the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

I have not seen one person of any denomination state in this thread that someone who doesn't have faith (regardless of baptism) which allows us to believe in Jesus will be saved. Have you? If so, point it out to me, please.

Everytime you say a baby is saved by baptism you are saying a person is saved apart from faith. Your faith is not the babies faith. You cannot impart your faith on the baby and make them saved via water baptism.
MC outright says people are saved by baptismal regeneration...no faith needed.

 

[Lamb]

First, I won't respond to a tome of false claims.
Josiah, I provide more Bible text than anyone in this forum, so you outright lie about me. Why do you choose to lie.
Secoond, I quote the verse as well as the passage in which the verse lies.
In your post, you start out lying and then you misquote. From that moment I consider what you posted illegitimate and worthless as a post. Either speak honestly or stay silent.

You should really reconsider how your tone is. Members here are not lying to you so please stop with the accusations.

 

[Lamb]

Everytime you say a baby is saved by baptism you are saying a person is saved apart from faith. Your faith is not the babies faith. You cannot impart your faith on the baby and make them saved via water baptism.
MC outright says people are saved by baptismal regeneration...no faith needed.

Every time I say a baby is saved through baptism I'm saying GOD is saving that baby by bringing him to faith in Christ. We are passive in our baptisms because it comes from above. It is God's work and it's a connection to the cross.

 

[MennoSota]

What if (and this is what those who believe in infant baptism hold to as being true) GOD is at work in baptism (which includes water)? The original language says "be baptized" which means that it's not a work we do but something is being done to us and we're passive. Could you consider God doing something in baptism?

What if God is a flying spaghetti monster?
Any person can create a what if scenario. The problem is in supporting the legitimacy via God's word.
Infant baptism has zero support in God's word, despite the atrocious proof texting being tossed around by proponents of infant baptism.
Water baptism is merely a physical expression humans provide to other humans to say that God has already immersed them in Christ. We have gone over the texts addressing baptism to clearly show that water is not present in the Spirit's baptism (immersion) of us into Christ.
There is no mystical union in water baptism.

 

[Albion]

Let me be crystal clear: Water baptism does NOTHING to save a person. Let that sink deeply into your cranium.

Don't flatter yourself. I've met Baptists before, so all the footstomping and table pounding you engage in doesn't tell me anything new.

 

[MennoSota]

Indeed. Would it not be more cruel to withhold God's saving grace given in Baptism from a child on the assumption that Baptism is a work we do, rather than the means by which God brings us into His family ( a.k.a. the Church)?

It would be even more cruel to baptize infants, tell them they are redeemed and then have them spend eternity in hell because of the lie we told them when they were children.
You are no more capable of withholding God from expressing his grace upon a person than you are capable of stopping a diesel train from moving on a train track. It is arrogant of you to imagine you have such power over God's will. Sheer arrogance!

 

[MennoSota]

If you consider God doing the work in baptism and giving us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and that this gift is for us and our children, would you also then think that God gives faith in baptism?

Mark 16:16 says Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Believing and baptism go hand in hand. Just like baptizing and teaching that Jesus states in the Matthew verse when he tells the disciples to baptize all nations (which infants are a part of).

If you think about God doing the work in baptism and how He gives faith in it, then you will see that it comes "from above" as the text states.

You realize the earliest manuscripts don't have verse 16, don't you?
However, leaving the verse as is, where is the word "water" found in the verse? Please show us. Must baptism always be water baptism?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If getting wet is a requirement for baptism, and baptism is a requirement for salvation, and salvation is a requirement for entering heaven, you have just effectively barred a whole lot of ppl down thru the ages from ever being saved and entering heaven with that teaching, MoreCoffer.
Thats very dangerous teaching, are you sure you want to hold to it?

What's you've done is string together a series of propositions and arrived at a wrong conclusion. The holy scriptures do in fact say that baptism saves. And Jesus did say "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Neither statement teaches that without baptism it is impossible to be saved. Moses is saved and he was not baptised. If you want to use logic then use it properly.

Baptism does in fact save because it is being born of water and the Spirit. Jesus saves because he is God incarnate and gave his life a ransom for many.

 

[MennoSota]

There are NONE who make it a REQUIREMENT for salvation.....

In fact, I've pointed out repeatedly that John the Baptist believed before he was ever born...... God can give faith where He wills. But that doesn't mean that THEREFORE Christians cannot love people and be obedient to the Commands of God and must sit back and do NOTHING for the unsaved - trusting that God will use our lack of anything in order to bring salvation to those we know.

