John 3:5 two births?

[susanlo]

This is Baptist teaching. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and I don’t know how many others teach that baptism washes away original sin. Luther, due to his iunique personality and psychological state, had a radically different view of justification, and those who follow him remain convinced of it. Did it not occur to anyone that both Catholic and Orthodox, which trace directly to Christ, both think alike in matter of justification? The Catholic is always questioned. The 95+% identical Orthodox? Never. What is up with that?

The churches I have been a part of over the years have not taught infant baptism for original sin because the Doctrine of Original Sin was not present in the early centuries. It developed in the early centuries with Origen and Ambrose who had unusual ideas. (Origen taught that Jesus was stained by Original Sin misquoting Zechariah and misunderstanding cleansing after childbirth, and Ambrose states that washing a man’s feet after baptism removes the venom from the snake). I believe I read in a book by J.N.D. Kelly that Irenaeus was the first to speak of this idea of inherited guilt. Anyway, the churches I go to strive to emulate 1st century Christianity and don’t accept the doctrines added later.

books.google.com/books?id=sUCQS0X1BLMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=origen+commentary+on+luke&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2hqX4_anNAhWHoD4KHSooAWsQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=origen%20commentary%20on%20luke&f=false - pg.57,58
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm Chapter 6 #32
archive.org/stream/stambroseonmyste00ambr#page/96/mode/2up
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n0/mode/2up pg. 170

While this did occur in Acts 10, the normal order of things was reversed, in part, so as to erase Peter’s (and the Apostle’s) doubts that the faith was also for gentiles - this was a huge change. It is clear that the early Church was shocked at the gentile converts - so shocked that Paul had Timothy circumcised!

The normative sequence is baptism to cleanse your soul, then and only then are you ready to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, by the “laying on of hands.” This is enumerated in Acts and in Paul’s writings.

Acts 8:17
Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you.

2 Timothy 1:6
Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

The Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands, and then by the Apostles and elders.

Why would the church believe that an adult believer can not receive the Holy Spirit until baptism, but then make them wait for up to 1 year to be baptized? I understand that if someone met an untimely death in that year they could potentially be saved by “baptism of desire,” so they are technically “saved” upon the commitment to join the church. But why make them wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit? At my church we believe forgiveness and the Holy Spirit occur at the moment the individual makes a commitment, but we believe that baptism is of utmost importance and people can be baptized as soon as the same week after meeting with a pastor. In the book of Acts, nobody had to wait extended periods for baptism.

 

[jcrichton]

The churches I have been a part of over the years have not taught infant baptism for original sin because the Doctrine of Original Sin was not present in the early centuries. It developed in the early centuries with Origen and Ambrose who had unusual ideas. (Origen taught that Jesus was stained by Original Sin misquoting Zechariah and misunderstanding cleansing after childbirth, and Ambrose states that washing a man’s feet after baptism removes the venom from the snake). I believe I read in a book by J.N.D. Kelly that Irenaeus was the first to speak of this idea of inherited guilt. Anyway, the churches I go to strive to emulate 1st century Christianity and don’t accept the doctrines added later.

Hi, Susan!
Your argument is a little light… was the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity taught by the Apostles? The answer is yes:

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. (1 St. John 5:7)

Yet, not once does Scriptures use the term “Holy Trinity.”

Did 1st century Christians put the Bible together? Nope! Then how do you reconcile the two? (Accepting some things while simultaneously rejecting others on the grounds of not “1st century Christians.”)

…and while the term “Original Sin” may not be in Scriptures, the Fall of Adam (the Original Sinner) is:

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so** death passed upon all men**, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

21 For by a man came death,

22 And as in Adam all die, (1 Corinthians 15:21a, 22a)

…so yeah, the Doctors of the Faith and others did combat heresies and even their own weaknesses (ego/psyche), yet, the Church has been Guided by the Holy Spirit as He Unfolded the Word of Christ throughout the ages and has given us Doctrine.

Why would the church believe that an adult believer can not receive the Holy Spirit until baptism, but then make them wait for up to 1 year to be baptized? I understand that if someone met an untimely death in that year they could potentially be saved by “baptism of desire,” so they are technically “saved” upon the commitment to join the church. But why make them wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit? At my church we believe forgiveness and the Holy Spirit occur at the moment the individual makes a commitment, but we believe that baptism is of utmost importance and people can be baptized as soon as the same week after meeting with a pastor. In the book of Acts, nobody had to wait extended periods for baptism.

You are correct. There was no waiting for Baptism… but you miss several points:

• Urgency–there was no expectation of urgency vs. doctrinal teaching because the Apostles where infused with the Holy Spirit and it was He Who Guided both the Believers and the converts… however, Jesus checked Israel’s unbelief (St. Matthew 21:31-32, 42-46) and as it is quite human, as the Holy Spirit cease demonstrating wonder, the faith and belief would cool down through time (though it could very well have been the Plan from the Beginning: Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.–St. John 20:29)
• Doctrine–the Church is organic, that means that development (Unfolding of the Word) erupted from the very Founding of the Church or is it “the Way?”
• Formation of Doctrine is Biblical:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: (Acts 1:16)

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, (2 Timothy 3:16)

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 St. Peter 3:16)

4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? (1 Corinthians 12:29)

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine? (1 Corinthians 14:6)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Hi, Susan!
Your argument is a little light… was the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity taught by the Apostles? The answer is yes:

Yet, not once does Scriptures use the term “Holy Trinity.”

Did 1st century Christians put the Bible together? Nope! Then how do you reconcile the two? (Accepting some things while simultaneously rejecting others on the grounds of not “1st century Christians.”)

