Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[Salamander]

po18guy, I know this is an old statement, but I just couldn’t resist getting my point across to ya

This whole immersion obsession condemns all invalids and all who are not near water sufficient to cover them. I think God is slightly larger than these limited human ideas. If God assumed Enoch, Elijah and Moses into heaven directly, he can probably cleanse sins with as much effort as it takes for Him to be God.

True to form, you return to the Old Testament to fix the New. The Old is our tutor, not our Law, Christ Jesus is our Law now as He is the Truth, and the Way, and the Life. Romans 7:6

And please explain John 3:5 to me? Was Jesus speaking of “born” differently than being covered with water as a baby is before it leaves its mother? Nicodemas did not understand and neither do most…you cannot be “born” of water before being in it? Please do not tell me you would argue the point with Our Lord?

 

[tabcom]

And please explain John 3:5 to me? Was Jesus speaking of “born” differently than being covered with water as a baby is before it leaves its mother?

This point has been discussed in detail back in posts #211, 237, 246.

 

[guanophore]

This point has been discussed in detail back in posts #211, 237, 246.

In your translation, tabcom, you did not address that Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be “born again” or “born from” above by “water and the Sprit”. This water is AFTER the birth water, and is together with the Spirit “born”.

 

[Salamander]

tabcom wrote: Thank you for stating this as you did. I disagree because I believe it confuses the proselyte. By that I mean the proselyte is led to believe, falsely, that the act of being dipped in water is a switch that ‘turns on the Holy Spirit’ and now they are saved without having to do anything.

It is not a switch but a command of God! Matthew 28:19. Are you saying that Jesus, our Savior, our Redeemer, gave a command that should not be followed because someone might confuse it as a work? If so, then the proselyte is not being taught correctly.

I believe the Holy Spirit’s presents is not subjected to the outwardly movement of, or sincere desire of the participant in water baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a permanent change in the believer that precedes the believer’s desire to publicly be immersed in water.

Not possible. Too many times, individuals believe that salvation comes before obedience. Jesus said to “believe”, “repent”, “confess”, and “obey”. If this is not true, then the one you call the 1st Pope, has it wrong in Acts 2:38. He received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus said he would and opened the door for all who would believe-and with this belief comes obedience.

 

[tabcom]

In your translation, tabcom, you did not address that Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be “born again” or “born from” above by “water and the Sprit”. ** This water is AFTER the birth water, and is together with the Spirit **“born”.

reprinted from post #246

From the original Greek text of John 3:5 . . .



IMHO . . . .“born from above by (water and spirit)” is an improper translation.

The proper translation – regenerated (born) out of water (natural birth) AND pneuma (of spirit).

Can you see the difference in the two translations?

Also, these two types of birth are what Paul talks about in:

2Co 4:16 -
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man (born of water) is decaying, yet our inner man (born of spirit) is being renewed day by day.

Eph 3:16 -
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

 

[tabcom]

(dipping someone in water) is not a switch but a command of God! Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

I believe this commandment, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is not the same as the proselyte water baptism that had evolved out of Judaism.

(The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a permanent change in the believer that precedes the believer’s desire to publicly be immersed in water.)

Not possible. Too many times, individuals believe that salvation comes before obedience. Jesus said to “believe”, “repent”, “confess”, and “obey”.

I’m not sure what you are arguing here. It appears you have somehow taken my statement of what I believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and equated it with salvation. Let me clearly state, I do not believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the method of salvation.

 

[guanophore]

IMHO . . . .“born from above by (water and spirit)” is an improper translation.

I know. I am just pointing out that the church that wrote that passage, and all the Christians that were alive before, during, and after the time it was written understood it to be referring to water baptism. Otherwise, why did Jesus teach His Apostles to baptize with water?

The proper translation – regenerated (born) out of water (natural birth) AND pneuma (of spirit).

I agree with you that it means “born out of water”, but it is referring to baptismal waters. When scripture speaks of natural birth, it speaks of natural birth, different words are used, which are "blood, will of the flesh and will of man.

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:13

Those “born of God” are born of water and spirit, in baptism.

Can you see the difference in the two translations?

Certainly! You err because you are taking the passage out of it’s context, and you are not looking at in in the light of the rest of the Teachings on Baptism.

The spirit accompanies water baptism. The two are not separated.