The command to baptize is given to CHRISTIANS, not to dead, unregenerate pagans.... we are the ones who are to be going and baptizing and teaching, we are the missionaries, the evangelists. Nowhere does Scripture command the DEAD, the unregenerate, the atheist, the unbeliever to baptize himself or teach himself or go to himself. There is no command, no teaching, and no example of any unbelieving, dead, heathen teaching or baptizing themselves. OTHERS go to them..... OTHERS baptize them...... OTHERS teach them....... The Great Commission is given to Christians, not dead pagans. Now, you can believe God gave this bold command to Christians for no reason, it's all a waste of time, it does nothing, it can't accomplish anything, God can't and won't use any of it.... it's all supremely bad stewardship of ministry... that pov can be argued, on that we'd disagree.



See post 724




- Josiah




.

Is John the Baptist the norm? Do you think that John was born for a very special purpose, which he tells us in John 1?
You are speculating and forcing silence as your reasoning. That's a poor argument on your part, Josiah.

 

[MennoSota]

You should really reconsider how your tone is. Members here are not lying to you so please stop with the accusations.

Yes. Read Josiah's first paragraph. It is a lie. I am stating a known fact.

 

[MennoSota]

What's you've done is string together a series of propositions and arrives at a wrong conclusion. The holy scriptures do in fact say that baptism saves. And Jesus did say "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Neither statement teaches that without baptism it is impossible to be saved. Moses is saved and he was not baptised. If you want to use logic then use it properly.

Baptism does in fact save because it is being born of water and the Spirit. Jesus saves because he is God incarnate and gave his life a ransom for many.

Your hermaneutical skills are atrocious, MC. You have no clue what Jesus is saying to Nicodemus. Let me assure you, Jesus is not referring to water baptism. He's not. You can make the assertion ad naseum, but you are 100% wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... Jesus is not referring to water baptism. ...

Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; [John 3:5]

John 3:5 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit;

Cambridge Commentary on the Bible

John 3:5

of water and of the Spirit] Christ leaves the foolish question of Nicodemus to answer itself: He goes on to explain what is the real point, and what Nicodemus has not asked, the meaning of from above: of water and (of the) Spirit. The outward sign and inward grace of Christian baptism are here clearly given, and an unbiassed mind can scarcely avoid seeing this plain fact. This becomes still more clear when we compare Joh 1:26; Joh 1:33, where the Baptist declares I baptize with water; the Messiah baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. The Fathers, both Greek and Latin, thus interpret the passage with singular unanimity. Thus once more S. John assumes without stating the primary elements of Christianity. Baptism is assumed here as well known to his reader, as the Eucharist is assumed in chap. 6. To a well-instructed Christian there was no need to explain what was meant by being born of water and the Spirit. The words therefore had a threefold meaning, past, present, and future. In the past they looked back to the time when the Spirit moved upon the water causing the birth from above of Order and Beauty out of Chaos. In the present they pointed to the divinely ordained (Joh 1:33) baptism of John: and through it in the future to that higher rite, to which John himself bore testimony.​

 

[user1234]

What's you've done is string together a series of propositions and arrives at a wrong conclusion. The holy scriptures do in fact say that baptism saves. And Jesus did say "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Neither statement teaches that without baptism it is impossible to be saved. Moses is saved and he was not baptised. If you want to use logic then use it properly.

Baptism does in fact save because it is being born of water and the Spirit. Jesus saves because he is God incarnate and gave his life a ransom for many.

Wrong again.
What I did was come to the only logical conclusion possible if one goes by the false teaching of the RomanCatholic denomination, or at least, your presentation of it on this chatforum.

YOU insist on the Roman version of what Jesus and other New Testament writers say.
YOU claim that Jesus is saying we MUST be baptised in water in order to be saved.
YOU have stated that baptism is required in order to go to heaven, and that that baptism MUST incude water-baptism. Therefore.....

YOU, by stringing together YOUR interpretations of either the bible or the Roman denomination, have effectively barred ppl who were never baptised in water from salvation and entering heaven when they die.

That is classic RomanCatholic works righteousness/false teaching, and some of us here have been trying to get you to understand that we are saved by grace thru faith alone, apart from ANYthing, including water-baptism.