…and while the term “Original Sin” may not be in Scriptures, the Fall of Adam (the Original Sinner) is:

Some 1st century Christians wrote the books of the Bible. They taught the concept of the Trinity. Jesus taught the concept of the Trinity. The terminology came later.

The Fall of mankind is in Genesis, but the concept of all humans being born stained and in need of forgiveness for being conceived is not in the Bible. It wasn’t universally understood until after Augustine as evidenced by some of the teachings in the early centuries by those accepted and established in the church. Ambrose taught that baptism removes personal sins and foot washing removes hereditary sin not that long before Augustine created the Doctrine of Original Sin. This doctrine clearly was a later concept that was not taught in 1st century Christianity.

…so yeah, the Doctors of the Faith and others did combat heresies and even their own weaknesses (ego/psyche), yet, the Church has been Guided by the Holy Spirit as He Unfolded the Word of Christ throughout the ages and has given us Doctrine.

You are correct. There was no waiting for Baptism… but you miss several points:

• Urgency–there was no expectation of urgency vs. doctrinal teaching because the Apostles where infused with the Holy Spirit and it was He Who Guided both the Believers and the converts… however, Jesus checked Israel’s unbelief (St. Matthew 21:31-32, 42-46) and as it is quite human, as the Holy Spirit cease demonstrating wonder, the faith and belief would cool down through time (though it could very well have been the Plan from the Beginning: Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.–St. John 20:29)
• Doctrine–the Church is organic, that means that development (Unfolding of the Word) erupted from the very Founding of the Church or is it “the Way?”
• Formation of Doctrine is Biblical:

Maran atha!

Angel

I can agree that the Catholic church formed new doctrines over the centuries. I think we disagree as to whether the church was granted the right to change Christianity with new doctrines as the centuries progressed.

 

[jcrichton]

Some 1st century Christians wrote the books of the Bible. They taught the concept of the Trinity. Jesus taught the concept of the Trinity. The terminology came later.

The Fall of mankind is in Genesis, but the concept of all humans being born stained and in need of forgiveness for being conceived is not in the Bible. It wasn’t universally understood until after Augustine as evidenced by some of the teachings in the early centuries by those accepted and established in the church. Ambrose taught that baptism removes personal sins and foot washing removes hereditary sin not that long before Augustine created the Doctrine of Original Sin. This doctrine clearly was a later concept that was not taught in 1st century Christianity.

I can agree that the Catholic church formed new doctrines over the centuries. I think we disagree as to whether the church was granted the right to change Christianity with new doctrines as the centuries progressed.

Hi, Susan!
Again, you are missing the point; the Church has full Authority from Christ Himself (Simon = Rock = Church = Mystical Body of Christ = In Effect Throughout Time = Till the Parousia).

As for Original Sin, what do you think that St. Paul meant when he stated that in Adam all have sinned and that by one man, Adam, death entered the world?

As Christians, we cannot exist in a vacuum–either we Believe in Christ and Believe Christ or we are not Christians… if we Believe in Christ we must Believe in His Word… and it is the Word that tells us that the Church has full Authority, that Christ Founded her for perpetuity, till the Parousia, and that He and the Holy Spirit Reside in Her.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[kdbueno]

Sacramental baptism assures us that the eminence of the divine degree is possible.

 

[kdbueno]

You cannot be baptised twice. This is a an incorrect methodology according to the divine knowledge of God.

 

[mackbrislawn]

So I’m engaged with some protestants who think that the water in John 3:5 refers to being born naturally, and being born of spirit is a different birth. The claim is that Christian baptism is only the spirit and that using water is just a symbol and tradition. This would mean that any passage that talks about baptism being efficacious and needed for our salvation would still work for their argument unless john 3:5 is meaning water baptism. How can we defend the requirement of water in baptism and that a sacrament need be given by a priest?

Protestants desperately come up with many objections that really don’t make sense when you think about it. For instance, if being born of water is the same as being born naturally, wouldn’t that be the same as saying first you have to be born at all? You have to first exist! I mean, like, isn’t that pretty obvious? Don’t you have to be born to begin with in order to be there listening to Jesus?

So simple logic does away with their argument and turns it into something ludicrous.

 

[mackbrislawn]

So I’m engaged with some protestants who think that the water in John 3:5 refers to being born naturally, and being born of spirit is a different birth. The claim is that Christian baptism is only the spirit and that using water is just a symbol and tradition. This would mean that any passage that talks about baptism being efficacious and needed for our salvation would still work for their argument unless john 3:5 is meaning water baptism. How can we defend the requirement of water in baptism and that a sacrament need be given by a priest?

In the Old Testament we see so many examples of healings or events associated with actions that the participants undertook. The Jews of that day expected a physical sign such as water baptism to accompany and effect the spiritual or physical result of it. Wasn’t General Naaman’s leprosy only healed, and only healed, when he bathed in the Jordan seven times? That is a type for baptism. And didn’t the Israelites have to get out of their tents and look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of their fiery bites? They couldn’t just lie there and think about it symbolically.

And the blind man Jesus healed. After spitting on some dirt and making mud and putting it on the man’s eyes, Jesus then had the guy go and wash in the pool of Siloam to be healed. Now, if the fellow had just rubbed the mud off, or gone and washed in the basin at home, he wouldn’t have gained his sight.

So, Jesus uses specific actions by which his grace is given. The people of Jesus’ time already used water to cleanse things, and were familiar with baptism in water to wash things, so they would naturally link water with washing away sins. So when Peter said to them, repent and be baptized, they knew exactly what he meant.