I just figured it out

[Ronald]

And the new birth, which Jesus describes as of "water and the Spirit" is not "baptism of the Holy Spirit"--more precisely it is baptism with the Holy Spirit [and with fire].

At no point in Scripture is this "baptism with the Holy Spirit" associated with a "conversion experience"; Scripture uses this phrase only a few times and they are all related:

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." - Matthew 3:11

"He proclaimed, 'The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'" - Mark 1:7-8

"John answered all of them by saying, 'I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.'" - Luke 3:16

"While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. 'This,' he said, 'is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" - Acts 1:4-5

"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?'" - Acts 11:16-17

If we want to know what this "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is, we would do well to see how it seems to be spoken about in the Scriptures themselves. What is clear is that this "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is associated with the mass outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Jesus baptized His Church with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost; what we see in the case of the Samaritans and the Gentiles is the sequence of the Acts narrative given in Luke's thesis in chapter 1:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." - Acts 1:8

And so we see the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, and a mini Pentecost in Samaria, and finally in Cornelius' house, demonstrating the full inclusion of the Gentiles and the depth of that mission "to the ends of the earth", to all nations.

This is not a conversion experience, it is not being born again; it is the historic event of Pentecost and the demonstrable inclusion of the entire world--Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile--into the mission of Jesus' Church.

-CryptoLutheran

All the scriptures above describe EXACTLY WHAT BEING BORN AGAIN MEANS. Baptized means being immersed in.
Simply, God draws the individual to Himself and His Word, through a series of events, while using Christians, pastors etc. until He finally removes the veil of spiritual blindness, washes away their sins and takes us residence in their Temple.
"Do you not know you are the Temple of the Holy Spirit?" This is being "born again" from above, when we are baptized, immersed in the Holy Spirit - this is our spiritual transformation. What else would you call it? It is exactly at that moment as it was on the Day of Pentecost and so on and so forth with every Christian -- if you are truly born again.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All the scriptures above describe EXACTLY WHAT BEING BORN AGAIN MEANS. Baptized means being immersed in.
Simply, God draws the individual to Himself and His Word, through a series of events, while using Christians, pastors etc. until He finally removes the veil of spiritual blindness, washes away their sins and takes us residence in their Temple.
"Do you not know you are the Temple of the Holy Spirit?" This is being "born again" from above, when we are baptized, immersed in the Holy Spirit - this is our spiritual transformation. What else would you call it? It is exactly at that moment as it was on the Day of Pentecost and so on and so forth with every Christian -- if you are truly born again.

So the new birth only happens when the Holy Spirit falls upon large groups of people, and their are tongues of fire and the sound of a mighty rushing wind, and there is speaking different languages?

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability." - Acts 2:1-4

or at the very least does there need to be an en masse falling of the Spirit with glossolalia?

"While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God." - Acts 10:44-46

If the these passages are describing being born again, then let's be honest; these are the requirements of being born again: an outward pouring of the Spirit not on single individuals but to groups, with signs and sounds and wonders, and speaking in tongues. Otherwise exactly what's going on in these passages (and let's be clear, these are the events which Scripture calls baptism with the Holy Spirit, there's no getting around that) that is new birth? What else--biblically--does baptism with the Holy Spirit entail if not what is actually written in the text?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just because the church that claimed to be the true successor to the NT church has claimed all this, it doesn't make it so. There are reasons the church was reformed, and part of it is that it had created its own interpretation of scriptural passages to the point they are not recognized as scriptural. Baptism, in the Bible, meant to identify with a person or a group. Being born again is a separate concept. What did Christ tell Nicodemus in John 3. He didn't tell him to be baptized, he told him he must be born of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God.

I'm not talking about the Church only from the late middle ages believed this, I mean from the days of the Apostles until now, it's what has been believed.

Further, look again at what Christ tells Nicodemus, He says born of "water and Spirit" not "born of Spirit".

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" - John 3:1-8

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ronald]

So the new birth only happens when the Holy Spirit falls upon large groups of people, and their are tongues of fire and the sound of a mighty rushing wind, and there is speaking different languages?

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability." - Acts 2:1-4

or at the very least does there need to be an en masse falling of the Spirit with glossolalia?