It would be so much greater for everyond on this site to be on the same page and be saved and worship and praise the Lord together, pray for and with each other, and seek how we could use this site as a blessed opportunity to help others get saved and grow in the Lord,
but there are still so many ppl who cant even do what Imalive pointed out so well a few pages back when she said we should be well past the rudimentary basic things like 'baptisms' (plural) etc., for example. There are at least 4 different versions of baptism going on here, and showing an onlooker (hi, guests) this thread would probably leave them scratching their head and having no idea how to get saved or what baptism is and what its for.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; [John 3:5]

John 3:5 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit;

Cambridge Commentary on the Bible

John 3:5

of water and of the Spirit] Christ leaves the foolish question of Nicodemus to answer itself: He goes on to explain what is the real point, and what Nicodemus has not asked, the meaning of from above: of water and (of the) Spirit. The outward sign and inward grace of Christian baptism are here clearly given, and an unbiassed mind can scarcely avoid seeing this plain fact. This becomes still more clear when we compare Joh 1:26; Joh 1:33, where the Baptist declares I baptize with water; the Messiah baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. The Fathers, both Greek and Latin, thus interpret the passage with singular unanimity. Thus once more S. John assumes without stating the primary elements of Christianity. Baptism is assumed here as well known to his reader, as the Eucharist is assumed in chap. 6. To a well-instructed Christian there was no need to explain what was meant by being born of water and the Spirit. The words therefore had a threefold meaning, past, present, and future. In the past they looked back to the time when the Spirit moved upon the water causing the birth from above of Order and Beauty out of Chaos. In the present they pointed to the divinely ordained (Joh 1:33) baptism of John: and through it in the future to that higher rite, to which John himself bore testimony.​

Your commentary makes the same erroneous mistake as you do. Stop reading bad commentaries and let the text speak.
"Born of water and the Spirit" has nothing to do with baptism at all. Nowhere in the text or context with Nicodemus is there ever a mention of baptism. You cannot find it. Instead, you have to force the theory upon the text, which is exactly what your commentary and you are doing. Bad exegesis, whether ancient or modern, is still bad exegesis.
MC, you are trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat where no rabbit resides.

 

[Josiah]

The scriptures say what they say for a reason. Make disciples is not irrelevant. You and I are the ambassadors (missionaries) to a rebel land.

Thus I disagree that God's Command to go and baptize and teach is "meaningless" "a waste of time" "of no spiritual value" "can accomplish nothing in God's hands" as has been stated in this thread. And thus I also disagree that doing as God COMMANDS Christians to do - to love, to go, to baptize, to teach, etc. - deny God's grace or soverignty or denies that Jesus is the Savior.

God must choose to pluck a person from their rebel territory and place them in the Kingdom of God. He immerses them into the Kingdom. That person cannot and never could join God's Kingdom by their own free will.

Thus I disagree that we must do NOTHING for that would deny the Grace of God and Jesus as the Savior.

And I find that Scripture indicates that God does this "plucking" typically via means (what Luther and Calvin called "The Means of Grace"). He is not forbidden to work outside that, God MAY deliver his salvic gift immediately (as in the case of John the Baptist before he was even born) but that seems to be atypical. Scripture declares, "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" and "My Word shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." Paul was called to preach the Gospel to unbelievers, not to say home and do NOTHING for that would deny the grace of God and sovernignty of God and suggest that preaching saves.

There have been billions of people over the past two thousand years who have engaged in a ceremony of water baptism and are spending eternity in hell.

I wonder how you so dogmatically KNOW that? Is there a Scripture that states that? I do think of the one that says, "baptism now saves you" but I suspect you have a certain spin on that... but I can't think of a verse that says "billions who have been baptized are spending eternity in hell." But yes, I SUSPECT it's POSSIBLE that many (although not billions) who have been to a Billy Graham Crusade are now in hell..... does that mean the Word cannot be used by God for His purposes? That Billy Graham was causing God's grace to be denied and denouncing God's sovernigty. Or maybe Judas is in hell.... does that make Jesus' ministry to him invalid?

Why? Because their water baptism didn't save them. They had never been immersed in Christ through adoption by the Holy Spirit. Anyone can say a few word, be sprinkled or dunked in water and NEVER be saved.

No one on the planet Earth has ever said that administering Baptism PER SE saves. Any more than any one on the planet Earth said that teaching the Gospel PER SE saves. But I disagree that the Bible states, "Go... baptize.... teach.... but this is a complete waste of time, of no value and CANNOT be used by God and denies the grace and soverignty of God but you are commanded to do it anyway." Yes, we have verses like "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" (and many similar) but NONE that say what you are - that going.... baptizing....teaching does nothing, is a waste of time, cannot be used by God, denies God's grace."

