C
- Status
P
panevino
Guest
Thanks Ed,
wow (respectfully
), you are going to have to do some serious dancing to make me follow your interpretation.it esseentially means that the acts of being imersed/sprinkled in water is not really required. having said this I do note that the catholic church does allow for ‘baptisim of desire’ and ‘martydom baptism’ without water.
did you read my other previous comments, copied below.
the act with the water is integral, just as was the need for jesus to actually be sacraficed.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi Panevino, thanks for your reply. What you say above is all true and I believe exactly what it states. My intention is NOT to diminish the rite of baptism. John states in Mat 3:11," I baptize you with water for repentance. " When a person believes in Jesus (gospel) there then has to be a sign of repentance. So when a person gets baptized, that’s what is being done, an outward sign of turning to God. As the Scripture says, we are buried (our old life) with Christ, and raised (to a new life) with Christ. ------ To become righteous in the sight of God is to believe on Jesus. 2Cor 5:21, states, “For He (God) hath made Him (Christ) to be sin for us (remission based upon His substitutionary death), who knew no sin; that we be made righteousness of God in Him.” An exchange takes place; Jesus took our sin, He gave us His righteousness. This is how one gets born again by believing in Christ and not by water baptism. ED O.
P
panevino
Guest
disagree with last scentence - its got to include water - to fulfill all righteousness (martyrdom/desire baptisms etc as exception)
and for infant baptism its still is both (with parents faith) - followed by confirmation when older
D
diggerdomer
Guest
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi diggerdormer, thanks for your reply. This is what’s being quoted by Ireneaus, “Except a man be born AGAIN through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The word “AGAIN” is not found in John 3:5. Born of water is not born again of water. Jesus is describing in John 3:5 born of water (man’s physical birth) and the Spirit (man’s Soul) When the word again is added, it then changes the meaning to where Catholics get born again through baptism.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi Christian Sr. Yes I do!
I use many translations
Yes! The new American Catholic Bible ED O.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi panevino, thanks for your reply. A person gets saved by believing in Jesus. He died for our sins, atoned for them by His blood, He was resurrected and now is our High Priest in heaven. Upon that you would be born again.----- What about baptism? -----When a person then gets baptized, he’s making a pledge to God starting his new re-birth life. An outward sign of an inward reality. Repenting of his past life. That’s why John says in Mat 3:11 his baptism is of repentance NOT salvation. Salvation comes through Christ, repentance comes through baptism. Both are required.
The thief on the cross got saved by believing in Christ and Christ accepted his repentance without being baptized. In his case he couldn’t be.
In Acts 16:30, the jailer asked Paul what must I do to get saved? Paul replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. What Paul did NOT say was be baptized to be “Born Again” When the jailer believed in Jesus, he and his household were later baptized. Why? To show repentance and the start of their new lives. Both are required.
In Acts 10:45, When Peter preached about Jesus and when Cornelius and all believed, the Holy Spirit came upon them (they got saved without baptism) Later, they were baptized. Why? for the same reason as the jailer. Both are required.
My point in all of this is that a person gets saved (born again) by belief in Jesus. and not (born again) through (John 3:5) baptism. Yet both are required. Jesus for salvation and baptism for repentance. ED O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Acts 22:16: “Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon His name.”
Hmmm…seems this passage doesn’t agree with you.
In Acts 10:44-48, it is decided there is no reason to keep baptism from Cornelius and other gentiles, for they already speak in tongues and have the Holy Spirit, so Paul orders them to be baptized. Protestants think they have us here, because of baptism was really necessary for salvation, they wouldn’t have the Holy Spirit separate from it. So the real salvation is the baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism is the outward symbol.
The thing is, they don’t have us here at all. First off, God is NOT confined by His sacraments, but His sacraments are always efficacious. Second, in Matthew 7:22, Jesus speaks of those that do deeds of the Spirit in His name such as driving out demons and prophesying, even though He does not know them. Third, Paul still ORDERS them to get baptized. You can have the Holy Spirit, but Jesus said you need WATER AND THE SPIRIT. Both, not one, because it is a sacrament. The Holy Spirit often manifests itself in many different ways, not necessarily always in forms of salvation. In other words, the Holy Spirit can use somebody or manifest itself for the purposes of God, separate from actually saving somebody. For that person to be saved, they need to get baptized.
