John 3: 3-7 born again experience v.s. baptism

[ziapueblo]

Jesus died for the remission of our sins. And we are buried with Him in Water baptism. Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12.

That’s why the biblical mode of baptism is submergion. The Greek for baptize is “baptizo”, to submerge (bury, fully immerse). However, katacheō or kerannumi means to pour.

Jesus came “straightway out of the water” He was submerged, as were the rest of the biblical baptisms.

Is baptizo to mean immersion only? There are times when it is meant to “wash up” or “clean up.” Do you feel that the Bible explicitly states how one is to administer baptism?

 

[MarcoPolo]

The ECFs are pretty unanimous, as has been the history of the Church, on John 3:5 referring to baptism. Here’s a page that cites a bunch. The notion that John 3:5 doesn’t deal with baptism is a modern idea that puts tremendous strain on the text and the whole of Scripture and Tradition.

 

[BRB]

Is baptizo to mean immersion only? There are times when it is meant to “wash up” or “clean up.” Do you feel that the Bible explicitly states how one is to administer baptism?

Early Christians were immersed under water. They were immersed 3 times. Each time for a different person of the Trinty.
In the Father, in the Son, and in H.S.

Now we just do shortcut … one immersion in name of all 3.

First choice was running water … river.
Second choice was still water …lake.
Third choice was pouring water over head.
Forth choice was sprinkling.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Early Christians were immersed under water. They were immersed 3 times. Each time for a different person of the Trinty.
In the Father, in the Son, and in H.S.

Now we just do shortcut … one immersion in name of all 3.

First choice was running water … river.
Second choice was still water …lake.
Third choice was pouring water over head.
Forth choice was sprinkling.

This was also taught by Hippolytus. He also had the subject get baptised in the nude.

These are all non-biblical teachings.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Is baptizo to mean immersion only? There are times when it is meant to “wash up” or “clean up.” Do you feel that the Bible explicitly states how one is to administer baptism?

I do believe the bible gives exact direction on how to baptize: Fully submerged, in Jesus’ name. That’s how it was practiced by Jesus’ disciples.

Because there is a rhyme and a reason behind it. Jesus’ name is the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved. When the disciples cast our demons ans healed the sick, what did they say? It was some variation of “the name of Jesus”, or “the Lord Jesus” or “Jesus Christ”

We are to be fully submerged because the bible says we are buried with Him in Water baptism. Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12. Are you buried if someone were to sprinkle dirt on you? No.

Only texts decades and centuries later “add” more detail to how baptism is done… three times, sprinkling… in the nude. These command have been added by men, not by God.

 

[BRB]

had the subject get baptised in the nude.

These are all non-biblical teachings.

I’m sure he had good intentions …not like the recent bunch of priests that caused great offense and harm to Church.

Doesn’t Church ‘tradition’ still hold water for Catholics ?

 

[ERose]

How do you explain the Gospel of St. Matthew 28:19, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Pentecostals explain it by their belief in God being One Person and not Triune. Thus they will tell that the name of the Father and the Sone and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.

I’m not Pentecostal. I used to be but no longer. But that is their belief.

 

[ERose]

Is the order important ? Can a new believer receive H.S. via rebirth first … and then later be Baptized in water ?

Reason I ask ---- at Pentecost, those Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord received H.S. FIRST !!!

Perhaps we can infer they were BAPTIZED by H.S. … and had both steps at same time !!!

I think that you can receive the calling of the Holy Spirit and in some cases receive evidence of Him before Baptism, but you do not receive the gift of adoption until Baptism.

In other words you have to follow what Peter said on Pentecost for this to make sense. Acts 2:38 “Do penance; and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." What happen afterwards: Acts 2:41 Therefore, those who accepted his discourse were baptized. And about three thousand souls were added on that day.

So to answer one of your questions, the ones that listened to Peter were baptised first then received the Holy Spirit.

Concerning those with Peter and the Apostles that received the Holy Spirit were already followers of Jesus and we can induce that they had already been Baptised.

Concerning if you can receive rebirth before Baptism, Scripture does not say you can. It says that Baptism is required, see above quote as an example.

 

[BRB]

I
Concerning if you can receive rebirth before Baptism, Scripture does not say you can. It says that Baptism is required, see above quote as an example.

OK … but, Pentecostals refer to ‘Baptism of H.S’ … which occurs with laying on of hands. Catholics would say baptism in water confers the H.S.

 

[ERose]

All of Jesus’ desciples were around when Matthew 28:19 was stated by Jesus. However, not one person rebuked Peter for telling the multitude in Acts 2:38 to be baptised in Jesus name. Either Peter was wrong, or he understood the power of the name. Again, see Acts 4:12 “there is one name under heaven whereby we must be saved” Brothers and Sister in Christ, that name is Jesus.

There is also some information on the actual text being changed:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

I have read this, I have not confirmed it yet: but Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19 over 20 times (before the Council of Nicaea 325AD) without any mention of 3 titles (Father, Son, Holy Ghost/Spirit) just simply “in my name”.

With Blessings,
Justin

Looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia and couldn’t find your quote. Concerning the other statements you have to show them.

That being said that latter on there was discussion about the validity of the the Jesus only baptism because of some heretics using that formula and whether it was valid or not, or did they need to be rebaptised upon entering the Catholic Church. To be honest there seemed to be a toss up on this subject.

That being said, it is really how you interpret the comment made in Acts 2:38. There are many references throughout the NT of being baptised in the name of Christ, Jesus, the Lord, Jesus Christ etc. But there is also references to go out and preach in the name of Christ, Jesus, the Lord, Jesus Christ, etc as well. So you can interpret it literal in the sense that was the actual baptismal formula used by some Apostles or you can interpret it as a distinction between the other baptisms and preachings. In other words Go out and preach and baptise in the Name of Jesus Christ, not in the name of John the Baptist, or Moses, etc.