"While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God." - Acts 10:44-46

If the these passages are describing being born again, then let's be honest; these are the requirements of being born again: an outward pouring of the Spirit not on single individuals but to groups, with signs and sounds and wonders, and speaking in tongues. Otherwise exactly what's going on in these passages (and let's be clear, these are the events which Scripture calls baptism with the Holy Spirit, there's no getting around that) that is new birth? What else--biblically--does baptism with the Holy Spirit entail if not what is actually written in the text?

-CryptoLutheran

No! It did happen that way @ Pentecost. Of course that was a miraculous event pronounced by Jesus to happen and it was no small incident. 3000 Christians born again and the church was off to a strong start and witness. I'm sure Billy Graham has brought in a few groups simultaneously as well. I've even heard of people witnessing tongues of fire.
But it is an individual experience usually, it was with me.
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? ..."1 Cor. 3:16
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Rom. 8:9

At what other time would you think the Holy Spirit takes up residence in you? When you are forgiven, washed of sins and Jesus comes in to you and you in Him.
At what other time does the Holy Spirit seal you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

At what other time would you think the Holy Spirit takes up residence in you? When you are forgiven, washed of sins and Jesus comes in to you and you in Him.
At what other time does the Holy Spirit seal you?

I agree completely, that is when the Spirit comes and takes up residence in us. So where does Scripture say these things happen for us, how are you and I--as individuals--taken together united to Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit, our sins forgiven, and are made new, born again, etc?

Here's what Scripture has to say on this:

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" - Acts 2:38

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." - Romans 6:3-11

"As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." - Galatians 3:27

"In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses," - Colossians 2:11-15

"And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:21

"he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." - Titus 3:5

-CryptoLutheran

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not talking about the Church only from the late middle ages believed this, I mean from the days of the Apostles until now, it's what has been believed.

Further, look again at what Christ tells Nicodemus, He says born of "water and Spirit" not "born of Spirit".

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" - John 3:1-8

-CryptoLutheran

John, in John 3, is drawing parallels. Color coding things makes it clearer, so I will do so with this.

John 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So, Nicodemus had postulated to Jesus, in response to Jesus saying that one must be born again, asking if a man must climb back into his mother's womb and be reborn. Sounds like a logical query since being "born again" was a new concept just introduced by Jesus. Jesus' response was to draw a difference between being born of water and being born of the spirit. They are two separate baptisms. Being born of flesh, according to the passage, is being born of water (childbirth), and being born of the spirit is what is needed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[ViaCrucis]

John, in John 3, is drawing parallels. Color coding things makes it clearer, so I will do so with this.

John 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So, Nicodemus had postulated to Jesus, in response to Jesus saying that one must be born again, asking if a man must climb back into his mother's womb and be reborn. Sounds like a logical query since being "born again" was a new concept just introduced by Jesus. Jesus' response was to draw a difference between being born of water and being born of the spirit. They are two separate baptisms. Being born of flesh, according to the passage, is being born of water (childbirth), and being born of the spirit is what is needed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Except that the text doesn't say born of water and born of spirit; it says born of water and spirit. The new birth is of water and spirit.

That's the biggest problem with the childbirth interpretation. Another issue is how little sense it would make for Jesus, to offer as a necessary requisite of being born again the fact that a person has to have already been born from their mother's womb. Are there people around who can receive the new birth that haven't been born the first time? Are there non-born persons walking around that we should be aware of?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

We are born of water and spirit at child birth. When we join Christ church we are baptized of water and spirit and then given the Holy Ghost.

 

[Ronald]

I agree completely, that is when the Spirit comes and takes up residence in us. So where does Scripture say these things happen for us, how are you and I--as individuals--taken together united to Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit, our sins forgiven, and are made new, born again, etc?

