What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[Walpole]

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

Say again???

"Believe what you want and cite verses that aren't a legitimate part of Scripture." - You

 

[Free]

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

Correction: you believe your interpretation over my interpretation (and without any basis for doing so).

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???

Please read what I write. In my previous post, which you quoted, I said:

'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."'

And also the important point: '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.'

Remember, the whole point of Jesus's discussion here, the context, is that of being made new spiritually so that one can enter the kingdom of God. So, when Jesus says "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," he is saying that being physically born ("born of the flesh") merely results in being in the carnal nature ("is flesh"). It is that carnal, sinful nature which needs to be born from above by the Spirit. According to your interpretation, Jesus is saying: "That which is born physically is physical" or "That which is born of a human is human," which, again, is to communicate nothing.

You're also ignoring the parallelism which clearly shows that being "born of water and the Spirit" is what Jesus means by being "born again" (or "born from above"). From that alone "born of water" cannot be referring to a separate birth from that of being born of "the Spirit."

The best conclusion then, the best understanding of the passage, is that "born of water" is referring to water baptism.

 

[jaybo]

Correction: you believe your interpretation over my interpretation (and without any basis for doing so).


Please read what I write. In my previous post, which you quoted, I said:

'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."'

And also the important point: '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.'

Remember, the whole point of Jesus's discussion here, the context, is that of being made new spiritually so that one can enter the kingdom of God. So, when Jesus says "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," he is saying that being physically born ("born of the flesh") merely results in being in the carnal nature ("is flesh"). It is that carnal, sinful nature which needs to be born from above by the Spirit. According to your interpretation, Jesus is saying: "That which is born physically is physical" or "That which is born of a human is human," which, again, is to communicate nothing.

You're also ignoring the parallelism which clearly shows that being "born of water and the Spirit" is what Jesus means by being "born again" (or "born from above"). From that alone "born of water" cannot be referring to a separate birth from that of being born of "the Spirit."

The best conclusion then, the best understanding of the passage, is that "born of water" is referring to water baptism.

The worst conclusion then, the wrong understanding of the passage, is that "born of water" is referring to water baptism.

I won't discuss this with you any further. Believe what you want; it's irrelevant. I believe what the Bible clearly says. If Jesus meant water baptism He would have said water baptism.

 

[Free]

The worst conclusion then, the wrong understanding of the passage, is that "born of water" is referring to water baptism.

I won't discuss this with you any further. Believe what you want; it's irrelevant. I believe what the Bible clearly says. If Jesus meant water baptism He would have said water baptism.

You believe your interpretation of what the Bible says, which, based on all the sources I have looked at, is not what the Bible actually says. Saying "If Jesus meant water baptism He would have said water baptism," is a massive assumption on your part, and does nothing to support your position, so best not make that argument. The context and the language simply don't support your interpretation.

 

[jaybo]

You believe your interpretation of what the Bible says, which, based on all the sources I have looked at, is not what the Bible actually says. Saying "If Jesus meant water baptism He would have said water baptism," is a massive assumption on your part, and does nothing to support your position, so best not make that argument. The context and the language simply don't support your interpretation.

Well, that's simply your opinion. I disagree with you and agree with the Bible.

 

[tdidymas]

A couple of points that I think are important.
It is stated above that the event of “made us alive together with Christ” cannot be clearly defined at what point this takes place, but this is not correct. If you will turn to the book of Colossians Paul specifically states at what point in time a person is “made alive”.
Col 2: 11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

This is all one thought and it is about water baptism (buried with him) and what it does for us. It is the circumcision made without hands. Why, because it is the point that our sins are removed. Acts 2:38, 22:16 Rom 6:17,18
It is also the point that we are “quickened” or made alive/born again (they mean the same) WITH HIM. These people were not “quickened” until AFTER baptism. So you see that Paul clearly defined the exact point in time that this being made alive with Christ” happens and it is at the point of water baptism. We know its water because just like in Rom 6 he describes it as a “burial”.
Also…..How many times were the Ephesians baptized in water? Paul is writing in Ephesians to a group that had been baptized twice because they didnt do it right the first time. Why do that if there is no efficacy to it?

