jewish sources the origins of this purification ritual go back to the book off Leviticus. There seem to be three occasions where a mikvar is required in Leviticus, those involving birth (including sex and menstruation), death (including skin diseases) and coming into the presence of God. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a Christian one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser.
We can see the three purposes I noted above in Christian baptism.

Birth – we are born from above (born again) in baptism (Jn 3:5)

Death – Paul compares baptism to dying with Christ and rising to new life. There are two connotations here because entering a mikvar involved physical descent and coming out a physical ascent (rising), something Paul would be very aware of. (Rom 6:3-4 and Col 2:11-12). When Jews became Christians the public and private mikvahs became used for baptism instead.

Coming into the presence of God and forgiveness of sin – In baptism we are made children of God and our sins are forgiven (1Cor 12:12-13, Coll 2:11-13, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16).

The incident with Naaman is a foreshadowing of the renewal brought about in Christian baptism. As so often in the OT is physical but in the NT it is spiritual.
In Christian baptism the Holy Spirit renews us (Ti 3:5, Rom 6:3-4).

But none of that means we have to follow the exact methods uses in the OT. Jesus gave us something new, taken from the Jewish practices but different. For example the Jewish rituals were not in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mungo]

If it helps any, I agree with Mungo in principle that the baptism in the Holy Spirit should follow immediately on the heals of water baptism in the same way it did with the Lord Himself. The trouble is that this is not always the case, as was evident even during NT times. But being baptized with water and then baptized with the Holy Spirit are supposed to coincide, as a reflection of the saint dying to the fleshly man of old and being raised up "in Spirit" anew.

I don't see why the so called "baptism with the Holy Spirit" should immediately follow baptism with water.
They are two distinct events.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes, they are examples of the purification rites.
According to Jewish sources the origins of this purification ritual go back to the book off Leviticus. There seem to be three occasions where a mikvar is required in Leviticus, those involving birth (including sex and menstruation), death (including skin diseases) and coming into the presence of God. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a Christian one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser.
We can see the three purposes I noted above in Christian baptism.

Birth – we are born from above (born again) in baptism (Jn 3:5)

Death – Paul compares baptism to dying with Christ and rising to new life. There are two connotations here because entering a mikvar involved physical descent and coming out a physical ascent (rising), something Paul would be very aware of. (Rom 6:3-4 and Col 2:11-12). When Jews became Christians the public and private mikvahs became used for baptism instead.

Coming into the presence of God and forgiveness of sin – In baptism we are made children of God and our sins are forgiven (1Cor 12:12-13, Coll 2:11-13, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16).

The incident with Naaman is a foreshadowing of the renewal brought about in Christian baptism. As so often in the OT is physical but in the NT it is spiritual.
In Christian baptism the Holy Spirit renews us (Ti 3:5, Rom 6:3-4).

But none of that means we have to follow the exact methods uses in the OT. Jesus gave us something new, taken from the Jewish practices but different. For example the Jewish rituals were not in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Alright. I find that a solid answer.

I don't see why the so called "baptism with the Holy Spirit" should immediately follow baptism with water.
They are two distinct events.

They are two distinct experiences but appear to have been intended to take place together, with Jesus being the Precedent for future believers. It's one of several reasons why the Lord used the word "baptize" in connection with both, and why both should properly be considered and referred to as baptisms, IMO.

I'm not going to cover this much longer, but so you understand, when healing power left the Lord Jesus Christ and flowed into the infirm woman who touched the hem of His garment, He said, "Who touched Me, for I felt power go out from Me." This, along with my own experiences of the anointing of God falling upon me tangibly at various times in my life, is why I regard the Holy Spirit - i.e. His Presence - as substantive and tangible, and something saints of God can physically feel being poured out upon them. As such, I have very little problem with referring to believers being baptized in the Holy Spirit as just that, a baptism, particularly in light of the use of such language. As a Pentecostal, I can tell you that your continual reference to it being a "so-called" baptism in the Holy Spirit will likely draw some ire, Lol, but I suppose those like me will simply set it aside as a difference in semantics and move on. I'm just letting you know that constantly referring to it as "so-called" and something made up by Pentecostalism is going to draw some fire. Then again, there are things I teach about Catholicism that might bring about similar reactions in Catholics, so I suppose I understand.