Also, these two types of birth are what Paul talks about in:

2Co 4:16 -
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man (born of water) is decaying, yet our inner man (born of spirit) is being renewed day by day.

No, the outer man is born of “flesh”, just as Jesus tells the disciples “what is born of flesh is flesh”.

Eph 3:16 -
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

This is exactly what the Church has always taught about water baptism. The spirit enters the soul of the believer, regenerating the person, so that the believer is strengtheneed with power thorugh His Spirit in the inner man.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 28:19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

I believe this commandment, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is not the same as the proselyte water baptism that had evolved out of Judaism.

So, at what point did the Apostles and disciples stray from Jesus’ teaching? We can see in the NT and in the early writings that they believed water and spirit went together. This is very evident in the Didache, which is one of the early documents.

For the record, I agree that it DOES mean Baptism in the HS, never separated form water dipping from the time that Jesus combined the two.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for stating this as you did. I disagree because I believe it confuses the proselyte. By that I mean the proselyte is led to believe, falsely, that the act of being dipped in water is a switch that ‘turns on the Holy Spirit’ and now they are saved without having to do anything.

I believe the Holy Spirit’s presents is not subjected to the outwardly movement of, or sincere desire of the participant in water baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a permanent change in the believer that precedes the believer’s desire to publicly be immersed in water.

We are not as far apart as you might think. There is no way a Christian can live his life without a profound commitment to Christ, an affirmation of God Our Lord. The Holy Spirit makes that happen.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit DOES make a powerful change in the believer. Infant-baptizers believe that GOD is the actor, and that faith is not so much a personal affirmation as a gift from Him.

Catholic Charismatics also use the term “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Do they mean what you mean by that? They refer to an experience (that may vary in subjective degree) in which they are “hit” by a deep conversion.

More broadly, Catholics believe that every Christian, baptized or not, MUST at some point in his life – even if he is barely aware of it, if it comes on a continuum of grace that grows slowly and steadily from infancy – be able to say: Jesus Christ is Lord, and I am His. If he is already baptized, we understand that the grace he receives to make this affirmation comes as part of “sanctifying grace.” If he is not already baptized, we understand that the grace he receives to make this affirmation comes as “actual grace.”

But whatever the circumstance, Our Lord and the early Church both affirm that in the Body of Christ, save in the exigencies of Baptism of Blood or Desire, a water Baptism is necessary.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for stating this as you did. I disagree because I believe it confuses the proselyte. By that I mean the proselyte is led to believe, falsely, that the act of being dipped in water is a switch that ‘turns on the Holy Spirit’ and now they are saved without having to do anything.

I believe the Holy Spirit’s presents is not subjected to the outwardly movement of, or sincere desire of the participant in water baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a permanent change in the believer that precedes the believer’s desire to publicly be immersed in water.

P.S. Infant baptism, or adult water baptism, does not mean there is nothing more to do. In fact, Catholics often scratch their heads when certain Protestants say that “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior” is all there is. Antinomianism is antithetical to Christian life. Period.

OSAS is just plain stupid, whether it comes from a Catholic who says, “I’m a baptized Catholic, therefore I’m going to Heaven” or a Protestant who says, “I have accepted Christ as my Savior and no sin I commit from now on can take away my salvation.”

 

[Philthy]

Congratulations! Is this your first child? The pictures are awesome, arent they?

Yes, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary.

What first got me curious about the ambiguity of the meaning of baptism was when I first read John the Baptist account of what kind of Baptism Jesus is going to bring in Mt 3:11 -
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Also, when I first read Eph 4:5 -
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

OK, so I compiled a list that looks like this:

1. There is only one baptism…

Or…a person is only baptized ONCE.

1. John the Baptist says Jesus is going to Baptize in something other than water.

Actually, he says that he (John) baptizes with water FOR REPENTANCE; nowhere does he exclude water in that sentence.

1. That something other is the Holy Spirit

.
And FIRE

4, Conclusion, Baptism = Holy Spirit

Which, of course, we all agree with. You meant to conclude: Baptism = waterless reception of HS. The question remains as to whether there exists a relationship between water baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. You dont think so, Catholics and the early Church think so. Actually, in the purest sense I would agree with you that the essential component of baptism is the reception of the HS - as is the case of the “waterless” baptisms of blood(martyrdom) and desire. But these are not the norm for most people and in no way do they exclude the relationship between water Baptism properly performed and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Philthy]

tabcom:

IMHO . . . .“born from above by (water and spirit)” is an improper translation.