Let me be crystal clear: Water baptism does NOTHING to save a person. Let that sink deeply into your cranium.

Oh, believe me, it has sunk into everyone's cranium, lol. It's just you offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support your position. Just echoing the Anabaptist spin......

NO ONE EVER HAS SAID that applying water - per se - saves. Jesus saves. How many times must this be said (we're on what... page 74?) before that sinks in, my esteemed and respected friend?

You've offered NOTHING that indicates that going... baptizing.... teaching or ANY command of God is "a waste of time, meaningless, unusable to God, a denial of God's grace and soverignty, a denial of Jesus as Savior. Nothing to indicate that we are commanded to NOT baptize and teach with water and the Word but rather to immerse them under the Holy Spirit, that we can't do anything until they reach the age of X and first document that they are already born again, regenerated, saved and believing, that doing as Christ commands indicates that we don't believe Jesus saves. And friend, there is NOTHING to support your idea of two baptisms, the Bible specifically and verbatim says "there is one baptism."




- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

I just had a teaching about it in church. Water and blood: fruit water (how do you call that in English, the water from natural birth) and the Spirit.



John 3:5-8 (v. 5) “ ... unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. He is speaking in relation to the Pharisee’s teaching- to be born of water meant to be born physically. This is proven by Nicodemus’ remark to Jesus asking if someone can go back into the womb while he is old. Nicodemus thought to be born again meant a physical birth (v.4). In verse 5, Jesus proceeds to say, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, believed like the other Jews that because he was born a Jew, he would automatically enter into the kingdom of God. However, Jesus explains that this is not enough. In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth). “that which is flesh is flesh” Jesus says of being born of water is to be born of the flesh and then explains the difference to Nicodemus of already having a physical birth that comes first, and the need of a second birth ‘from the Spirit above ‘to enter the kingdom. He is contrasted the natural (flesh) to the spiritual.
Again: “came” is in the Greek tense, referring to the actual event. Heb 10:5: Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
John’s letter is refuting the Gnostics who did not believe Jesus came in the flesh and is the best interpretation for this passage as it is consistent with what John elsewhere writes.
1 John 1:1-3; “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us”

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp49.htm



What did John mean by “This is He who came by water and blood…”

I John 5:5-21: 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is He who came by water and blood-- Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.


Jesus didn't come by baptism.

 

[Imalive]

Thus I disagree that God's Command to go and baptize and teach is "meaningless" "a waste of time" "of no spiritual value" "can accomplish nothing in God's hands" as has been stated in this thread. And thus I also disagree that doing as God COMMANDS Christians to do - to love, to go, to baptize, to teach, etc. - deny God's grace or soverignty or denies that Jesus is the Savior.





Thus I disagree that we must do NOTHING for that would deny the Grace of God and Jesus as the Savior.

And I find that Scripture indicates that God does this "plucking" typically via means (what Luther and Calvin called "The Means of Grace"). He is not forbidden to work outside that, God MAY deliver his salvic gift immediately (as in the case of John the Baptist before he was even born) but that seems to be atypical. Scripture declares, "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" and "My Word shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." Paul was called to preach the Gospel to unbelievers, not to say home and do NOTHING for that would deny the grace of God and sovernignty of God and suggest that preaching saves.






I wonder how you so dogmatically KNOW that? Is there a Scripture that states that? I do think of the one that says, "baptism now saves you" but I suspect you have a certain spin on that... but I can't think of a verse that says "billions who have been baptized are spending eternity in hell." But yes, I SUSPECT it's POSSIBLE that many (although not billions) who have been to a Billy Graham Crusade are now in hell..... does that mean the Word cannot be used by God for His purposes? That Billy Graham was causing God's grace to be denied and denouncing God's sovernigty. Or maybe Judas is in hell.... does that make Jesus' ministry to him invalid?






No one on the planet Earth has ever said that administering Baptism PER SE saves. Any more than any one on the planet Earth said that teaching the Gospel PER SE saves. But I disagree that the Bible states, "Go... baptize.... teach.... but this is a complete waste of time, of no value and CANNOT be used by God and denies the grace and soverignty of God but you are commanded to do it anyway." Yes, we have verses like "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" (and many similar) but NONE that say what you are - that going.... baptizing....teaching does nothing, is a waste of time, cannot be used by God, denies God's grace."






Oh, believe me, it has sunk into everyone's cranium, lol. It's just you offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support your position. Just echoing the Anabaptist spin......

