Water baptism, can you agree with this statement?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by preachtruth1ness

AMEN!!! on that one

Good eye, I don't know how I missed that post by FERD! Your right, I think I'll amen that one!

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Encryptus View Post
Once again IF I understand what you are saying (HONESTLY not trying to difficult but your syntax is very hard to follow)

We have Cornelius (and hundreds of thousands of others) getting the Holy Ghost on credit, that they will complete the work of salvation by water baptism? And if they die before completing this work they are doomed to hell, and that they are no exceptions?

Furthermore, by your logic you have a HOLY Ghost infilling an unregenerated (blood either not applied or half applied or two thirds applied depending on the individual three stepper )man?

And if one receives the BHG before water baptism by your statement you are dragging your old man until you are baptised? (But didn't Paul contend with his old man AFTER experiencing both or was he not regenerated when he penned those words?) And by extrapolation the old man therefore goes away upon water baptism?

Originally Posted by Felicity

These are the oft heard typical type of arguments to which there are no satisfactory answers ever given.

Yep.

So I noticed Felicity so I noticed

[pelathais]

I seem to have lost some of the tags- we've been quoting and re-quoting here and I think we fried the little squirrels that keep this going. My new statements are italicized within the Quote field below. My final statements are at the bottom.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

My statements were more general in nature rather than directed at anyone in particular. I said that John 3:5 doesn't contain the "whole package" that the Water and Spirit proponents insist. It rather is a discussion on being "born from above." I stated that Jesus' statement "you must be born of the water..." referred to the natural birth that Nicodemas was talking about and then Jesus goes on to say, "...and the Spirit." This 2nd birth is what He is referring to when He says "You must be born again (or born from above)."

Not really a part of our differences, I assume that we both agree that the Mighty God was in Christ (Matthew 1:23; John 14:10-20; 1 Timothy 3:16).

You can go with both because you approach the text with an a priori assumption: that being: to be "born again" means something with a precise NT theological definition. Nicodemas didn't have your a priori assumption. As evidence of this fact: when Jesus said "born again" Nicodemas asked "how can I climb into my mother's womb and be born again...?"

You and Nicodemas have 2 entirely different reactions to the statement made by Jesus. It is unfair for you to try and force your beliefs into the belief system of a 1st Century Pharisee. When you do this you run the risk of misunderstanding what the original writers of the Bible intended.

John very clearly intends for us to understand that Nicodemas was confused by the phrase "born again..." To try and say otherwise you really need to start crossing out verses - and I would advise against that. Instead, just accept the message that John wants to give. We can then try and discern later if John was a credible witness. But for the time being, let John tell the story.

But you just said: "We can go with both for to be born from above would mean that one would need to be born again. A new spiritual birth as opposed to the old natural birth."

But now, we are in agreement? Nicodemas misunderstood Jesus? That is key to understanding they way in which Jesus responds.

hmm... but we just agreed that Nicodemas misunderstood Jesus. I think where we differ is in the way in which we read the Bible. I tend to read the narrative portions as if the writer were telling me a story or relating events that had happened long ago. I place complete dependence for my understanding of the events upon what the writer is telling me.

You seem to approach the Scriptures with an a priory assumption. You then change those assumption each time Saint Jerome inserts a new verse number. New verse- new interpretation method.

In John 3:3, you said it could go either way.
In John 3:4, you said Nicodemas misunderstands Jesus, but that's not important to the story because you understood Jesus.
In John 3:5 you appear to be saying that the words of Jesus are not even directed to anything that Nicodemas has said.

To get this interpretation you really have to remove Nicodemas and everything he has said so far from the story. For reasons of his own, John choses to include Nicodemas as a character having a dialog with Jesus. Because the writer of the Gospel has chosen to do this, we must respect that choice and interpret the Gospel accordingly. We can later visit the question of whether or not John was correct in the way he reported. But for now, to be fair to the Holy Scriptures, we must read them in the context that the writers have provided.