The proper translation – regenerated (born) out of water (natural birth) AND pneuma (of spirit).

Can you see the difference in the two translations?

Actually I cant fit your translation into a complete sentence that supports your contentions.

“Unless one is regenerated out of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Is that your translation? That doesnt really make sense in that it excludes both water and spirit. Right?
It would need to say, “Unless one is born out of water but rather in Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” in order for your waterless baptism argument to even make sense.
I just find it difficult to believe that those early members of he Church who spoke Greek fluently would make such a blunder and that no one picked up on it for almost 2000 years. Its not like its an obscure verse…

 

[DLC]

How can baptism be necessary for salvation since Paul said that he came not baptize but to preach the gospel, 1 Cor. 1:10-12?Later in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, he clearly states what the gospel was that he preached and baptism in not even mentioned?

God be praised! Welcome to CA Forums. The Church of Christ is almost unique among Protestant denominations in believing the Apostolic teaching that Baptism actually DOES take away both original sin and actual sin.

I am also a Christian, baptized at 5 weeks of age, not by immersion. I proudly testify at every opportunity to the saving power of the covenant blood of Jesus Christ. We agree: Baptism is necessary!

 

[mercygate]

How can baptism be necessary for salvation since Paul said that he came not baptize but to preach the gospel, 1 Cor. 1:10-12?Later in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, he clearly states what the gospel was that he preached and baptism in not even mentioned?

Paul also mentions that those who worked with him baptized in the communities where he preached. Paul by no means suggests that baptism should not be done.

Scripture says that Jesus’ disciples baptized more people than John but that Jesus did not. Jesus says that we must be baptized. This differentiation of labor.

Moreover, Jesus is God and may forgive sin without the use of signs. For us, under ordinary circumstances, the sign is required: the matter matters.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How can baptism be necessary for salvation since Paul said that he came not baptize but to preach the gospel, 1 Cor. 1:10-12?Later in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, he clearly states what the gospel was that he preached and baptism in not even mentioned?

Baptism is very much a part of Christian initiation into the faith of becoming a Christian.

Consider the following Biblical Verses.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus and said to them, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it came from or where it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”

This verse says, **“you must be born anew.” **This implies that we must be baptized. This goes fully with Jesus commanding his Apostles, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit…"

In baptism we are born again. Baptism also saves. Peter said in his letter 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.

or Rom. 6:3-4

Do you not know that all of us have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were** buried therefore with him by baptism of death, so as Christ was raised** from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

or Heb. 10:22

"…let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Or Act Acts 22:16

When Ananias told Saul the following:

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

 

[tabcom]

For the record, I agree that it DOES mean Baptism in the HS, never separated form water dipping from the time that Jesus combined the two.

With respects to this statement,** if water and the Baptism of the HS are inseparable, is Jesus talking about being dipped in water a second time to James and John (Mark 10:38,39)? Also, is Jesus going to be baptized in water again, when he tells Peter, ‘there is a baptism with which I must be baptized’ (LK 12:50)?**

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

 

[Philthy]

With respects to this statement,** if water and the Baptism of the HS are inseparable, **

1.) Allow me to intercept unnecessary confusion in your communications:

• If someone is validly baptized with water, there is no separation of that baptism and the outpouring of the HS: in this context they are inseparable.
• On the other hand, Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are means of accomplishing the Baptism of the HS separated from water Baptism. In this sense they are separable.
  Pleae dont waste time arguing a misunderstanding: when a valid water Baptism occurs, the HS is inseparably part of it; the very same baptism of the HS can, however, be accomplished by other means and in this sense is separable from water baptism.

2.) Also, please restate your entire translation of John 3:5 - I couldnt understand the pieces you’ve provided.

 

[tabcom]

Originally Posted by tabcom View Post
Alfred Edersheim first published his book in 1883. He has extensive historical records through out the book – its over 1000 pages long!

Rereading the passage about Nicodemus, There is an interesting footnote on p. 264 regarding the original of the idea of ‘born of water’.