Protestant often try to say “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” but in every case where baptism was by the Holy Spirit (and indeed it is), it was THROUGH WATER. This is confirmed by the fact that it is said that John baptizes with only water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. But when he does this, it is through water. Jesus takes that symbol of death, and makes it a death to sin that actually imparts grace. This is a sacrament. There is simply no real evidence that can be provided that shows that you can separate the two as part of the Christian faith.
Also, the practice of infant baptism is attested to very early in the Church, and flies in the face of any reasoning that it is an outward sign.
Justin Martyr: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian: [N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus: Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).
Hmmm…seems this passage doesn’t agree with you.
In Acts 10:44-48, it is decided there is no reason to keep baptism from Cornelius and other gentiles, for they already speak in tongues and have the Holy Spirit, so Paul orders them to be baptized. Protestants think they have us here, because of baptism was really necessary for salvation, they wouldn’t have the Holy Spirit separate from it. So the real salvation is the baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism is the outward symbol.
The thing is, they don’t have us here at all. First off, God is NOT confined by His sacraments, but His sacraments are always efficacious. Second, in Matthew 7:22, Jesus speaks of those that do deeds of the Spirit in His name such as driving out demons and prophesying, even though He does not know them. Third, Paul still ORDERS them to get baptized. You can have the Holy Spirit, but Jesus said you need WATER AND THE SPIRIT. Both, not one, because it is a sacrament. The Holy Spirit often manifests itself in many different ways, not necessarily always in forms of salvation. In other words, the Holy Spirit can use somebody or manifest itself for the purposes of God, separate from actually saving somebody. For that person to be saved, they need to get baptized.
Protestant often try to say “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” but in every case where baptism was by the Holy Spirit (and indeed it is), it was THROUGH WATER. This is confirmed by the fact that it is said that John baptizes with only water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. But when he does this, it is through water. Jesus takes that symbol of death, and makes it a death to sin that actually imparts grace. This is a sacrament. There is simply no real evidence that can be provided that shows that you can separate the two as part of the Christian faith.
Also, the practice of infant baptism is attested to very early in the Church, and flies in the face of any reasoning that it is an outward sign.
Justin Martyr: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian: [N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus: Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
If you want your interpretation to be taken seriously, you need to find some quotes stating that it’s an early Christian belief. Otherwise, you are 2000 years divorced from reality.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
There are two significant points in this passage. Before Saint Peter gives this command, his listeners ask him what they should do. The question is obviously understood as applying to salvation, and therefore the Apostle’s command that they go and be baptized is directed to salvation as well. The second point is even more forceful. Notice what the Apostle says is required for the forgiveness of sins: repentance and baptism. He does not say ‘accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour for the forgiveness of your sins.’ Moreover, the Evangelical notion that baptism is a mere symbol of salvation is totally repudiated by the above passage because the instrument of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is not an intellectual acceptance of Christ. The biblical way of receiving the Holy Spirit, as the above passage clearly teaches, is through baptism.
There are two significant points in this passage. Before Saint Peter gives this command, his listeners ask him what they should do. The question is obviously understood as applying to salvation, and therefore the Apostle’s command that they go and be baptized is directed to salvation as well. The second point is even more forceful. Notice what the Apostle says is required for the forgiveness of sins: repentance and baptism. He does not say ‘accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour for the forgiveness of your sins.’ Moreover, the Evangelical notion that baptism is a mere symbol of salvation is totally repudiated by the above passage because the instrument of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is not an intellectual acceptance of Christ. The biblical way of receiving the Holy Spirit, as the above passage clearly teaches, is through baptism.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Old Testament prefiguring of baptism:
2 Kings 5:14: “So Naaman went down and plunged into the Jordan seven times at the word of the man of God. His flesh became again like the flesh of a little child, he was clean.”
Notice that Naaman the leper was actually cleaned by the water, and also keep in mind that leprosy was seen as a condition oftentimes caused by sin, as well as making one ritually unclean. So the water was wiping his sin and defilement away as well, prefiguring baptism.
1 Peter 3:20: “…who had once been disobedient while God paitiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.”
Notice here that to Peter,(and therefore the Church) Noah’s flood prefigured baptism, and yet while the water itself symbolized death, through Christ we are saved through it, as Noah was in the ark. Another example of typology.
The crossing of the Red Sea by the Egyptians is also seen as a prefigurement of Baptism.
1 Corinthians 10:2: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” Notice that the term “cloud” is the cloud of God that led Moses by day when the Egyptians were chasing them after the Exodus. Water, the Spirit of God, and Salvation are all linked, in a sense quite remeniscent of sacramental baptism. Why? Precisely because the Spirit and water are linked.
