toldailytopic: Water baptism: what is it's place today?

[greatdivide46]

Did Jesus baptize you in the Holy Spirit? ....... ------->

Or did the Holy Spirit baptize you into Christ? <-------

Both. And the amazing thing is they both did it at the same time -- when I was baptized in water.

 

[greatdivide46]

The act of baptism does not save a person. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward transformation.

You are quite right. The act of baptism does not save a person. Only God can save a person and the fact that He chooses to do that when we are baptized in no way means that it is the baptism itself that saves us. God save us, not baptism. As far as baptism being an outward expression of an inward transformation, I've never found any scripture to back up that thought.

 

[greatdivide46]

Why is "born of water" water baptism? Considering the context, it seems pretty clear He's talking about a physical birth (born of water; Nic: "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb?") and a spiritual birth (born of the Spirit).

Two problems I see with this point of view. If Jesus is saying that one of the qualifications to enter the kingdom of God is physical birth, then who doesn't qualify?

And secondly physical birth in scripture is always, 100% of the time, referred as being born of the flesh. Never is physical birth termed being born of water.

 

[The Graphite]

Both. And the amazing thing is they both did it at the same time -- when I was baptized in water.

Ah, so you have multiple baptisms, as well?

I have only one.

But, wait, you said you have but one baptism. Now you say you have two opposite baptisms, plus a third baptism... Which is it?

Some guy immersed you in water, and Jesus immersed you in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit immersed you in Jesus. That is 3 immersions.

But, like the apostle Paul, I have only one.

Also, you said:

As far as baptism being an outward sign of an inward occurrence, I have yet to find that thought anywhere in scripture. Therefore, I reject it.

But, then, when someone said, "The act of baptism does not save a person. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward transformation," you replied in agreement with that, saying,

You are quite right.

Are you schizophrenic? Or just ambivalent?

As a credo-baptist, I see water baptism as an outward symbol of an inward change, namely repentance of sin and acceptance of grace through the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is a way of making public this change and allying oneself with the Body of Christ.

Water baptism is an outward symbol of an inward change? Book, chapter, verse?

The act of baptism does not save a person. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward transformation.

Book, chapter, verse?

 

[Grayven]

I'm amazed there is a debate at all. Being baptized isn't that difficult, so why wouldn't you?

 

[Andy Curry]

Luk 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:"

In this Scripture John the baptist is telling the people that He who cometh after him (Jesus) shall baptize them with the Holy Ghost.

Rom 6:3-4 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Here Paul is saying that as many of us as have been buried (water baptism) with Christ have been baptized into Christ.

When we are baptized in water we are batized into Christ...
When we receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Christ is baptized into us.

That's why when Jesus spoke of the comforter which is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26), He also said I will not leave you comfortless:I will come to you (John 14:18).

Are you a Oneness Pentecostal(Apostolic)? Your name + your two posts are UPCIish.

 

[Stripe]

I'm amazed there is a debate at all. Being baptized isn't that difficult, so why wouldn't you?

Eating meat sacrificed to idols isn't that difficult either. :idunno:

 

[Grayven]

Eating meat sacrificed to idols isn't that difficult either. :idunno:

I don't see any relation here. Someone please explain the relationship between being baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, and eating meat sacrificed to idols. I just don't get it.

 

[The Graphite]

I don't see any relation here. Someone please explain the relationship between being baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, and eating meat sacrificed to idols. I just don't get it.

They are two things that have no relevance during this administration of God's grace.

 

[Stripe]

I don't see any relation here. Someone please explain the relationship between being baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, and eating meat sacrificed to idols. I just don't get it.

They are two things that have no relevance during this administration of God's grace.

And they're both pretty easy to do. Have you read the posts above?

 

[chickenman]

Good morning, greatdivide.

Two problems I see with this point of view. If Jesus is saying that one of the qualifications to enter the kingdom of God is physical birth, then who doesn't qualify?

Please think about what you just said. That was silly. "Who doesn't qualify?" Every single person that doesn't meet the SECOND criteria, which is to be "born of the Spirit."

Look at the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus:

Jesus: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nic: "How can a man be born when he is old?"

Randy's question: What does Nic's question here reveal about what he believes Jesus is talking about?​

Nic: "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Randy's question: Doesn't this prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that Nic believes Jesus is talking about physical birth?​

Jesus: "Except a man be born of water (answering Nic's question about physical birth) and the Spirit (Jesus real point about being born), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Still Jesus: "That which is born of flesh is flesh (confirming His first statement about "born of water"), and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."​

This couldn't be clearer, greatdivide. It takes work to make this NOT mean physical birth.

And secondly physical birth in scripture is always, 100% of the time, referred as being born of the flesh.

Well...this passage says: "That which is born of flesh is flesh." Based on your own criteria, shouldn't this settle it for you?

Never is physical birth termed being born of water.

Except here, in John 3, of course.

Question for you, greatdivide: Why did Jesus immediately follow verse 5 with "That which is born of flesh is flesh..." if He wasn't referring to a physical birth?

Thanks. Welcome to TOL, by the way.

Randy

 

[ProphecyKid]

And the difference is that God never told his disciples to eat meat sacrificed to animals but he did tell them to baptize. The difference is he never said that he who believes and eats meats sacrificed to animals shall be saved but he did say that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. The difference is that he never said except a man has filled his belly with meat offered to idols and is born of the spirit he will see the kingdom of God but he did say that except a man is born of the water and spirit he will not see the kingdom.

 

[greatdivide46]

Ah, so you have multiple baptisms, as well?

I have only one.

But, wait, you said you have but one baptism. Now you say you have two opposite baptisms, plus a third baptism... Which is it?