Why don’t you post it here in parts? If not, and you can scan, send it to me too!

footnote #1832:
This, of course, is not the view of the Tubingen School, which regards the whole of this narrative as representing a later development. Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Brit., Art. ‘Gospels,’ p. 821) regards the expression, ‘born of water and of the Spirit,’ as a reference to Christian Baptism, and this again as evidence for the late authorship of the fourth Gospel. His reasoning is, that the earliest reference to regeneration is contained in St. Matt. xviii. 3. Then he supposes a reference in Justin’s Apologia (i. 61) to be a further development of this doctrine, and he denies what is generally regarded as Justin’s quotation from St. John iii. 5 to be such, because it omits the word ‘water.’ A third stage he supposes to be implied in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23; with which he connects 1 Pet. iii. 21. The fourth stage of development he regards as embodied in the words of St. John iii. 5. All these hypotheses - for they are no more than such - are built on Justin’s omission of the word ‘water,’ which, as Dr. Abbott argues, proves that Justin must have been unacquainted with the fourth Gospel, since otherwise it were impossible that, when expressly treating of Baptism, he should have omitted it. To us, on the other hand, the opposite seems the legitimate inference. Treating confessedly of Baptism, it was only necessary for his argument, which identified regeneration with Baptism, to introduce the reference to the Spirit. Otherwise the quotation is so exactly that from the fourth Gospel, including even the objection of Nicodemus, that it is almost impossible to imagine that so literal a transcription could have originated otherwise than from the fourth Gospel itself, and that it is the result of a supposed series of developments in which Justin would represent the second, and the fourth Gospel the fourth stage. But besides, the attentive reader of the chapter in Justin’s Apology cannot fail to remark that Justin represents a later, and not an earlier, stage than the fourth Gospel. For, with Justin, Baptism and regeneration are manifestly identified, not with renovation of our nature, but with the forgiveness of sins.

 

[tabcom]

. . . please restate your entire translation of John 3:5 - I couldnt understand the pieces you’ve provided.

I intend to do so shortly. I’m compiling additional reference material on this point.

 

[tabcom]

**Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah

CHAPTER VI.
THE TEACHER COME FROM GOD AND THE TEACHER FROM JERUSALEM - JESUS AND NICODEMUS**

And yet, though Christ never descended to the standpoint of Nicodemus, we must bear in mind what his views as a Jew would be, if we would understand the interview. Jesus took him straight to whence alone that ‘Kingdom’ could be seen. ‘Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ It has been thought by commentators, that there is here an allusion to a Jewish mode of expression in regard to proselytes, who were viewed as ‘new-born.’ But in that case Nicodemus would have understood it, and answered differently - or, rather, not expressed his utter inability to understand it. It is indeed, true that a Gentile on becoming a proselyte - though not, as has been suggested, an ordinary penitent was likened to a child just born It is also true, that persons in certain circumstances - the bridegroom on his marriage, the Chief of the Academy on his promotion, the king on his enthronement - were likened to those newly born. The expression, therefore, was not only common, but, so to speak, fluid; only, both it and what it implied must be rightly understood. In the first place, it was only a simile, and never meant to convey a real regeneration (‘as a child’). So far as proselytes were concerned, it meant that, having entered into a new relation to God, they also entered into new relationship to man, just as if they had at that moment been newly born. All the old relations had ceased - a man’s father, brother, mother, sister were no longer his nearest of kin: he was a new and another man. Then, secondly, it implied a new state, when all a man’s past was past, and his sins forgiven him as belonging to that past. It will now be perceived, how impossible it was for Nicodemus to understand the teaching of Jesus, and yet how all-important to him was that teaching. For, even if he could have imagined that Jesus pointed to repentance, as that which would give him the figurative standing of ‘born from above,’ or even ‘born anew,’ it would not have helped him. For, first, this second birth was only a simile. Secondly, according to the Jewish view, this second birth was the consequence of having taken upon oneself ‘the Kingdom;’ not, as Jesus put it, the cause and condition of it. The proselyte had taken upon himself ‘the Kingdom,’ and therefore he was ‘born’ anew, while Jesus put it that he must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. Lastly, it was ‘a birth from above’ to which reference was made. Judaism could understand a new relationship towards God and man, and even the forgiveness of sins. But it had no conception of a moral renovation, a spiritual birth, as the initial condition for reformation, far less as that for seeing the Kingdom of God. And it was because it had no idea of such ‘birth from above,’ of its reality or even possibility, that Judaism could not be the Kingdom of God.