The following is a prophecy from Ezekial that is widely seen as a messianic prophecy.
Ezekiel 36:24-27: “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”
Notice that it refers to being actually made clean (sanctified) by the sprinkling of water.
Furthermore, in Zechariah, the Lord says, “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity” (Zechariah 13:1). The prophet is clearly pointing to the baptismal promise, as does King David in the Psalms: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (Psalms 51:2). And finally, Isaiah links water and salvation, “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the Lord God is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. Therefore you will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation.” (Isaiah 12:2-3). Notice that in all cases the water and the Spirit of God wash away literally your sins, not symbolically. Catholics believe that all these verses clearly point forward to a greater fulfillment where Water and the Spirit wash us of our sins and make us actually clean, which is precisely the Catholic position on Baptism. We are not “snow covered dunghills” as Luther said, and only declared righteous. We are actually made clean.
New Testament:
1 Peter 3:20-21: “…who had once been disobedient while God paitiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
In the above verse, “an appeal” is also translated as “oath.” When somebody is baptized, they are making a personal pledge. They are swearing an oath, a sacramentum; in Christ, by Christ and through Christ. They are calling for God to cleanse their conscience. The book of Hebrews says that all of the ablutions, all of the dunkings in the Old Testament ceremonies didn’t cleanse the conscience. The word in the Greek in that section of Hebrews is “baptismois”. All the Old Testament baptisms couldn’t purify the conscience, implying that the one New Testament baptism does, in fact. So the New Covenant baptism cleans your soul actually, is linked with salvation, and is compared to a sacred oath. Hmmmm…sounds like a Catholic sacramental baptism to me.
2 Kings 5:14: “So Naaman went down and plunged into the Jordan seven times at the word of the man of God. His flesh became again like the flesh of a little child, he was clean.”
Notice that Naaman the leper was actually cleaned by the water, and also keep in mind that leprosy was seen as a condition oftentimes caused by sin, as well as making one ritually unclean. So the water was wiping his sin and defilement away as well, prefiguring baptism.
1 Peter 3:20: “…who had once been disobedient while God paitiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.”
Notice here that to Peter,(and therefore the Church) Noah’s flood prefigured baptism, and yet while the water itself symbolized death, through Christ we are saved through it, as Noah was in the ark. Another example of typology.
The crossing of the Red Sea by the Egyptians is also seen as a prefigurement of Baptism.
1 Corinthians 10:2: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” Notice that the term “cloud” is the cloud of God that led Moses by day when the Egyptians were chasing them after the Exodus. Water, the Spirit of God, and Salvation are all linked, in a sense quite remeniscent of sacramental baptism. Why? Precisely because the Spirit and water are linked.
The following is a prophecy from Ezekial that is widely seen as a messianic prophecy.
Ezekiel 36:24-27: “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”
Notice that it refers to being actually made clean (sanctified) by the sprinkling of water.
Furthermore, in Zechariah, the Lord says, “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity” (Zechariah 13:1). The prophet is clearly pointing to the baptismal promise, as does King David in the Psalms: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (Psalms 51:2). And finally, Isaiah links water and salvation, “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the Lord God is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. Therefore you will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation.” (Isaiah 12:2-3). Notice that in all cases the water and the Spirit of God wash away literally your sins, not symbolically. Catholics believe that all these verses clearly point forward to a greater fulfillment where Water and the Spirit wash us of our sins and make us actually clean, which is precisely the Catholic position on Baptism. We are not “snow covered dunghills” as Luther said, and only declared righteous. We are actually made clean.
New Testament:
1 Peter 3:20-21: “…who had once been disobedient while God paitiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
In the above verse, “an appeal” is also translated as “oath.” When somebody is baptized, they are making a personal pledge. They are swearing an oath, a sacramentum; in Christ, by Christ and through Christ. They are calling for God to cleanse their conscience. The book of Hebrews says that all of the ablutions, all of the dunkings in the Old Testament ceremonies didn’t cleanse the conscience. The word in the Greek in that section of Hebrews is “baptismois”. All the Old Testament baptisms couldn’t purify the conscience, implying that the one New Testament baptism does, in fact. So the New Covenant baptism cleans your soul actually, is linked with salvation, and is compared to a sacred oath. Hmmmm…sounds like a Catholic sacramental baptism to me.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Saint Ignatius: “Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for ‘he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.’(6) Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may *by baptism *be made partakers of His resurrection.”