God bless, and thanks for the discussion. I found your previous answer good.
- H

 

[Hidden In Him]

This, along with my own experiences of the anointing of God falling upon me tangibly at various times in my life, is why I regard the Holy Spirit - i.e. His Presence - as substantive and tangible, and something saints of God can physically feel being poured out upon them.

Btw, this language also supports the analogy of it being a baptism IMO. As you pointed out, water is often implicit in baptism, and there are very important verses of scripture where the Lord compared the outpouring of the Spirit to the outpouring of water as well.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams (Joel 2:28)

 

[Free]

Then please make your point.
Thanks.

It's already been done. You can go back and read it.

 

[n2thelight]

So many don't understand what being born again means

 

[n2thelight]

Birth – we are born from above (born again) in baptism (Jn 3:5)

These are two different things .

John 3:5 "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."


"Verily, verily" is "truly, truly". Jesus is telling him that there must be two births necessary; the birth of the water and of the spirit. Many people teach that this "born of the water", means to be baptized, and this is not what is being talked about. To be born from above is to be born of the womb of your mother. Every child is born in a bag of water, in fact the normal birth is announced by the breaking of the waters with in the birthing bag. So we see in this that one must be born of woman, in innocence, and then "be born of the spirit".


Born of the spirit means to accept the Spirit of Christ. That soul choosing by free will the Spirit of Christ into their spirit. That is what the marriage of Christ is all about; to become one in Christ.​

 

[Mungo]

These are two different things .

John 3:5 "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."


"Verily, verily" is "truly, truly". Jesus is telling him that there must be two births necessary; the birth of the water and of the spirit. Many people teach that this "born of the water", means to be baptized, and this is not what is being talked about. To be born from above is to be born of the womb of your mother. Every child is born in a bag of water, in fact the normal birth is announced by the breaking of the waters with in the birthing bag. So we see in this that one must be born of woman, in innocence, and then "be born of the spirit".


Born of the spirit means to accept the Spirit of Christ. That soul choosing by free will the Spirit of Christ into their spirit. That is what the marriage of Christ is all about; to become one in Christ.​

That's just silly. Born from above is about the new life in Christ. It is effcected by water and spirit.
Nowhere in scripture is the amniotic fluid called water.
See post #138 for a full analysis of this passage.

So many don't understand what being born again means

Including you.

 

[n2thelight]

That's just silly. Born from above is about the new life in Christ. It is effcected by water and spirit.
Nowhere in scripture is the amniotic fluid called water.
See post #138 for a full analysis of this passage.


Including you.

Get off the milk

 

[Runmyramble]

Get off the milk

Catholics have a diff view. My Spouse was brought up Catholic...
But once you have been born from above and quickened to life...It's not about understanding from a doctrines of man but from what has truly happened to you.

 

[jaybo]

So many don't understand what being born again means

When I read something like this I always question it. Have you actually done a survey of what "so many" understand or is it just being judgmental?

 

[jaybo]

That's just silly. Born from above is about the new life in Christ. It is effcected by water and spirit.
Nowhere in scripture is the amniotic fluid called water.
See post #138 for a full analysis of this passage.


Including you.

The section clearly describes natural birth and spiritual birth. It's really too bad that you can't see that.

 

[Free]

These are two different things .

John 3:5 "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."


"Verily, verily" is "truly, truly". Jesus is telling him that there must be two births necessary; the birth of the water and of the spirit. Many people teach that this "born of the water", means to be baptized, and this is not what is being talked about. To be born from above is to be born of the womb of your mother. Every child is born in a bag of water, in fact the normal birth is announced by the breaking of the waters with in the birthing bag. So we see in this that one must be born of woman, in innocence, and then "be born of the spirit".


Born of the spirit means to accept the Spirit of Christ. That soul choosing by free will the Spirit of Christ into their spirit. That is what the marriage of Christ is all about; to become one in Christ.​

The whole point Jesus is obviously making is that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. The only statement that speaks to physical birth is "what is born of the flesh is flesh." What is interesting is how so many of you are leaving out the context:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV)

Notice the parallelism. In verse 5, Jesus appears to be just expanding on what he means in verse 3. That is, to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit." Jesus first says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then, Nicodemus responds, not understanding what Jesus was saying, thinking that it had something to do with physical birth. Jesus corrects Nicodemus and explains that being "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit."

While "what is born of the flesh is flesh" refers to natural birth, Jesus is not equating that with "born of water." He is merely answering Nicodemus's question, "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”.

