Baptism, born again, dedication etc

[Nelka]

I found myself talking with two non-denominational Protestants the other day about Baptism. Protestant 1 believes that water baptism isn’t necessary and Protestant 2 believes to dedicate the child and then they can choose baptism when they are older.

I explained what Jesus said… John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Protestant 1 immediately ignored it and brought up Ezekiel 36:25-26 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.

Whereas Protestant 2 said the water part was natural birth.

Where do I go from here it is bound to come up again?

Thanks.

 

[SummitJim]

Good luck. With Lutherans, Presbyterians, even Baptists, I can get where they are coming from because their positipons are well known. “Non-denominational” Christians drive me up the wall because you never know. Many so-called non-denominationals are in fact often associated with a particular church, Church of God being common I think. But to me, non-denominational means they can’t find any church with which they can agree so they would rather figure it out for themselves. Or make it up then try to find justification for their view. Their only source of authority is other lost souls trying to figure it out. It baffles me why one would not want to study the thinking of a church that has been looking into these issues for, say, 2,000 years. Now where do we find a church like that?

Sorry I’m not very helpful. I’m just amazed at the ideas some people come up with.

 

[Todd977]

Whereas Protestant 2 said the water part was natural birth.

I might ask your friend if there is any Biblical basis for thinking that “born of water” refers to natural childbirth. In the Bible, I think, the usual phrase for natural childbirth is “born of (a) woman.” (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Galatians 4:4)

If natural childbirth were meant, it would make much more sense, Biblically-speaking, for Jesus to say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of (a) woman and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

 

[Todd977]

The only water associated with childbirth that I find mentioned in the Bible is the water used to wash and cleanse a baby after he has already been born. Ezekiel 16:4.

On the other hand, water is mentioned again a few verses later, in John 3:23, where it is definitely associated with baptism:
John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.

 

[jlhargus]

I found myself talking with two non-denominational Protestants the other day about Baptism. Protestant 1 believes that water baptism isn’t necessary and Protestant 2 believes to dedicate the child and then they can choose baptism when they are older.

I explained what Jesus said… John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Protestant 1 immediately ignored it and brought up Ezekiel 36:25-26 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.

Whereas Protestant 2 said the water part was natural birth.

Where do I go from here it is bound to come up again?

Thanks.

No time now will try in next couple days answer. Praying for you and your Protestant friends.

 

[Mammoths]

The DRA version puts the word “again” before “water”. Implying being born again is both of water and the spirit which seems to clearest support the idea that a person is reborn in baptism. All other translations exclude the word “again” befor “water” which seems to suggest “water” is in contrast with “again”. Here it is in the ESV:

“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?” 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

This should be a simple matter of checking the work of the translators. Anyone read New Testament Greek? But it’s actually not, because even if you accept the ESV, there is a lot of talk of iconic History in this passage–bronze serpent etc. it’s not absurd to think Jesus was alluding to baptism. It’s also not absurd to think he was talking of natural birth. Even if “born of water” is used as a euphemism for natural birth only in that case, it’s not as if the new testement is an exhaustive case of the literary components of ancient judean communication. Anatomically it is easy to see how may have been a creative use or a popular euphemism for natural birth. If so that would imply people who die in the womb are beyond God’s saving grace. I personally find that unsatisfactory. Ask your buddy if that’s ok with him.

In this case, one might cross reference with other scriptures on baptism. Here is a start. I have used the KJV because it is the most universally accepted by protestants in some places therefore good for your credibility with your opponent. If you were arguing their side how would you do it and what would be your toughest evidence to reconcile?

Romans 6:4King James Version (KJV)

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-13King James Version (KJV)

11 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:

12 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.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

1 Peter 3:21 (KJV)
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:

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Baptism&qs_version=KJV

Edit: didn’t see you were in England. Perhaps the king James isn’t your most persuasive translation in English culture?

 

[Mammoths]

Good luck. With Lutherans, Presbyterians, even Baptists, I can get where they are coming from because their positipons are well known. “Non-denominational” Christians drive me up the wall because you never know. Many so-called non-denominationals are in fact often associated with a particular church, Church of God being common I think. But to me, non-denominational means they can’t find any church with which they can agree so they would rather figure it out for themselves. Or make it up then try to find justification for their view. Their only source of authority is other lost souls trying to figure it out. It baffles me why one would not want to study the thinking of a church that has been looking into these issues for, say, 2,000 years. Now where do we find a church like that?

Sorry I’m not very helpful. I’m just amazed at the ideas some people come up with.

Quite often nondenominational means the opposite. They are tired of the fighting and petty differences between denominations and just want fellowship with all believers. In a way, you might say they are looking for a universal church. Do you know a universal church?

 

[InOmnemTerram]

Protestant 1 immediately ignored it and brought up Ezekiel 36:25-26 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.

Frankly, that sounds an awful lot like a prophecy of regenerative, “yes-it-really-makes-you-born-again” Baptism to me.

But there’s the rub. The Bible needs to be interpreted. There is no passage in the Bible that says, “One day, an idiotic, so-called ‘Magisterium’ will come along and claim that Baptism regenerates souls. Ignore them. Baptism is just a symbol.”

One must read the Bible through one’s tradition in order to see such things in it.

And all of this really boils down to the authority one places on one’s traditions.