“For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’(5) and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], ‘by whom are all things;’(5) and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought(6) in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord;(7) and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all.’”(8)
Ignatius wrote the above quotes VERY shortly after The disciple John’s death. We know from other historical witness that Ignatius was established to the office of Bishop by Peter and Paul themselves, and was taught by John. It is very safe to assume he taught the above prior to John’s death. Question: Why did John not correct him? Especially since John is the one who wrote that little “water and the spirit” passage?
This same logic applies to Justin Martyr, who was also alive very soon after John’s death. Let’s see what Justin thought:
"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.(6) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;(7) he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”(8)
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”
Origen: "It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the words “to repentance,” teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents it is salutary, but to him who comes to it without repentance it will turn to greater condemnation. "
“Those persons in the Acts(1) who were baptized to John’s baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again by the Apostle, Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus through His disciples it does so, and what is called the layer of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water.”
Notice how Origen has a slightly different interpretation of the “repentance” aspect of baptism than you seem to. Tertullian even refers to the “baptism of blood” as Catholics teach.
Let’s use your standards. The Bible alone. Now the only way your interpretation is going to be worth one tiny little cap of spit, is if you can show me an anti-nicene Christian saying that baptism is what YOU say it is. Otherwise, by the rules of historical criticism and what we call “reality,” you are just sharing an opinion divorced 2000 years from reality. Go ahead. Find one.
“For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’(5) and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], ‘by whom are all things;’(5) and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought(6) in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord;(7) and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all.’”(8)
Ignatius wrote the above quotes VERY shortly after The disciple John’s death. We know from other historical witness that Ignatius was established to the office of Bishop by Peter and Paul themselves, and was taught by John. It is very safe to assume he taught the above prior to John’s death. Question: Why did John not correct him? Especially since John is the one who wrote that little “water and the spirit” passage?
This same logic applies to Justin Martyr, who was also alive very soon after John’s death. Let’s see what Justin thought:
"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.(6) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;(7) he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”(8)
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”
Origen: "It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the words “to repentance,” teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents it is salutary, but to him who comes to it without repentance it will turn to greater condemnation. "
“Those persons in the Acts(1) who were baptized to John’s baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again by the Apostle, Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus through His disciples it does so, and what is called the layer of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water.”
Notice how Origen has a slightly different interpretation of the “repentance” aspect of baptism than you seem to. Tertullian even refers to the “baptism of blood” as Catholics teach.
Let’s use your standards. The Bible alone. Now the only way your interpretation is going to be worth one tiny little cap of spit, is if you can show me an anti-nicene Christian saying that baptism is what YOU say it is. Otherwise, by the rules of historical criticism and what we call “reality,” you are just sharing an opinion divorced 2000 years from reality. Go ahead. Find one.
P
panevino
Guest
Hi Ed,
I agree with you about repentance and cleansing of sins in the water baptism, however it is more and integral to being saved, (even if it has to be baptism by desire, like the guy on the cross)
mark 16:15-16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more acts 8:36 - KJV
it is called baptism in v38 after being in the water, not after the declaration of belief (which was made in v37)
I understand that you dont intent to belittle the water immersion/sprinkle, but isolating it the way you have, is to me, taking away from the word.
there are a few phycical things that need to be done, ie: eat bread and wine in NT,
eat the sacraficed lamb in OT, annointing with oil OT and NT(jam 5:14) etc… which are tangible just like the need to be submersed/sprinkled in baptism. thats sacramental i guess
paul also did not say honour you mother and faterh, he also did not say be baptised in the name of the father, and of the son …
when paul says believe he means ‘belileve’ which includes requirement to follow teachings, including being baptised…
its says the holy spirit came upon them, it does not necessarily say they got saved, thats how i read it anyway, as you say they were later baptised, in verse 48 peter orders it. notice how they are not considered baptised yet. they believed, they recvieved the holy spirit, but they are not yet considered baptised. see mark 16:15-16 above on being saved, which requires belief and baptism
A
agent_grey
Guest
The name of God is the Holy Spirit.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
You have to believe in Christ and all that he is. The direct parallel has already been drawn between obedience and belief, as Jesus defines it. This has completely failed to be addressed.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi Nathan, The Jerusalem church in the book of Acts is the earliest of all churches, followed by Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians. That’s as early as you can get and that’s where I get my information from. It’s the infallible Word of God. Letters by Church Fathers are not. If the above mentioned churches didn’t need letters of Fathers, we don’t either. God was very precise with the Word of God in the O.T. without using additional letters of Fathers, I’m certainly convinced that what we find in the N.T.is sufficient. This thread is about John 3:5 not about quotes from other sources. Jesus says in John 14:23, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” What Jesus did NOT say was to depend on letters from early church Fathers. ED O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Actually God was NOT very precise in the OT, which is why Moses had a pretty good group of people to help judge based off of the guidelines what to do. If Moses didn’t know, he went straight to God. We have a Pope that is infallible in matters of faith and morals for that now. Scripture makes claims that it is hard to understand in quite a few areas in the New Testament as well. The Eunuch didn’t get it, and Peter said Paul’s writings were a bit theologically dense as well. Practical experience with thousands of different denominations bears this out. How much more evidence do you need Ed?