On the one hand, for Jesus to say that one has to physically be born in order to enter the kingdom of God, would go without saying for those who are born. It would be to communicate nothing of importance; it would be a pointless statement. But notice also that "what is born of the flesh is flesh." This precludes any understanding that physical birth is a necessary requirement to enter the kingdom of God. Flesh must be reborn by the Spirit; that is rather the whole point.

On the other hand, it would mean that all children lost to abortion and miscarriage could not enter the kingdom of God. That is, if physical birth is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, then any who are not physically born cannot enter the kingdom of God. But that would be to deny that they are full human persons, which is unbiblical.

When we look at the rest of the passage, it is interesting that after Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus, it changes to Jesus and his disciples baptizing (vs. 22; see also 4:1-2). And we know it was with water because John the Baptist was baptizing in water (vs. 23); it also wouldn't make sense otherwise.

All that to say that it is most likely that "born of water" is speaking of water baptism, a baptism of repentance.

 

[jaybo]

The whole point Jesus is obviously making is that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. The only statement that speaks to physical birth is "what is born of the flesh is flesh." What is interesting is how so many of you are leaving out the context:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV)

Notice the parallelism. In verse 5, Jesus appears to be just expanding on what he means in verse 3. That is, to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit." Jesus first says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then, Nicodemus responds, not understanding what Jesus was saying, thinking that it had something to do with physical birth. Jesus corrects Nicodemus and explains that being "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit."

While "what is born of the flesh is flesh" refers to natural birth, Jesus is not equating that with "born of water." He is merely answering Nicodemus's question, "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”.

On the one hand, for Jesus to say that one has to physically be born in order to enter the kingdom of God, would go without saying for those who are born. It would be to communicate nothing of importance; it would be a pointless statement. But notice also that "what is born of the flesh is flesh." This precludes any understanding that physical birth is a necessary requirement to enter the kingdom of God. Flesh must be reborn by the Spirit; that is rather the whole point.

On the other hand, it would mean that all children lost to abortion and miscarriage could not enter the kingdom of God. That is, if physical birth is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, then any who are not physically born cannot enter the kingdom of God. But that would be to deny that they are full human persons, which is unbiblical.

When we look at the rest of the passage, it is interesting that after Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus, it changes to Jesus and his disciples baptizing (vs. 22; see also 4:1-2). And we know it was with water because John the Baptist was baptizing in water (vs. 23); it also wouldn't make sense otherwise.

All that to say that it is most likely that "born of water" is speaking of water baptism, a baptism of repentance.

Your first sentence is "The whole point Jesus is obviously making is that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God." What do you think "again" means? It clearly means a second time. One is first born by natural birth (from a human mother), then one is born a second time (by the Holy Spirit). And Jesus doesn't make "pointless statements".

"Born of water", in context, means natural birth, one of the two types of birth described. Baptism is not symbolic of birth, it is symbolic of burial. Romans 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Finally, John's baptism in water was a public declaration of repentance. It had nothing to do with rebirth! It was a symbolic cleansing to prepare people for Christ's arrival and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Free]

Your first sentence is "The whole point Jesus is obviously making is that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God." What do you think "again" means? It clearly means a second time. One is first born by natural birth (from a human mother), then one is born a second time (by the Holy Spirit).

"Born again" literally means "from the top" and is best understood as "born from above." The whole point, of course, is that one must be regenerated by the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God.

And Jesus doesn't make "pointless statements".

Of course he doesn't. My obvious point is that a certain understanding being promoted in this thread--that "born of water" means physical birth--makes Jesus's statement pointless for those who are born. But more than that, it would preclude babies lost to abortion and miscarriage from entering the kingdom of God. It simply does not refer to physical birth. It would be to deny their full humanity, which is unbiblical.

"Born of water", in context, means natural birth, one of the two types of birth described.

No, it doesn't. Look again at the parallelism between verse 3 and 5: "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;" "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." We can see that "born of water and the Spirit" is the same as "born again." Jesus is saying there is an external element to being born again (born of water) and a spiritual element (born of the Spirit).

Look also at the context immediately following Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus--Jesus and his disciples, and John, are baptizing. It is a reference to water baptism.

Baptism is not symbolic of birth, it is symbolic of burial. Romans 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Already addressed this. The context of John 3 already has a reference to baptism, so there is no need to go elsewhere. Jesus is referencing the baptism of John, a baptism of repentance. And we can also look at John 1:32, where water baptism and the Spirit are linked together.