NO ONE EVER HAS SAID that applying water - per se - saves. Jesus saves. How many times must this be said (we're on what... page 74?) before that sinks in, my esteemed and respected friend?

You've offered NOTHING that indicates that going... baptizing.... teaching or ANY command of God is "a waste of time, meaningless, unusable to God, a denial of God's grace and soverignty, a denial of Jesus as Savior. Nothing to indicate that we are commanded to NOT baptize and teach with water and the Word but rather to immerse them under the Holy Spirit, that we can't do anything until they reach the age of X and first document that they are already born again, regenerated, saved and believing, that doing as Christ commands indicates that we don't believe Jesus saves. And friend, there is NOTHING to support your idea of two baptisms, the Bible specifically and verbatim says "there is one baptism."




- Josiah

Noone says? No I notice that all of you dont say that, but you do say that the text means you must be born from baptism water and Spirit. So if water there means baptism water then anyone who is not baptized in water cant enter the Kingdom. Thats what Jesus says then to Nicodemus. So it must mean something else cause ppl get saved w out water, which you all also say.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Noone says? No I notice that all of you dont say that, but you do say that the text means you must be born from baptism water and Spirit. So if water there means baptism water then anyone who is not baptized in water cant enter the Kingdom. Thats what Jesus says then to Nicodemus. So it must mean something else cause ppl get saved w out water, which you all also say.

"water and the Spirit" means baptism. Water alone is not baptism.

 

[Imalive]

"water and the Spirit" means baptism. Water alone is not baptism.

And in the text that Jesus came from water and Spirit, what is water there? Or what He says to the woman at the well.

John 4:13-14 (NASB) 13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]


Friend....

you do say that the text means you must be born from baptism water and Spirit

Friend, it would help if you quoted me. I don't know what I posted that you are replying to. Thanks.

So if water there means baptism water then anyone who is not baptized in water cant enter the Kingdom

Sorry, you totally lost me.


The Bible specifically, verbatim states "there is one baptism." So there aren't two. At least since Pentecost, there is no such thing as "water" vs. "spirit" baptism because the Bible specifically states "there is one baptism."


I think we need to be careful turning positives into negatives (turning them upside down), and careful not to read absolutes into statements. Yes, Scripture says "Faith comes by hearing" but it does not say "Hearing results in faith" (Understand? See why verses can't be turned upside down?). The Bible says, "He who believes and is baptized (remember "and" IN NO WAY implies order!) shall be saved (but keep reading lest you insert an absolute) he who does not believe is condemned." Thus faith and baptism are associated but clearly only faith saves. As I've tried to convey before (in posts ignored, lol) justification (IMO and in classic Protestantism) is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. ALONE!!! But that doesn't mean God can only work in the vacuum of people sitting on their behinds doing NOTHING, that God CAN ONLY give faith is no one loves, no one goes, no one baptizes, no one teaches, no one does anything toward/for the unbeliever. Follow me? A carpenter can use a hammer to build a house, but the hammer didn't build the house, the carpenter did. Follow me?


Let's turn to the other (equal and inseparable) side of the Great Commission, teaching. There are 3 things we CHRISTIANS are COMMANDED to do toward the unbeliever: go, baptize and teach. Inseperable. Let's focus on the third: teach. Can a person believe who hasn't been taught? Yes, consider John the Baptist in his mother's womb. Does that mean we are forbidden to teach unbelievers? That teaching has no value, is meaningless, denies the grace of God and that Jesus alone saves? I don't think so. Or consider that MANY that Jesus taught and that Paul taught and that Billy Graham taught (a pretty good percentage!) seems (WE cannot know!) never believed. Does that mean Jesus and Paul and Billy Graham did wrong, that they shouldn't have preached and taught, that they were denying God's grace and Jesus' salvic work of redemption? I don't think so. Now there is a verse that specificly states, "Faith comes by hearing" but again it doesn't say "hearing results in faith." Get the difference?


Several of us have TRIED (over and over - what are we on page 76 of this now???) TRIED to explain this but never seem to get a reply....


This is called "The Means of Grace" in traditional, orthodox theology. MEANS God may use for His purposes. "My word shall not return to be void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." Tools in the hands of the Carpenter. Yes, a hammer can't guild a house... but a carpenter may use a hammer to do so. Do you get the difference? Using a hammer is NOT a bad thing, not forbidden, doesn't in any sense diminish that the carpenter is the builder. The hammer is not "worthless" "of no value" "a waste of time." Follow me? I've written this to you and others several times before, lol.....




I hope this helps.....


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.