In both the passages that you quote the writer is contrasting the natural birth with the supernatural birth. By including John 1:12-13 you actually make my case a slam dunk.

John 3:5
Natural Birth: born of water
Spiritual Birth: born of the Spirit

John 3:6
Natural Birth: that which is born of the flesh is flesh
Spiritual Birth: that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

John 1:12-13
Natural Birth: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man
Spiritual Birth: ... but of God

To break this pattern of parallel thesis/antithesis you really do some harm to the text. This pattern of speech is absolutely vital to the Aramaic/Hebrew language that these two men were speaking.

I don't consider John 3:5 something "else." What I have said all along is that it simply doesn't make the case that the "Water and Spirit" 3 Steppers have tried to make of it. Without the a priori assumptions being read into John 3:5 and the way in which John 3:5 is so often quoted out of context no one will reasonably reach the conclusions that the PAJC folks have reached about it. Very few CoC people reach this conclusion- and they desperately want to make the same case about water baptism that we do.

The fact that you and others have thought that I'm trying to weaken the Apostolic teaching about water baptism shows to me that you are reading John 3 through the same lenses that I used for so many years. It really does weaken the case that we're trying to make for baptism. Because our opponents very clearly see that we're wrong here, they just assume that we're wrong about everything else as well.

By continuing to misuse John 3:5, the 3 Steppers are actually hurting their cause.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I seem to have lost some of the tags- we've been quoting and re-quoting here and I think we fried the little squirrels that keep this going. My new statements are italicized within the Quote field below. My final statements are at the bottom.



I don't consider John 3:5 something "else." What I have said all along is that it simply doesn't make the case that the "Water and Spirit" 3 Steppers have tried to make of it. Without the a priori assumptions being read into John 3:5 and the way in which John 3:5 is so often quoted out of context no one will reasonably reach the conclusions that the PAJC folks have reached about it. Very few CoC people reach this conclusion- and they desperately want to make the same case about water baptism that we do.

The fact that you and others have thought that I'm trying to weaken the Apostolic teaching about water baptism shows to me that you are reading John 3 through the same lenses that I used for so many years. It really does weaken the case that we're trying to make for baptism. Because our opponents very clearly see that we're wrong here, they just assume that we're wrong about everything else as well.

By continuing to misuse John 3:5, the 3 Steppers are actually hurting their cause.

*** Bump for Mizpeh ***
See post above for all my comments. Thanks and God bless.

[berkeley]

I have heard staunch PAJC'ers preach that your sins are forgiven at repentance, but remitted at baptism.
I don't know how they come to this conclusion, really. Sins are forgiven at repentance, but someone dies
before baptism, off to hell they go because their sins were not remitted, only forgiven. That's confusing.

BTW, I am primarily of the PAJC persuasion.

godspeed

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I have heard staunch PAJC'ers preach that your sins are forgiven at repentance, but remitted at baptism.
I don't know how they come to this conclusion, really. Sins are forgiven at repentance, but someone dies
before baptism, off to hell they go because their sins were not remitted, only forgiven. That's confusing.

BTW, I am primarily of the PAJC persuasion.

godspeed

So for you, no forgiveness at repentence but forgiveness and remission at water baptism?

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So for you, no forgiveness at repentence but forgiveness and remission at water baptism?

I didn't say that. LoL.

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

My statements were more general in nature rather than directed at anyone in particular. I said that John 3:5 doesn't contain the "whole package" that the Water and Spirit proponents insist. It rather is a discussion on being "born from above." I stated that Jesus' statement "you must be born of the water..." referred to the natural birth that Nicodemas was talking about and then Jesus goes on to say, "...and the Spirit." This 2nd birth is what He is referring to when He says "You must be born again (or born from above)."