One more...
Is just “believing the gospel the faith that justifies”?
The faith that justifies can be found clearly explained in Gal 3….
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Isn’t this a true statement? Of course it is, BUT he is not done, the thought continues….
Gal 3; 27-29 For (gar,means because of)as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The faith that saves or justifies is clearly defined here by Paul as the faith that is obedient in baptism. You have not “put on Christ” until AFTER baptism. This is clearly stated. It is not just some mental exercise that justifies a person. If you want your sins removed, if you want to be made alive, quickened, then one must be immersed in water in order for that to happen. You are not even an heir to the promise of Abraham without water baptism according to the clear teaching of Paul.

I disagree with your interpretation. In Gal. 3 it's spiritual baptism, the same as it is in 1 Cor. 12. Water baptism is the symbol of it.

Further, your straw man that believing the gospel is "just some mental exercise" is not biblical faith. The thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he had justifying faith.

 

[n2thelight]

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.

So you take that to mean being baptized ? If so, are you saying one NEEDS to be baptized to get to Heaven ?

 

[n2thelight]

John 3 has nothing whatsoever to do with water baptism,

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.

This is why most people simply do not know what being "born from above means", when they disregard what happened in the book of Genesis, and in that first earth age. They overlook all of Satan's attempts to destroy the womb of woman, and God's plan to send us His Son that we might have redemption. God intervened in Satan attempt, as He always will do. This is why the book of Jude is so important.


John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."​

To understand this, lets go to I Corinthians 15:50; "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."​

No soul in its flesh and blood body can enter the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of Heaven is where ever God is, and for the soul to enter that kingdom, it must first die or be changed. The soul must be separated from the flesh first before that soul returns to the Father that created it. This is the basic principle of the plan of our heavenly Father.

​

 

[n2thelight]

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.

Do you like really don't understand the below verse ?

John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven."​

Here now is the second witness to those things given, as to how you must be born from above. There is no way that you can make baptism out of this verse. It sums up the whole matter of being born from above.

No man, no one goes to heaven, but that he first was born from above. That soul must first be born of women, where the soul entered the womb at conception, and when the flesh body dies, it is returned to the father. There is not a living being on this earth, that did not come down from the Father first, and at death shall return to the Father. That is just plain common sense.​

 

[n2thelight]

Where is it you think you were before being born of woman ? Now if you think you were created at conception ,well it's nothing I can say except you wrong .

 

[n2thelight]

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?

IMO

 

[Cnkw3]

I disagree with your interpretation. In Gal. 3 it's spiritual baptism, the same as it is in 1 Cor. 12. Water baptism is the symbol of it.

Gal 3 IS NOT spirit baptism and we know this because of Rom 6. Paul told the church in Rome this…
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
”baptized into Christ”. The same thing as in Gal 3. He is now going to explain exactly what this baptism is…
6:4,5 a burial, a planting, a resurrection to newness of life. All of these things are painting the picture of an immersion under water. Its a burial, resurrection. Water baptism also washes away sins (acts 22:16)which is when we get “newness of life”. Spirit baptism looks like NONE of this so through the wisdom of God through Paul who new there would be people like you, He drew a diagram for you so you cant mess it up. The baptism “Into Christ” is 100% water baptism.

Further, your straw man that believing the gospel is "just some mental exercise" is not biblical faith. The thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he had justifying faith.

The thief lived under a different covenant then you and I. One that did not require baptism. Its was after Jesus died and was resurrected that he commanded this…
Mk 16:15,16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The thief NEVER heard this BUT YOU HAVE!

 

[jaybo]

IMO

Everyone has their opinions. You made a statement that read in part "so many understand". You didn't qualify it as your opinion. Your statement is a judgement on the Body of Christ.

 

[Free]

So you take that to mean being baptized ? If so, are you saying one NEEDS to be baptized to get to Heaven ?

I'm not saying anything about needing to be baptized for salvation. All I have been very clearly saying is that "born of water" refers to baptism and absolutely does not refer to being born physically.

No man, no one goes to heaven, but that he first was born from above. That soul must first be born of women, where the soul entered the womb at conception, and when the flesh body dies, it is returned to the father. There is not a living being on this earth, that did not come down from the Father first, and at death shall return to the Father. That is just plain common sense.

If you're suggesting that we exist prior to being physically born, that is not biblical, and for that reason has never been a Christian belief. It is a belief of Mormons, however.