Here's what Scripture has to say on this:

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" - Acts 2:38

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." - Romans 6:3-11

"As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." - Galatians 3:27

"In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses," - Colossians 2:11-15

"And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:21

"he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." - Titus 3:5

-CryptoLutheran

You just presented many of the scriptures that describe being born again of the Spirit. "Baptism into Christ", "baptism into His name", "baptism by the Holy Spirit", "our old self dying with Him...", "dead to sin/ alive to God", etc., expresses this spiritual transformation, does it not?
Another version of the Titus scripture is "washing of regeneration ..." instead of water of rebirth -- it is easier to understand. And of course none of those scriptures pertain to water baptism. It is the spiritual baptism that spiritually transforms. Many who were water baptized had not yet received the Holy Spirit until a later time. All the people baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus and the disciples (before His death and resurrection did not receive the HS until Jesus departed, until Pentecost -- to be more accurate
I think a lot of folks don't believe they will be born from above until the Resurrection occurs at Jesus' Second Coming. At that time, those who are in heaven, the dead in Christ and we who remain alive will be given "new eternal bodies". It does not mean our spirit has not already been changed. Our spirit is washed clean, it is our soul (the fleshly part of our person) where sin dwells. When we die, the two are separated. People also get confused when thinking the spirit and soul are the same. If they were, they couldn't be separated could they?
"For the world of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of the soul and spirit, ..." Heb. 4:12 Our spirit is in a separate compartment. When we are physically born, we have this empty dead spiritual compartment. We are actually spiritually designed like the Old Testament Temple. So our spiritual compartment is like the Holy of Holies were God dwelled. The veil separated this compartment from the rest of the Temple. The Holy Place, where the altar of incense, lampstand, table of showbread were, represents our soul, composed of our mind, will and emotions. The table and showbread contained the bread and wine that represents our communion with God. The lampstand was always lit and represents the Church. Jesus is the Light. The courtyard represents our bodies. The Bronze Laver was used for washing before entering the Tabernacle, which represents the water baptism and our willingness to receive forgiveness and cleansing.

 

[A New Dawn]

Except that the text doesn't say born of water and born of spirit; it says born of water and spirit. The new birth is of water and spirit.

That's the biggest problem with the childbirth interpretation. Another issue is how little sense it would make for Jesus, to offer as a necessary requisite of being born again the fact that a person has to have already been born from their mother's womb. Are there people around who can receive the new birth that haven't been born the first time? Are there non-born persons walking around that we should be aware of?

-CryptoLutheran

If you notice, Jesus did not offer it as a necessary prerequisite, he responded to Nicodemus' question about it. He then contrasted baptism by water/flesh to baptism by the spirit. Also, if you note, that other than changing the words from water to flesh, verses 5 and 6 are almost identical. Why the need to be repetitive unless you are trying to indicate that flesh=water in Jesus' equation? Another thought is that Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a pharisee, and, being a rabbi, proficient in the scriptures, he would use a concept that was understandable to Nicodemus. Being born by water, water always accompanies physical birth, would have been a familiar concept to Nicodemus, whereas baptism isn't.

 

[ViaCrucis]

doublepost

 

[ViaCrucis]

You just presented many of the scriptures that describe being born again of the Spirit. "Baptism into Christ", "baptism into His name", "baptism by the Holy Spirit", "our old self dying with Him...", "dead to sin/ alive to God", etc., expresses this spiritual transformation, does it not?

So your contention is that all the passages in Scripture which mention baptism do not refer to regular baptism, but refer to "baptism with the Holy Spirit"? Does this include Matthew 28:19-20?

Does Scripture even mention regular baptism (i.e. "water baptism") in your view? It seems like it would since below you mention those "water baptized" but not yet received the Holy Spirit which corresponds to Acts 8:14-17,

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

And yet here it refers to the fact that they had "been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus"; which is precisely the language also we find in Acts 2:38, where St. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

So does being baptized in Christ's name in Acts 2:38 refer to "baptism with the Spirit" but baptized into Christ's name in Acts 8:14-17 refer only to "water baptism"?

Where, exactly, do you believe ordinary Baptism is mentioned in Scripture? Is it? What about in Acts 19:1-7?

"While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied— altogether there were about twelve of them."

Is this one thing, two things? What's happening here? Is "water baptism" not about Christ or in Christ's name but only what John the Baptist did? Then why does the Ethiopian eunuch say, "See, there's water, what prohibits me from being baptized?" And is then baptized by Philip the deacon. (Acts 8:36-38).

Another version of the Titus scripture is "washing of regeneration ..." instead of water of rebirth -- it is easier to understand.