Some guy immersed you in water, and Jesus immersed you in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit immersed you in Jesus. That is 3 immersions.

But, like the apostle Paul, I have only one.

As do I. But everything you mentioned happened in that one baptism.

 

[bybee]

I am amazed

I am amazed

And the difference is that God never told his disciples to eat meat sacrificed to animals but he did tell them to baptize. The difference is he never said that he who believes and eats meats sacrificed to animals shall be saved but he did say that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. The difference is that he never said except a man has filled his belly with meat offered to idols and is born of the spirit he will see the kingdom of God but he did say that except a man is born of the water and spirit he will not see the kingdom.

This is a profound yet basic truth. The words of our Lord. bybee

 

[greatdivide46]

Please think about what you just said. That was silly. "Who doesn't qualify?" Every single person that doesn't meet the SECOND criteria, which is to be "born of the Spirit."

I agree wholeheartedly -- it IS silly. That's why I think Jesus meant something other than physical birth. For Jesus to expound upon physical birth in relation to entering the kingdom of God just seems silly to me.

Besides the grammatical structure of the phrase "born of water and Spirit" leaves room for but one birth. A single birth the involves both water and Spirit. That cannot be physical birth.

 

[greatdivide46]

Well...this passage says: "That which is born of flesh is flesh." Based on your own criteria, shouldn't this settle it for you?

I agree that this is talking about physical birth. I just don't think the birth being referred to in verse five, a birth of water and Spirit, is physical birth.

 

[bybee]

Problem

Problem

Good morning, greatdivide.

Please think about what you just said. That was silly. "Who doesn't qualify?" Every single person that doesn't meet the SECOND criteria, which is to be "born of the Spirit."

Look at the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus:

Jesus: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nic: "How can a man be born when he is old?"

Randy's question: What does Nic's question here reveal about what he believes Jesus is talking about?​

Nic: "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Randy's question: Doesn't this prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that Nic believes Jesus is talking about physical birth?​

Jesus: "Except a man be born of water (answering Nic's question about physical birth) and the Spirit (Jesus real point about being born), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Still Jesus: "That which is born of flesh is flesh (confirming His first statement about "born of water"), and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."​

This couldn't be clearer, greatdivide. It takes work to make this NOT mean physical birth.


Well...this passage says: "That which is born of flesh is flesh." Based on your own criteria, shouldn't this settle it for you?


Except here, in John 3, of course.

Question for you, greatdivide: Why did Jesus immediately follow verse 5 with "That which is born of flesh is flesh..." if He wasn't referring to a physical birth?

Thanks. Welcome to TOL, by the way.

Randy

I am having a problem here. "That which is born of flesh is flesh...". However, what does that make of the unborn foetus? Is it only flesh? Do we not believe that God breathes life into the fertilized egg thereby making it a child of God? Are we then just animals until we are baptized by the Holy Spirit? This is dangerous territory. What are we if not children of God from the moment of conception? :help: bybee

 

[chickenman]

I am having a problem here. "That which is born of flesh is flesh...". However, what does that make of the unborn foetus? Is it only flesh? Do we not believe that God breathes life into the fertilized egg thereby making it a child of God? Are we then just animals until we are baptized by the Holy Spirit? This is dangerous territory. What are we if not children of God from the moment of conception? :help: bybee

Good morning, bybee.

I'm not sure what you are asking. But I wasn't making any point about who someone is or isn't before being "baptized by the Holy Spirit". I was simply pointing of the obvious nature of what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus.

Nic thought Jesus was talking about physical birth...being literally born again. So Jesus said that no, one must be physically born (of course) AND spiritually born. Afterall, that which is born of flesh is flesh (doesn't help any to get a person into the kingdom of God), but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. THAT's the one that's needed for entry into the kingdom of God.

I hope you're well. Have a great day!

Randy

 

[chickenman]

I agree wholeheartedly -- it IS silly. That's why I think Jesus meant something other than physical birth. For Jesus to expound upon physical birth in relation to entering the kingdom of God just seems silly to me.

That was His point to Nicodemus. See my last post to bybee.

Jesus was effectively saying, "That's silly Nicodemus. Entering into the womb again isn't what I'm talking about. Being physically born isn't what's required to enter into the kingdom of God. One must be physically born AND spiritually born. That which is born of flesh ("born of water"...the thing you, Nic, think I'm talking about) is flesh. But that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. THAT's what I'm talking about."

Besides the grammatical structure of the phrase "born of water and Spirit" leaves room for but one birth. A single birth the involves both water and Spirit. That cannot be physical birth.

What? This makes no sense. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the use of the conjunction "AND" demands that it means "both together united as one"? The norm for "grammatical structure" is that when there's a conjunction "AND", it usually denotes two things.

One literal birth doesn't involve both water and Spirit. One spiritual birth doesn't involve both water and Spirit. So your comment doesn't make sense and shows that your basing your argument on assumptions only.

I agree that this is talking about physical birth. I just don't think the birth being referred to in verse five, a birth of water and Spirit, is physical birth.

Alright.

 

[bybee]

Okay

Okay

Good morning, bybee.

I'm not sure what you are asking. But I wasn't making any point about who someone is or isn't before being "baptized by the Holy Spirit". I was simply pointing of the obvious nature of what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus.

Nic thought Jesus was talking about physical birth...being literally born again. So Jesus said that no, one must be physically born (of course) AND spiritually born. Afterall, that which is born of flesh is flesh (doesn't help any to get a person into the kingdom of God), but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. THAT's the one that's needed for entry into the kingdom of God.

I hope you're well. Have a great day!

Randy

That makes sense. Does it mean then, that even babies who die without baptism of the Holy Spirit are consigned to outer darkness? Is that not incongruent with Jesus call to be like little children? This bothers me a great deal. peace, bybee