Finally, John's baptism in water was a public declaration of repentance. It had nothing to do with rebirth! It was a symbolic cleansing to prepare people for Christ's arrival and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly. That is what Nicodemus would have understood Jesus to be referring to--repentance and purification. One cannot be spiritual regenerated if their is no repentance, but it is the Holy Spirit that does the regenerating.

 

[Walpole]

It's already been done. You can go back and read it.

Your point went right over the poster's head. I think the point you made was right on.

Being told you have to be born first to enter the kingdom of God would preclude children who die in the womb as well as those who arrive via caesarian section.

 

[Walpole]

The whole point Jesus is obviously making is that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. The only statement that speaks to physical birth is "what is born of the flesh is flesh." What is interesting is how so many of you are leaving out the context:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV)

Notice the parallelism. In verse 5, Jesus appears to be just expanding on what he means in verse 3. That is, to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit." Jesus first says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then, Nicodemus responds, not understanding what Jesus was saying, thinking that it had something to do with physical birth. Jesus corrects Nicodemus and explains that being "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit."

While "what is born of the flesh is flesh" refers to natural birth, Jesus is not equating that with "born of water." He is merely answering Nicodemus's question, "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”.

On the one hand, for Jesus to say that one has to physically be born in order to enter the kingdom of God, would go without saying for those who are born. It would be to communicate nothing of importance; it would be a pointless statement. But notice also that "what is born of the flesh is flesh." This precludes any understanding that physical birth is a necessary requirement to enter the kingdom of God. Flesh must be reborn by the Spirit; that is rather the whole point.

On the other hand, it would mean that all children lost to abortion and miscarriage could not enter the kingdom of God. That is, if physical birth is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, then any who are not physically born cannot enter the kingdom of God. But that would be to deny that they are full human persons, which is unbiblical.

When we look at the rest of the passage, it is interesting that after Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus, it changes to Jesus and his disciples baptizing (vs. 22; see also 4:1-2). And we know it was with water because John the Baptist was baptizing in water (vs. 23); it also wouldn't make sense otherwise.

All that to say that it is most likely that "born of water" is speaking of water baptism, a baptism of repentance.

Good post.

I've asked the anti-Sacramentalists a few times if they can provide an example in Scripture where being physically born is referred to as being born of water?

Thus far, no one has put forth and example for obvious reasons: They cannot, as there is NOWHERE in Scripture or in modern parlance where being physically born is referred to as being "born of water".

This is why you have never heard a new mother saying, "This is my new water baby!" Or, "I just gave water to a new healthy baby boy!"

 

[jaybo]

"Born again" literally means "from the top" and is best understood as "born from above." The whole point, of course, is that one must be regenerated by the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God.


Of course he doesn't. My obvious point is that a certain understanding being promoted in this thread--that "born of water" means physical birth--makes Jesus's statement pointless for those who are born. But more than that, it would preclude babies lost to abortion and miscarriage from entering the kingdom of God. It simply does not refer to physical birth. It would be to deny their full humanity, which is unbiblical.


No, it doesn't. Look again at the parallelism between verse 3 and 5: "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;" "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." We can see that "born of water and the Spirit" is the same as "born again." Jesus is saying there is an external element to being born again (born of water) and a spiritual element (born of the Spirit).

Look also at the context immediately following Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus--Jesus and his disciples, and John, are baptizing. It is a reference to water baptism.


Already addressed this. The context of John 3 already has a reference to baptism, so there is no need to go elsewhere. Jesus is referencing the baptism of John, a baptism of repentance. And we can also look at John 1:32, where water baptism and the Spirit are linked together.


Exactly. That is what Nicodemus would have understood Jesus to be referring to--repentance and purification. One cannot be spiritual regenerated if their is no repentance, but it is the Holy Spirit that does the regenerating.

Sorry but I believe what the Bible clearly says not your interpretation.

Try reading these three verses with an open mind: “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:4-6

Nicodemus, "Israel's teacher", talks about a person being born a second time from their mother's womb. (He is an educated man.) Jesus didn't say "I'm not talking about natural birth" or anything close to that. He says that there must be two births: 1) born of water and 2) born of the Spirit. (There is no mention of baptism, a rite with which Nicodemus would be familiar). Then He says => FLESH GIVES BIRTH TO FLESH <= but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Flesh gives birth to flesh can mean one thing only: natural birth. How can you not see this???