And doesn't change the meaning.

And of course none of those scriptures pertain to water baptism. It is the spiritual baptism that spiritually transforms. Many who were water baptized had not yet received the Holy Spirit until a later time. All the people baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus and the disciples (before His death and resurrection did not receive the HS until Jesus departed, until Pentecost -- to be more accurate

But at this point, as I explain above, there is now no consistency--when does baptism mean baptism and when does baptism mean "baptism with the Holy Spirit"; it becomes a game of being arbitrary--baptism means baptism until it doesn't, depending on the theological presumptions you are forcing upon the text. You have a particular theological conclusion that is required and are forcing the Scriptures to change their meaning depending on your theological assumptions. This is classical eisegesis, not serious exegesis.

I think a lot of folks don't believe they will be born from above until the Resurrection occurs at Jesus' Second Coming. At that time, those who are in heaven, the dead in Christ and we who remain alive will be given "new eternal bodies". It does not mean our spirit has not already been changed. Our spirit is washed clean, it is our soul (the fleshly part of our person) where sin dwells.

It seems here that you're attempting to change the discussion to how we conceive of the human person and are advocating for what is often known as trichotomism; man is a three-part creature of body, soul, and spirit. I really do not intend to discuss this as it is off topic to our present conversation--if you would want to talk about it it would be better to start a new thread, and start that thread over in a place like General Theology.

-CryptoLutheran

When we die, the two are separated. People also get confused when thinking the spirit and soul are the same. If they were, they couldn't be separated could they?
"For the world of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of the soul and spirit, ..." Heb. 4:12 Our spirit is in a separate compartment. When we are physically born, we have this empty dead spiritual compartment. We are actually spiritually designed like the Old Testament Temple. So our spiritual compartment is like the Holy of Holies were God dwelled. The veil separated this compartment from the rest of the Temple. The Holy Place, where the altar of incense, lampstand, table of showbread were, represents our soul, composed of our mind, will and emotions. The table and showbread contained the bread and wine that represents our communion with God. The lampstand was always lit and represents the Church. Jesus is the Light. The courtyard represents our bodies. The Bronze Laver was used for washing before entering the Tabernacle, which represents the water baptism and our willingness to receive forgiveness and cleansing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you notice, Jesus did not offer it as a necessary prerequisite, he responded to Nicodemus' question about it.

He corrects Nicodemus misunderstanding, which is why he explains that the new birth is a birth of water and Spirit. But you're argument is that "water" refers to a distinct birth--natural birth, childbirth--and "Spirit" refers to the new birth. Which if that be the case then Jesus is saying something like, "you must first be born from the womb, and then reborn in the Spirit, to see the kingdom of God"; which becomes fundamentally silly because saying "you must be born the first time" is at best tremendously redundant. You have to be born--enter into the world through your mother's birth canal--as part of how to see God's kingdom; as though there are people who have not been born walking around. Because by treating these as separate "births" of water being natural birth and Spirit spiritual birth we are saying that it is a two step process to see God's kingdom, with the first being born. Which is helpful to Nicodemus or anyone capable of hearing/reading what Jesus says here how?

Also, does this mean that fetuses won't experience God's kingdom?

He then contrasted baptism by water/flesh to baptism by the spirit.

Is born of water baptism or childbirth? You've mentioned both here and seem to be conflating the two.

Also, if you note, that other than changing the words from water to flesh, verses 5 and 6 are almost identical. Why the need to be repetitive unless you are trying to indicate that flesh=water in Jesus' equation?

Except that they aren't identical, Jesus says one must be born of water and Spirit to see/enter the kingdom of God, then He says, "what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of Spirit is spirit" and "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit". Jesus does not say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.", but "born of water and Spirit" that is one birth mentioned. The one born of water and the Spirit is the one mentioned in "what is born of the Spirit is spirit", the one born of God as in John 1:12-13

Another thought is that Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a pharisee, and, being a rabbi, proficient in the scriptures, he would use a concept that was understandable to Nicodemus. Being born by water, water always accompanies physical birth, would have been a familiar concept to Nicodemus, whereas baptism isn't.