I prefer the latter for that is what the Church teaches and quite honestly make more sense from the writing styles of the authors of the NT. Think of it this way if the Apostles were told to go and preach in the name of Jesus does that mean that when they preach they keep repeating the name of Jesus? Of course not. It means that you go out there preaching for Jesus or in His Name.

 

[ERose]

OK … but, Pentecostals refer to ‘Baptism of H.S’ … which occurs with laying on of hands. Catholics would say baptism in water confers the H.S.

What they refer to a Baptism of the Holy Spirit is similar to what we call Confirmation.

 

[BRB]

What they refer to a Baptism of the Holy Spirit is similar to what we call Confirmation.

Would look to be similar to the Church sacrament. And, even though they refer to it as Baptism of H.S. … they also baptism their converts by water immersion … they prefer running water venues.

 

[ERose]

Would look to be similar to the Church sacrament. And, even though they refer to it as Baptism of H.S. … they also baptism their converts by water immersion … they prefer running water venues.

To be honest I do not know about the running water venues. The UPC (United Pentecostal Church) Buildings where set up pretty much what you would find in a Baptist church with a pool of water behind front of the church that is elevated with a window to the main body of the church so that all people can see the act of Baptism.

 

[BRB]

To be honest I do not know about the running water venues. The UPC (United Pentecostal Church) Buildings where set up pretty much what you would find in a Baptist church with a pool of water behind front of the church that is elevated with a window to the main body of the church so that all people can see the act of Baptism.

They too have joined the 21 st century. Before moderization … they liked flowing creeks / rivers.

 

[ERose]

Jesus came “straightway out of the water” He was submerged, as were the rest of the biblical baptisms.

You have no proof of this statement. No where does it say that you have to be immersed for Baptism. The only things that we know for sure are the need for water and the baptismal formula.

Also if you read the book of Acts there are several places that baptisms occurred where it would not be easy at all to deduce that immersion occurred.

Also look at the quote from Ezekiel that is in a post above that sprinkling was mentioned.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

You have no proof of this statement. No where does it say that you have to be immersed for Baptism. The only things that we know for sure are the need for water and the baptismal formula.

Also if you read the book of Acts there are several places that baptisms occurred where it would not be easy at all to deduce that immersion occurred.

Also look at the quote from Ezekiel that is in a post above that sprinkling was mentioned.

I have no proof? Sure I’m no Greek expert, but “baptizmo” which means “baptize” means to submerge; fully wet. That’s why we are **buried ** with Christ in baptism.

Regarding the Catholic church changing the formula, I’ll have to double check my quote again. I have a photo copy from the library at home.

 

[ERose]

I have no proof? Sure I’m no Greek expert, but “baptizmo” which means “baptize” means to submerge; fully wet. That’s why we are **buried ** with Christ in baptism.

Regarding the Catholic church changing the formula, I’ll have to double check my quote again. I have a photo copy from the library at home.

Read the Acts Ch 10 concerning Cornelius and his family being baptized by Peter at their home. It doesn’t say there was a lake or river by their home to be baptized in. In vs 47: "Then Peter responded, “How could anyone prohibit water, so that those who have received the Holy Spirit would not be baptized, just as we also have been?” From this passage it is easier to come to the conclusion that water was brought so that they can be bapized.

And again I refer to Ezekiel that was quoted above concerning sprinkling. If you believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures then Ezekiel cannot be wrong.

Also concerning your comment about the passage of Matt being changed by the Catholic Church. If you believe that the Catholic Church changed this passage in Matt then what else has been changed by the Catholic Church and can you really believe the Bible that you use is not corrupted by the Catholic Church. That is a pretty rocky road you are going down.

PS Apostles and the other writers of the Bible where members of the same Church that you claim corrupted the Bible. In the beginning of Christianity there was only One Church and that Church is what is called the Catholic Church today.

 

[BRB]

In the beginning of Christianity there was only One Church and that Church is what is called the Catholic Church today.

Protestants have an issue with the ‘infallibility’ of Catholic church.

In reality, they also believe in the infallibility of those early apostles and writers of the Bible.

For some reason they think infallability ceased once the inspired scriptures were all written. Well … at least until M. Luther, Calvin, and others came along.

Where in Bible does it say … “this is the last inspired word of God to ever be written or proclaimed” ?

 

[adrift]

I have no proof? Sure I’m no Greek expert, but “baptizmo” which means “baptize” means to submerge; fully wet. That’s why we are **buried ** with Christ in baptism.

Regarding the Catholic church changing the formula, I’ll have to double check my quote again. I have a photo copy from the library at home.

I am no expert either. I must rely on sources such as the Dictionary Mariam-Webster

nflected Form(s):
bap·tized also bap·tised; bap·tiz·ing also bap·tis·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein to dip, baptize, from baptein to dip, dye; akin to Old Norse kvefja to quench
Date:
13th century

 

[guanophore]

Good ideas … on OT Ezekiel verses.

Except, giving us a heart of flesh [rather than stone] … also seems at odds with what Jesus was saying. Jesus seems to be saying that flesh is earthly … spirit is heavenly. We must be reborn of spirit to reach new Kingdom.

Now, is Baptism key in this process ? Clearly our water births as newborn infant is not.

The notion of human birth being a “water birth” is a myth started by anti-sacramentalists. Our physical birth is NEVER described i scripture as a “water birth”. On the contrary, physical birth is described as:

John 1:12-13
he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Clearly, physical birth is described as
blood
will of the flesh
will of man

Furthermore, all women made a ritual offering after childbirth, just as Mary did. Women were considered ritually unclean from childbirth due to BLOOD, not water.