I understood what you meant but I believe the 'must be born of the water and of the Spirit' is an elaboration on what Jesus said previously 'must be born again' and not 'water' is natural birth and 'spirit' is a spiritual birth from above. But that both water and spirit are involved in this birth from above. IOW to be born again is to be born from above by water and spirit. Water is water baptism and is a work of the Spirit. Spirit is Spirit baptism is is another work of the Spirit. Both constitute the new birth and both are operations of the Spirit. Rom 2:28-29 (NASB), Col 2:11-12, Acts 2:28, Titus 3:5, 1Cor 12:13 The Spirit remits sin by the blood of Christ in water baptism, a spiritual circumcison made without hands, and the Spirit of God fills all who are part of his body.

You can go with both because you approach the text with an a priori assumption: that being: to be "born again" means something with a precise NT theological definition. Nicodemas didn't have your a priori assumption. As evidence of this fact: when Jesus said "born again" Nicodemas asked "how can I climb into my mother's womb and be born again...?"

Nicodemus didn't have my priori assumption because he didn't know the rest of the story. He didn't know what the apostles were going to teach in Acts 2. Nicodemus took Jesus literally to be born again by the only method he knew of, a natural birth. We can look with hind sight at what Jesus said and know what he was talking about.

You and Nicodemas have 2 entirely different reactions to the statement made by Jesus. It is unfair for you to try and force your beliefs into the belief system of a 1st Century Pharisee. When you do this you run the risk of misunderstanding what the original writers of the Bible intended.

I'm not trying to force anything. I'm explaining to you why I believe Nicodemus asked the question he asked. We might have responded the exact same way if we lived at that time and Jesus told us we needed to be born again to be saved. It was a logical question for Nicodemus to ask.

John very clearly intends for us to understand that Nicodemas was confused by the phrase "born again..." To try and say otherwise you really need to start crossing out verses - and I would advise against that. Instead, just accept the message that John wants to give. We can then try and discern later if John was a credible witness. But for the time being, let John tell the story.

I agree Nicodemus was confused by the phrase 'born again' and I'm not stating otherwise. He had no clue what Jesus meant.

But you just said: "We can go with both for to be born from above would mean that one would need to be born again. A new spiritual birth as opposed to the old natural birth."

What I mean is to be born from above is the same as being born again. It is a spiritual birth. We were born once naturally of the flesh, but, now we are born AGAIN only spiritually of the Spirit which includes water and spirit as opposed to naturally of the flesh.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The reason I included this verse is because it teaches us that our birth as sons of God is not of the flesh.....meaning it is not a NATURAL birth. Jesus is talking about this birth in John 3 as being born from above or born again. To be born from above would have NOTHING to do with our natural birth. So when Jesus answered Nicodemus's question about having a second natural birth with " 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He is elaborating on his first comment by expanding on what is meant by being born again which is a rebirth of water and Spirit. There is nothing of the flesh involved in this new birth. It is strictly a Spiritually performed or this birth is of God entirely.

You seem to approach the Scriptures with an a priory assumption. You then change those assumption each time Saint Jerome inserts a new verse number. New verse- new interpretation method.

In John 3:3, you said it could go either way.
In John 3:4, you said Nicodemas misunderstands Jesus, but that's not important to the story because you understood Jesus.
In John 3:5 you appear to be saying that the words of Jesus are not even directed to anything that Nicodemas has said.

Could you please tell me what you think my 'priori assumption' is ?
You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying the birth from above is strictly of the Spirit. It has nothing to do with the natural birth we have all had. It has nothing to do with man nor with flesh. John 1:13. But it is a new birth in which the Spirit is performing the birthing process to make us his sons. All three of your comments about what I appear to be doing in my interpretation of John 3:3-5 are incorrect. I hope I have explained myself better.

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

To get this interpretation you really have to remove Nicodemas and everything he has said so far from the story. For reasons of his own, John choses to include Nicodemas as a character having a dialog with Jesus. Because the writer of the Gospel has chosen to do this, we must respect that choice and interpret the Gospel accordingly. We can later visit the question of whether or not John was correct in the way he reported. But for now, to be fair to the Holy Scriptures, we must read them in the context that the writers have provided.