SEVERAL denominations would disagree with your particular interpretation, so going based off simple common sense, even if I didn’t believe in tradition, why would I ever take your interpretation on a scripture passage, rather than people 2000 years closer to the source?
Do you see how that works? I don’t even need to believe in Church tradition, Ed, I can use good common sense. You are not close enough to the times to know what the Bible means all the time. They were. More than that, you don’t have the guarantee of truth. the Church does. The Church founded on Peter. Your gymnastics won’t let you jump out of this one.
I’ll say it again. Think about this really hard instead of spouting off another predictable statement. Your interpretation of the Word is 2000 years off. If the fathers are wrong, according to you, how much more wrong would *you *be? The Holy Spirit is not divided Ed. Too many people in your own camp disagee with you. Are you suggesting they are wrong too? Just your denomination is right? Or is it just you? Based on what grounds? The “clearness” of Scripture? So Scripture wasn’t clear to the Lutherans who believe in the necessity of baptism? The poor Lutherans must not have had the Holy Spirit either? Well they were closer to the source than you too, Ed, about 500 years closer. And their belief is a bit more Catholic. Funny how that works, isn’t it.
I don’t need the tradition to blow your argument out of the water. I just need to make a statement of common sense. The closer you are to the source, the less room for error. And that’s if you completely take God’s promise out of the equation. Your argument is ludicrous, intellectually arrogant, and doesn’t hold water.
SEVERAL denominations would disagree with your particular interpretation, so going based off simple common sense, even if I didn’t believe in tradition, why would I ever take your interpretation on a scripture passage, rather than people 2000 years closer to the source?
Do you see how that works? I don’t even need to believe in Church tradition, Ed, I can use good common sense. You are not close enough to the times to know what the Bible means all the time. They were. More than that, you don’t have the guarantee of truth. the Church does. The Church founded on Peter. Your gymnastics won’t let you jump out of this one.
I’ll say it again. Think about this really hard instead of spouting off another predictable statement. Your interpretation of the Word is 2000 years off. If the fathers are wrong, according to you, how much more wrong would *you *be? The Holy Spirit is not divided Ed. Too many people in your own camp disagee with you. Are you suggesting they are wrong too? Just your denomination is right? Or is it just you? Based on what grounds? The “clearness” of Scripture? So Scripture wasn’t clear to the Lutherans who believe in the necessity of baptism? The poor Lutherans must not have had the Holy Spirit either? Well they were closer to the source than you too, Ed, about 500 years closer. And their belief is a bit more Catholic. Funny how that works, isn’t it.
I don’t need the tradition to blow your argument out of the water. I just need to make a statement of common sense. The closer you are to the source, the less room for error. And that’s if you completely take God’s promise out of the equation. Your argument is ludicrous, intellectually arrogant, and doesn’t hold water.
K
krakee
Guest
Ed O, one thing I have observed, as an “observing member” is that you have provided a great deal of scripture to back up what you believe. I have also observed many, many others have done the same thing in fact Nathan has given you his belief of John 3:5 including practically the entire summary of the Bible… Old and New Testament on this topic. He has then backed up his Scriptural belief with historical writings of the Church Fathers, who lived shortly after the time of Christ, which are identical to his interpretations.
Now since the 2 of you, and many others, have both come to your differing interpretations using the Bible as proof, how do I know which of you is correct… if any? If we are to read the Bible for ourselves, which both of you have done, which of you is right?
And why?
Now since the 2 of you, and many others, have both come to your differing interpretations using the Bible as proof, how do I know which of you is correct… if any? If we are to read the Bible for ourselves, which both of you have done, which of you is right?
And why?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
- Status