Why would Nicodemus being a rabbi and having proficiency in the Scriptures mean he would understand that "water" refers to amniotic fluid? How is that connection being made here? Were rabbis well known for their Bible-based gynecological skills? Or were rabbis skilled as the best midwives? I don't understand.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ronald]

So your contention is that all the passages in Scripture which mention baptism do not refer to regular baptism, but refer to "baptism with the Holy Spirit"? Does this include Matthew 28:19-20?

Does Scripture even mention regular baptism (i.e. "water baptism") in your view? It seems like it would since below you mention those "water baptized" but not yet received the Holy Spirit which corresponds to Acts 8:14-17,

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

And yet here it refers to the fact that they had "been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus"; which is precisely the language also we find in Acts 2:38, where St. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

So does being baptized in Christ's name in Acts 2:38 refer to "baptism with the Spirit" but baptized into Christ's name in Acts 8:14-17 refer only to "water baptism"?

Where, exactly, do you believe ordinary Baptism is mentioned in Scripture? Is it? What about in Acts 19:1-7?

"While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied— altogether there were about twelve of them."

Is this one thing, two things? What's happening here? Is "water baptism" not about Christ or in Christ's name but only what John the Baptist did? Then why does the Ethiopian eunuch say, "See, there's water, what prohibits me from being baptized?" And is then baptized by Philip the deacon. (Acts 8:36-38).



And doesn't change the meaning.



But at this point, as I explain above, there is now no consistency--when does baptism mean baptism and when does baptism mean "baptism with the Holy Spirit"; it becomes a game of being arbitrary--baptism means baptism until it doesn't, depending on the theological presumptions you are forcing upon the text. You have a particular theological conclusion that is required and are forcing the Scriptures to change their meaning depending on your theological assumptions. This is classical eisegesis, not serious exegesis.



It seems here that you're attempting to change the discussion to how we conceive of the human person and are advocating for what is often known as trichotomism; man is a three-part creature of body, soul, and spirit. I really do not intend to discuss this as it is off topic to our present conversation--if you would want to talk about it it would be better to start a new thread, and start that thread over in a place like General Theology.

-CryptoLutheran

Matthew 28:19, 20 clearly represents water baptism which is symbolic of the spiritual baptism.
You seem to be having contention with the concept of being born again/ baptized by the Holy Spirit? What is the problem? There is a physical water baptism that is symbolic, that we are commanded to do in good faith as the blind person was commanded to go into the pool and dunk down seven times before he was healed. Our willingness to do what He says is a testimony to the world of our faith. As we confess our sins to God and to others it is also a testimony. Receiving communion is symbolic for His sacrifice, we are not really eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we do these things in remembrance of what He did. But water baptism does not save. Believing in Jesus saves and He gives you the Holy Spirit which is being baptized by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Who lives inside you confirms your relationship as an adopted son of God and at that time, you are sealed.

 

[A New Dawn]

He corrects Nicodemus misunderstanding, which is why he explains that the new birth is a birth of water and Spirit. But you're argument is that "water" refers to a distinct birth--natural birth, childbirth--and "Spirit" refers to the new birth. Which if that be the case then Jesus is saying something like, "you must first be born from the womb, and then reborn in the Spirit, to see the kingdom of God"; which becomes fundamentally silly because saying "you must be born the first time" is at best tremendously redundant. You have to be born--enter into the world through your mother's birth canal--as part of how to see God's kingdom; as though there are people who have not been born walking around. Because by treating these as separate "births" of water being natural birth and Spirit spiritual birth we are saying that it is a two step process to see God's kingdom, with the first being born. Which is helpful to Nicodemus or anyone capable of hearing/reading what Jesus says here how?

It is a two step process. If you aren't born first, you will not be reborn. That is what "reborn" means. Born again.
First birth - born of flesh, second birth - born of spirit.

Is born of water baptism or childbirth? You've mentioned both here and seem to be conflating the two.

I don't think I did, I think you might have misread it. Born of water is childbirth.

Why would Nicodemus being a rabbi and having proficiency in the Scriptures mean he would understand that "water" refers to amniotic fluid? How is that connection being made here? Were rabbis well known for their Bible-based gynecological skills? Or were rabbis skilled as the best midwives? I don't understand.