I am reading them in context and I'm trying to explain what Jesus is saying in context. How am I removing Nicodemus from this story? He asked a logical question of Jesus when he was told he must be born again. And Jesus gave him an answer which made sense as I explained in the quote above. Jesus didn't say being born of the flesh is the same as being born of the water. It would be redundantly obvious if Jesus is saying all must be born of water (the flesh) since it is evident all men are born that way. The new birth is from above and has nothing to do with the flesh. The new birth does involve water and the Spirit.

John 3:5-6 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.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

What is Jesus saying in verse 5 and 6, Pelathais?

I will write it the way I think you want it to be read. " Except a man be born of a natural human birth and also of a Spirit birth, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the natural is natural and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. And as a man must have a natural birth so must a man have a Spirit birth. To be born from above you must have had a natural birth and you must have a Spirit birth"

In both the passages that you quote the writer is contrasting the natural birth with the supernatural birth. By including John 1:12-13 you actually make my case a slam dunk.

This must be a male thing.

John 3:5
Natural Birth: born of water
Spiritual Birth: born of the Spirit

John 3:6
Natural Birth: that which is born of the flesh is flesh
Spiritual Birth: that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

John 1:12-13
Natural Birth: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man
Spiritual Birth: ... but of God

To break this pattern of parallel thesis/antithesis you really do some harm to the text. This pattern of speech is absolutely vital to the Aramaic/Hebrew language that these two men were speaking.

Nicely worded, but I disagree. I believe in these passages Jesus is saying that the birth of water and the Spirit, the birth from above, has absolutely nothing to do with the natural birth. I'm not seeing a parallelism here at all. Jesus is refuting Nicodemus' question of a natural birth being involved in this new birth by saying that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. Meaning being born again is expanded or explained further by saying of water and Spirit. Flesh and water in these verses have nothing to do with each other. Water has to do with the birth from above. And the birth from above or from God or from heaven or from the Spirit is NOT of the flesh, or man, or natural.

I don't consider John 3:5 something "else." What I have said all along is that it simply doesn't make the case that the "Water and Spirit" 3 Steppers have tried to make of it. Without the a priori assumptions being read into John 3:5 and the way in which John 3:5 is so often quoted out of context no one will reasonably reach the conclusions that the PAJC folks have reached about it. Very few CoC people reach this conclusion- and they desperately want to make the same case about water baptism that we do.

I can see your point of view but I find it suspect that Jesus would say a man must be born of the flesh and the Spirit to enter the kingdom and that being born of the flesh is the what is meant by born of water. CoC people do a wonderful job of proving the necessity of water baptism in Jesus name, more so than some Oneness.

The fact that you and others have thought that I'm trying to weaken the Apostolic teaching about water baptism shows to me that you are reading John 3 through the same lenses that I used for so many years. It really does weaken the case that we're trying to make for baptism. Because our opponents very clearly see that we're wrong here, they just assume that we're wrong about everything else as well.

Our opponents don't believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, of course, they will 'see that we're wrong here'. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again to see the kingdom, then to further explain Jesus rephrased his answer by expanding it to explain born again means of water and of the Spirit and not of the flesh. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one unless God shows me otherwise.

By continuing to misuse John 3:5, the 3 Steppers are actually hurting their cause

Are you saying my interpretation of this passage is totally implausible? Because I understand water baptism to be a process where something is happening to us and that something is a work of the Spirit even the remission of our sins, I have no difficulty seeing it as part of the new birth. Our regeneration or new birth includes a washing and a renewing of the Holy Spirit. There are other verses I could include here as well but this post is long enough already. You may want to take John 3 in context all alone but it has to harmonize with the rest of the scriptures as well. I think it harmonizes well with the rest of the Bible if we say the new birth consists of the doctrine of baptisms. Heb 6:1-2

What's the link to your blog?

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

You make it sound like the OP's interpretation of John 3:3-6 is strange and unheard of and a complete twisting of the word of God, as if OP's came up with this all by themselves, but this understanding has been around for years. It can even be found in the writings of the early church fathers. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxi.html