Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I wish that was true but I have been wrong many times. But that is how we learn.
John 3:5 defines the new birth as water baptism and Spirit baptism
- Thread starter Jdorman
- Start date
I wish that was true but I have been wrong many times. But that is how we learn.
Peter did say it in Acts 2:38
Not to mention they are writing to believers that had already been baptized
Mark 16:16
My understanding is that it was necessary for salvation for the circumcised (Jewish) converts (Matthew 28:19-20) who had made themselves "under obligation to the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3). However, I don't think it was necessary for the uncircumcised converts who the apostles decided were "not to bear the yoke of the Law" (Acts 15:28-29).
This is why Paul seldom water baptized his converts (1 Corinthians 1:13-17) and why there are no examples of any uncircumcised people being water baptized after the family of Cornelius (Acts 10:42-44) that took place before the apostles made their agreement about the application of the Law in Acts 15.
Good point. This is one reason it is my understanding that water baptism was not required for the uncircumcised (gentiles) converts (1 Corinthians 1:13-17) because the apostles determined that they were not to "bear the yoke of the Law" (Acts 15:28-29) after they met in Jerusalem. Hence, we have no record of any uncircumcised converts being water baptized by Paul or any of the other apostles after Acts 15.
Agreed. Paul recognized only "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and associated it with "spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:12-13) which was the unifying and regenerating power of salvation and redemption (Ephesians 1:12-13).
Ok, I finally understand your view. Although I'm not convinced that we should understand John 3:5 as physical birth. Also I'm not convinced water baptism is not for everyone, Acts 15 does not necessarily negate the need for water baptism for gentiles. I don't think they were wrong in baptizing Cornelius.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Water baptism, or observance of any ordinance under the Law, is not regenerative, nor required for salvation.
However, water baptism was established by Jesus Christ as a sacrament to be observed and practiced amongst His disciples (church) as a remembrance and visible proclamation and witness of the gospel of His death and resurrection, experienced on their behalf.
SimpleMan77
New member
Paul had his converts, both Jew and Gentile, baptized after acts 15.
Read acts 16, 18 & 19. Full of accounts of Paul having people baptized.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
The Bible always had the believers give witness of their change of heart in some way before God gave witness Himself both to the believer and to others.
The refusal of water baptism is the witness that they are not joined to anyone or to any people.
LA
The refusal of water baptism is the witness that they are not joined to anyone or to any people.
LA
The Father sent John to baptize persons based on repentance of sin to prepare the way for Jesus' ministry.
The Father was well pleased with Jesus' baptism, which was an expression of the Father's will.
I don't understand the objections to the Father's will. It should be evident that those who ignore the Father's will do not receive his Spirit.
My suggestion is that if the Father wants us to do something we should comply. Don't half-step.
The Father was well pleased with Jesus' baptism, which was an expression of the Father's will.
I don't understand the objections to the Father's will. It should be evident that those who ignore the Father's will do not receive his Spirit.
My suggestion is that if the Father wants us to do something we should comply. Don't half-step.
Yes.
One should be baptized at the call of the Lord Himself through men who preach the truth of it.
There are many believers of a kind in the world but relatively few true Christians, that is true disciples of Christ.
take a look at this commentary by the New International Commentary series on John 3:5
"Jesus responds by restating what he said before in slightly different words: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and Spirit, [It is difficult to decide whether or not “spirit” should be capitalized. I have opted for capitalization in verse Joh_3:5 because when Jesus repeats the word in verses Joh_3:6 and Joh_3:8 he does so with the definite article, “the Spirit,” suggesting that the Holy Spirit is meant.] he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus calls attention to the adverb “from above,” which Nicodemus had overlooked, by redefining it as “of water and Spirit,” [In Greek, ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος.] and he redefines “seeing” as “entering” the kingdom of God. “Entering” picks up on Nicodemus’s own terminology about “entering” the mother’s womb, but brings the discussion back to the matter of salvation, which Nicodemus seems to be avoiding. It is not a question of “entering” the womb again (Joh_3:4), but of “entering” the kingdom of God (see Mat_5:20; Mat_7:21; Mat_18:3; Mat_19:23-24; Mar_9:47; Mar_10:23-25; Luk_18:25; Act_14:22). Jesus will develop the idea of being “born of the Spirit” in verses Joh_3:6-8, but “water” is mentioned only here. Nicodemus will respond to neither.
