Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So if the spirit does all the saving then water baptism does not save in anyway.
Right?
John 3:5 defines the new birth as water baptism and Spirit baptism
- Thread starter Jdorman
- Start date
So if the spirit does all the saving then water baptism does not save in anyway.
Right?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
This is the ONE baptism:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
If you say that water baptism is the ONE baptism then the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 must not now be in effect. So how are members of His Body placed into the Body of Christ today?
Baptism is part of the way that the Spirit saves.
No we are all of one baptism. Both water baptism and Spirit baptism are of Jesus and of the same purpose.
It is one event and can be thought of as a whole
"We must stress that the new birth is a single whole. One is either born again or not; there is no such thing as being half born. Although Jesus identified two components - water and Spirit - He nevertheless spoke of one new birth. The Spirit, water, and blood all agree in one (I John 5:8). There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), comprised of both water and Spirit. The Scripture encompasses both water baptism and Spirit baptism when it teaches that we are buried with Christ in baptism to rise in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4), that we are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), and that we receive spiritual circumcision by baptism (Colossians 2:11-13). Whatever repentance, water baptism, and the Spirit baptism accomplish individually, we must always remember that the total work of salvation is completed at the union of the three. We should never attach so much importance to one element that we deem the others to be unnecessary.
The Bible pattern is to experience all three - repentance, water baptism, and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Even though the Samaritans had been baptized in Jesus' name, they still needed to receive the Spirit (Acts 8:15-17). Even though Cornelius had already received the Spirit, Peter commanded him to be baptized in Jesus' name (Acts 10:44-48).
Ideally, all three should occur practically simultaneously or in rapid succession. Acts 2:38 promises that when people repent and are baptized they will receive the Holy Ghost without any wait between the three components.
In particular, if people will exercise faith they will receive the Holy Ghost as soon as they repent and are baptized. This is exactly what happened to the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6). The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer both received a joyous experience after they were baptized, which apparently was the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 8:36-39; 16:31-34). God has designed it so that the entire new birth process can occur at one time." (David K Bernard)
It's kind of like how there is one body and yet serveral members
So again, agree to disagree
Last edited:
Jesus Christ is the head of God's church and he demonstrated the Father's will for all to see with regard to baptism.
Paul did not have the authority to override Christ or teach contrary to scripture.
The Twelve had the authority to set policy for the church and even then two or more had to agree.
One person cannot introduce some esoteric form of baptism and expect it to be valid.
Paul did not have the authority to override Christ or teach contrary to scripture.
The Twelve had the authority to set policy for the church and even then two or more had to agree.
One person cannot introduce some esoteric form of baptism and expect it to be valid.
There may be a parallel between water in the natural birth and the new birth, but the context of John 3 establishes that the birth of water itself is not the natural birth
To the contrary, Jesus explained in John 3:6 that "born of water" meant "born of the flesh." John 3:5-6 go together.
If you like to draw parallels, how can you overlook the parallel that Jesus gave right in the same context:
1. "born of water" (John 3:5) = "born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6)
2. "born [of] the spirit" (John 3:5) = "born of spirit is spirit (John 3:6)
That understanding cotradicts the born "again" concept.
I guess its time to agree to disagree.
How do you think it contradicts being "born from above"? Didn't the "spirit" descend "out of heaven" (John 1:32; Acts 2:2)?
When he responded to Nicodemus, he gave the parallel in John 3:5-6 where it shows that "born of water" goes with "born of flesh". Why would you look for a parallel based upon other passages that had nothing to do with the conversation he was having with Nicodemus?
God saves us. He uses water baptism and Spirit baptism to do it. Acts 2:38
I agree that this is stated in Acts 2:38. However, there's no mention of "baptism" in the conversation with Nicodemus. Baptism is never associated with being "born" in scripture. When we interpret these passages, we have to be careful to consider how the words are related to one another in each context.
We've all been "born of flesh" (John 1:13; John 3:6). The point he was making to Nicodemus is that birth from a womb alone is not sufficient to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3). We are only "born of the spirit" once.
Like for example the context of john 3? Also if you agree that is what Acts 2:38 says then why wouldn't Jesus be saying the same thing as the Apostles? Do you think they thought different things?
The purpose of John's baptism (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38) was for the Jews to acknowledge God's justification in condemning them as sinners (Luke 7:29-30). This isn't what Jesus and Nicodemus were talking about in John 3. They are different contexts.
Just because there is "water" mentioned in John 3:5 and "baptism" mentioned in Acts 2:38, it doesn't logically follow that both passages are referring to the same use of water. Likewise, there are many times that being "born" is mentioned in scripture and it doesn't always mean baptism either.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Agreed.
John baptized under the dictates of the Law which defined righteousness.
Indeed.
"Baptism" has more to do with resurrection from death, than it has to do with "births."
It is the power of the Holy Spirit which defines being raised to new spiritual life and finding righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ.
So do you believe water baptism is essential for salvation?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If a person is born again by water and the Spirit then why did Peter fail to say such a thing?:
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).
Why would James leave out water when speaking of being born of God?:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jms.1:18).
You have no place for the gospel despite the fact that there can be no doubt that believing the gospel results in salvation:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).
Why do you have no place for the gospel when it comes to being born again?