 

[jaybo]

I'm not saying anything about needing to be baptized for salvation. All I have been very clearly saying is that "born of water" refers to baptism and absolutely does not refer to being born physically.


If you're suggesting that we exist prior to being physically born, that is not biblical, and for that reason has never been a Christian belief. It is a belief of Mormons, however.

Where else in the entire Bible does "born of water" appear? Answer: nowhere. But water baptism is mentioned in many other places. Don't you think you're misinterpreting this phrase when other phrases in the same section refer to the mother's womb and "that which is born of the flesh"? "Born of water" clearly is not baptism; that exists only in your mind.

 

[Free]

Where else in the entire Bible does "born of water" appear? Answer: nowhere. But water baptism is mentioned in many other places. Don't you think you're misinterpreting this phrase when other phrases in the same section refer to the mother's womb and "that which is born of the flesh"?

Why have you continuously avoided addressing the arguments I have made? So many of you just keep repeating the same old without actually addressing the finer points of the arguments I have given. You can't see the trees for the forest.

"Born of water" clearly is not baptism; that exists only in your mind.

No, it exists in every commentary I have looked at, after first coming to that conclusion.

 

[Walpole]

Do you like really don't understand the below verse ?

John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven."​

Here now is the second witness to those things given, as to how you must be born from above. There is no way that you can make baptism out of this verse. It sums up the whole matter of being born from above.

No man, no one goes to heaven, but that he first was born from above. That soul must first be born of women, where the soul entered the womb at conception, and when the flesh body dies, it is returned to the father. There is not a living being on this earth, that did not come down from the Father first, and at death shall return to the Father. That is just plain common sense.​

Again, Jesus answers how man is born AGAIN. In doing so, he explicitly says two things are required: water and the Spirit. (cf. John 3:5)

 

[jaybo]

Why have you continuously avoided addressing the arguments I have made? So many of you just keep repeating the same old without actually addressing the finer points of the arguments I have given. You can't see the trees for the forest.


No, it exists in every commentary I have looked at, after first coming to that conclusion.

Do you actually expect anyone to reply to your insults?

 

[Free]

Do you actually expect anyone to reply to your insults?

You get way too emotional in debates. There is no insult in my post. It seems you make these sorts of accusations as a way to avoid answering rebuttals to your posts. It is a fact that you have yet to respond to the finer points I have made and instead just respond with the same generalizations which I have rebutted.

 

[tdidymas]

Gal 3 IS NOT spirit baptism and we know this because of Rom 6. Paul told the church in Rome this…
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
”baptized into Christ”. The same thing as in Gal 3. He is now going to explain exactly what this baptism is…
6:4,5 a burial, a planting, a resurrection to newness of life. All of these things are painting the picture of an immersion under water. Its a burial, resurrection. Water baptism also washes away sins (acts 22:16)which is when we get “newness of life”. Spirit baptism looks like NONE of this so through the wisdom of God through Paul who new there would be people like you, He drew a diagram for you so you cant mess it up. The baptism “Into Christ” is 100% water baptism.

The thief lived under a different covenant then you and I. One that did not require baptism. Its was after Jesus died and was resurrected that he commanded this…
Mk 16:15,16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The thief NEVER heard this BUT YOU HAVE!

I disagree with your interpretation. Baptism into Christ is a spiritual event, done by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a symbol of it. Not everyone water baptized has been baptized into Christ. This is evident by the fact that Jesus said "not everyone who calls me 'Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." John concurs by saying "they went out from us to show that they were not of us." So not everyone in the church, and thus not everyone who is baptized, is actually in the kingdom of Christ. It is only those who are baptized by the Spirit into Christ, and this is Paul's meaning in Rom. 6 and Gal 3.

And your idea that the thief didn't require baptism because he was under a different covenant is hogwash. Everyone under the old covenant was commanded to be baptized. Jesus commanded them to be baptized and believe the gospel. Therefore, the only covenant that ever existed wherein people have eternal life is the covenant of GRACE which existed from the beginning of creation, as Jonah testifies "whoever worships idols forfeit the GRACE that could be theirs." Furthermore, Peter said to the jailer "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" - he did NOT say "believe and be baptized." So in this case, your idea appears to be grasping at straws.