The reference to “water and Spirit” has called a forth a variety of interpretations. The reader will notice, for example, that John earlier contrasted his own role of “baptizing in water” (Joh_1:26, Joh_1:31, Joh_1:33) with Jesus’ role as the One who would “baptize in Holy Spirit” (Joh_1:33). This suggests that being “born of water and Spirit” could have something to do with water baptism and baptism in the Spirit, whether viewed together or separately. [This is the view of the majority of commentators (for example, Westcott, 108-9; Bernard, 1.104; Hoskyns, 213-14; Brown, 1.141-44; Beasley-Murray, 48; Schnackenburg, 1.369; Barrett, 209; Moloney, 92-93). There are a number of nuances to this view, depending on one’s theological convictions. The point could be either that “water” (that is, water baptism) is necessary, or that it is insufficient without the accompanying work of the Spirit (or even both at the same time!).] We will learn shortly that Jesus himself, like John, “baptized” (presumably in water) in Judea, to the point that his baptizing ministry was perceived as rivaling John’s (Joh_3:22, Joh_3:26; Joh_4:1-3). His comment here might therefore be understood as an endorsement of John’s ministry of baptism, and (if it had begun by this time) his own as well." [1]
[1]
Michaels, J. R. (2014). The Gospel of JOHN (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) [E-Sword 11]. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
"Jesus responds by restating what he said before in slightly different words: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and Spirit, [It is difficult to decide whether or not “spirit” should be capitalized. I have opted for capitalization in verse Joh_3:5 because when Jesus repeats the word in verses Joh_3:6 and Joh_3:8 he does so with the definite article, “the Spirit,” suggesting that the Holy Spirit is meant.] he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus calls attention to the adverb “from above,” which Nicodemus had overlooked, by redefining it as “of water and Spirit,” [In Greek, ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος.] and he redefines “seeing” as “entering” the kingdom of God. “Entering” picks up on Nicodemus’s own terminology about “entering” the mother’s womb, but brings the discussion back to the matter of salvation, which Nicodemus seems to be avoiding. It is not a question of “entering” the womb again (Joh_3:4), but of “entering” the kingdom of God (see Mat_5:20; Mat_7:21; Mat_18:3; Mat_19:23-24; Mar_9:47; Mar_10:23-25; Luk_18:25; Act_14:22). Jesus will develop the idea of being “born of the Spirit” in verses Joh_3:6-8, but “water” is mentioned only here. Nicodemus will respond to neither.
The reference to “water and Spirit” has called a forth a variety of interpretations. The reader will notice, for example, that John earlier contrasted his own role of “baptizing in water” (Joh_1:26, Joh_1:31, Joh_1:33) with Jesus’ role as the One who would “baptize in Holy Spirit” (Joh_1:33). This suggests that being “born of water and Spirit” could have something to do with water baptism and baptism in the Spirit, whether viewed together or separately. [This is the view of the majority of commentators (for example, Westcott, 108-9; Bernard, 1.104; Hoskyns, 213-14; Brown, 1.141-44; Beasley-Murray, 48; Schnackenburg, 1.369; Barrett, 209; Moloney, 92-93). There are a number of nuances to this view, depending on one’s theological convictions. The point could be either that “water” (that is, water baptism) is necessary, or that it is insufficient without the accompanying work of the Spirit (or even both at the same time!).] We will learn shortly that Jesus himself, like John, “baptized” (presumably in water) in Judea, to the point that his baptizing ministry was perceived as rivaling John’s (Joh_3:22, Joh_3:26; Joh_4:1-3). His comment here might therefore be understood as an endorsement of John’s ministry of baptism, and (if it had begun by this time) his own as well." [1]
[1]
Michaels, J. R. (2014). The Gospel of JOHN (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) [E-Sword 11]. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where did Peter say that a person is born again by the gospel at Acts 2:38?