-CryptoLutheran

It doesn't have anything to do with being a midwife (AND wonders how one gets from understanding known concepts to being a midwife), it has to do with using known concepts. Again, there is no OT precedent for baptism, so one would not equate it with anything, hence why it is not used or indicated, however, it is a known concept that water accompanies physical birth. So, using a concept that Nicodemus was familiar with, and one which Nicodemus, himself, introduces, Jesus indicates that the first birth is childbirth, and the rebirth is spiritual. What do you think rebirth means if regular birth is not the first birth. What is being "reborn" indicative of?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthew 28:19, 20 clearly represents water baptism which is symbolic of the spiritual baptism.

Clearly? How is this more "clearly" about "water baptism" than Romans 6:3-11?

You seem to be having contention with the concept of being born again/ baptized by the Holy Spirit? What is the problem? There is a physical water baptism that is symbolic, that we are commanded to do in good faith as the blind person was commanded to go into the pool and dunk down seven times before he was healed. Our willingness to do what He says is a testimony to the world of our faith. As we confess our sins to God and to others it is also a testimony. Receiving communion is symbolic for His sacrifice, we are not really eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we do these things in remembrance of what He did. But water baptism does not save. Believing in Jesus saves and He gives you the Holy Spirit which is being baptized by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Who lives inside you confirms your relationship as an adopted son of God and at that time, you are sealed.

Problematic, however, is that you won't find anywhere in Scripture wherein baptism is a testimony to the world of our faith. But moreso we aren't even able to figure out when Scripture says "baptism" it's referring to "water baptism" or "spiritual baptism", so far you seem to be deciding which is which based entirely on your own say-so.

Why is Matthew 28:19-20 about "water baptism", but Romans 6:3-11 not? How did you make that determination?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is a two step process. If you aren't born first, you will not be reborn. That is what "reborn" means. Born again.
First birth - born of flesh, second birth - born of spirit.

I agree that it is a new birth, what I disagree with is that Jesus would need to tell people that they first need to have been born at all.

I don't think I did, I think you might have misread it. Born of water is childbirth.

You wrote the following:

If you notice, Jesus did not offer it as a necessary prerequisite, he responded to Nicodemus' question about it. He then contrasted baptism by water/flesh to baptism by the spirit.

They are two separate baptisms. Being born of flesh, according to the passage, is being born of water (childbirth),

Hence, my being a bit perplexed.

It doesn't have anything to do with being a midwife (AND wonders how one gets from understanding known concepts to being a midwife), it has to do with using known concepts. Again, there is no OT precedent for baptism, so one would not equate it with anything, hence why it is not used or indicated, however, it is a known concept that water accompanies physical birth. So, using a concept that Nicodemus was familiar with, and one which Nicodemus, himself, introduces, Jesus indicates that the first birth is childbirth, and the rebirth is spiritual. What do you think rebirth means if regular birth is not the first birth. What is being "reborn" indicative of?

You do know that tevilah--ritual washing in water--is a thing in Judaism right? It's also part of the converting to Judaism--bathing in a mikveh that is.

Baptism didn't come from no where, it's rooted, historically, in the Jewish practice of tevilah.

Nicodemus, a rabbi, certainly would have had intimate understanding in what tevilah meant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[A New Dawn]

You wrote the following:

Hence, my being a bit perplexed.

There is nothing in either of those quotes that contradicts each other.

You do know that tevilah--ritual washing in water--is a thing in Judaism right? It's also part of the converting to Judaism--bathing in a mikveh that is.

Baptism didn't come from no where, it's rooted, historically, in the Jewish practice of tevilah.

Nicodemus, a rabbi, certainly would have had intimate understanding in what tevilah meant.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I do know that the Jewish people ritually washed their dead, which many feel is the precursor for baptism, but being born again and ritual washing are two different things. You only connect them in hindsight and therefore convince yourself that that is what Jesus is referring to. But Jesus doesn't ever mention baptism in that passage, so why people are so bound and determined to associate them is beyond me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is nothing in either of those quotes that contradicts each other.