There is no evidence that Nicodemus had already been baptized with water when the Lord spoke to him.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
According to this idea there are "two" baptism, one in water and one in the Spirit. However, in order to understand the Lord Jesus' words it is first necessary to understand that He referred to only one birth and not two. Sir Robert Anderson wrote:
"Now, first it is essential to notice that this is not a twofold birth (of water, and of the Spirit), but emphatically one - a birth of water-and-Spirit, in contrast with the birth which is of flesh. This is not obvious in a translation; but in the original it is unmistakable. And the context emphasises it, for in the very next sentence, and again in verse 8, the water is omitted altogether, and the new man is spoken of merely as 'born of the Spirit.' It follows, therefore, that whatever the water signifies it must be implied in the words "born of the Spirit," and every one who has been "born anew" has been "born of water and the Spirit" (Ibid., p.222).
Robert V. McCabe agrees, writing that "in v. 5 the preposition 'ek' governs two nouns, 'hydor' and 'pneuma,' that are coordinated by 'kai.' This indicates that Jesus regards 'hydor kai pneuma' as a conceptual unity. If 'hydor kai pneuma' is a conceptual unity, this phrase may be taken either as a 'water-spirit' source or a 'water-and-Spirit' source of birth. A good case can be presented for either view in the context of John 3:1–8. With either view, there is one birth that is characterized either as 'water-spirit,' or 'water-and-Spirit.' Neither of these understandings suggest that there are two births, physical and spiritual" [emphasis added] (McCabe, "The Meaning of 'Born of Water and the Spirit' in John 3:5," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal [Fall 1999], p.85-107).
From this we can understand that the new birth was accomplished by the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit. Here the Apostle Peter referred to both elements:
"...by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven...Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet,1:12,23,25).
not Nicodemus, I mean the churches that Peter wrote too. Also 1 Peter 3:20-21 seems to say baptism saves if our hearts are right. The physical water does nothing in itself but when we are physically baptized with the right heart, God saves.
I already addressed this issue in a previous reply. Check my reply on page 3 in regards to the "2" baptisms issue. I also already addresed the "by the Word" issue previously
I also don't think Peter was wrong to water baptize the family of Cornelius (Acts 10:42-44) because the apostles hadn't met in Jerusalem yet and determined that the uncircumcised converts were not to be required to "bear the yoke of the whole Law" (Acts 15:28-29). Keep in mind, after Cornelius received holy spirit, there was disagreement among the leaders of the church about whether or not he needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:1-2).
It seems signficant to me that we have no record of any uncircumcised people being water baptized after the Acts 15 meeting, and we have Paul himself claiming he was "not sent to baptize" (1 Corinthians 1:13-17) and recognizing only "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). This makes no sense if the gentiles were supposed to be part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) that required both water baptism and Law observance.
This is an interesting text. However, keep in mind that Peter was writing to circumcised Jewish people (1 Peter 1:1) according to his ministry as "the apostle entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised" (Galatians 2:7-8). We shouldn't assume that his statement would have been relevant to the uncircumcised converts.
Well the great commission does say "all nations"
Yes, but "every nation under heaven" could pertain only to the Jewish Christians (cf. Acts 2:5) and Israel alone was "a multitude of nations" from the very beginning (Genesis 17:5-8; Genesis 35:10-11). Thus, the term "nations" doesn't settle the matter.
Something I think is often overlooked in the Great Commission is that Jesus told the apostles to do "all" that he commanded them (which would include complete Law observance, Matthew 23:1-3). The evidence in Acts shows that those who were converted by the apostles in Jerusalem remained "all zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20-22).
well marks account in Mark 16:16 says "whoever"