You spoke of these as "baptisms", those were your words. As though the distinction is between "physical" or "water" baptism and "spiritual" baptism; and then spoke of the first as childbirth. Do you consider childbirth a baptism? That's the only way that this can make sense to me because your wording seems to me otherwise rather confused.

Yes, I do know that the Jewish people ritually washed their dead, which many feel is the precursor for baptism, but being born again and ritual washing are two different things. You only connect them in hindsight and therefore convince yourself that that is what Jesus is referring to. But Jesus doesn't ever mention baptism in that passage, so why people are so bound and determined to associate them is beyond me.

Ritual bathing was standard Jewish practice for a number of things, one of those things was conversion to Judaism. Both in the past and today when a person converts to Judaism they undergo a ritual washing (tevilah) in a mikveh. It was also used for ritual purification such as when a man had a "night time emission" or a woman after her menustration. Priests were required to ritually bathe to make themselves pure before performing their priestly duties in the Temple.

What John was doing in the wilderness was a kind of tevilah, John's message was that the Messiah was coming and so the people of Israel needed to turn to God in repentance, and he called them to this preparation and repentance though a ritual washing, but in the Jordan. To make themselves clean in preparation for Messiah's coming. That's what John was doing.

Christian Baptism is based on this, but the meaning of the ritual washing was no longer attached to ritual purification but attached to Jesus and what Jesus had done; they were to be washed in the name of--by the authority of--Jesus the Messiah. It was not, as John's baptism was, a washing of repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, but a washing for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) in the name and authority of Jesus the Messiah.

Baptism as the rite of conversion to Christianity is directly predicated on the Jewish tevilah as part of the process of conversion. But the meaning of Christian baptism is fundamentally different than both Jewish tevilah and John's tevilah/washing/baptism; the meaning being redefined in and by and on account of Jesus the Messiah; by which one is washed and enters into the covenant people of the Messiah--that is the Church. To which Paul will write, that we who were baptized were baptized into Christ's death, that we who were baptized into Christ are clothed with Christ, that we have received a spiritual circumcision in baptism, etc.

And so we see here in John's Gospel, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus, a rabbi, and Jesus speaks of being born of water and Spirit and Nicodemus should know what Jesus is talking about. Not childbirth, but what would have been readily and easily known by any practicing Jew, especially a rabbi. When one enters into the mikveh for tevilah for the purpose of conversion they are entering into the people of God's covenant and at least in some sense made members of the kingdom/nation of Israel (if this language is in error, I freely welcome our resident Jewish members to correct me).

For more information, try this article:

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewish/The-Mikvah.htm

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ronald]

Clearly? How is this more "clearly" about "water baptism" than Romans 6:3-11?



Problematic, however, is that you won't find anywhere in Scripture wherein baptism is a testimony to the world of our faith. But moreso we aren't even able to figure out when Scripture says "baptism" it's referring to "water baptism" or "spiritual baptism", so far you seem to be deciding which is which based entirely on your own say-so.

Why is Matthew 28:19-20 about "water baptism", but Romans 6:3-11 not? How did you make that determination?

-CryptoLutheran

Because in Matthew 28, Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize people -- there it is. They couldn't baptize them with the Holy Spirit, they could only water baptize. Priests and pastors can only water baptize. Infants are water baptized (in Catholicism); but they don't have a clue what it means, nor is it of there own will to receive it. This is why children should be older and understand who Jesus is, what it means -- at the age of accountability. It is a personal relationship between you and God, therefore a personal decision based on the knowledge of Jesus however basic or simplistic it may be. I believe a four year old can understand and perceive the Word of God on a basic level. But generally it is better to wait till they can tell you the story -- what they believe and some nail it. My daughter got baptized at about ten years old after a few years of children's church.

In Rom. 6, baptized "into Christ" and "into His death" is spiritual, not physical. Water is symbolic. Now, this doesn't mean that a person can't receive the Holy Spirit at the time of water baptism or before it. Jesus was baptized and then the Holy Spirit came upon Him and the Father spoke. This was for our sake. Jesus was always filled with the Spirit -- He is God.
I was born again in 1991 but procrastinated a little with my water baptism, which happened the following year. Btw, it is a public testimony of obedience and your faith when you get up in front of hundreds and confess your faith and get water baptized.