Are YOU BORN AGAIN ?

[Danthemailman]

The word "water" is used in scripture as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

John 15:3 - You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Ephesians 5:26 - that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.

 

[Dan Perez]

The word "water" is used in scripture as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

John 15:3 - You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Ephesians 5:26 - that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.

When anyone says that they believe in WATER BAPTISM ,

#1 When did WATER BAPTISM BEGIN ?

#2 If anyone see , the Greek word BAPTISM // BAPTIZO does it ALWAYS mean WATER BAPTISM ?

# 3 So in 1 Cor 10:2 And all were BAPTIZED unto Moses in the CLOUD and in the SEA ?

#4 Does that means WATER BAPTISM ?

# 5 How do you BAPTIZE a Cloud ?

#6 How was the SEA , BAPTIZED ?

#7 What happened to the Egyptians that followed Israel ??

dan p

 

[Danthemailman]

When anyone says that they believe in WATER BAPTISM ,

#1 When did WATER BAPTISM BEGIN ?

#2 If anyone see , the Greek word BAPTISM // BAPTIZO does it ALWAYS mean WTER BAPTISM ?

# 3 So in 1 Cor 10:2 And all were BAPTIZED unto Moses in the CLOUD and in the SEA ?

#4 Does that means WATER BAPTISM ?

# 5 How do you BAPTIZE a Cloud ?

#6 How was the SEA , BAPTIZED ?

#7 What happened to the Egyptians that followed Israel ??

dan p

Good questions and of course, the Israelites were not literally water baptized into the body of Moses in 1 Corinthians 10:2 and there is little dispute that being "baptized into Moses" signified the open allegiance and public identification of the Israelites with Moses as their leader. Moses was formally recognized as the leader of the covenant people.

Also, in Luke 12:50, we read - But I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and how I am distressed until it should be accomplished! Of course, Jesus was not distressed about water baptism, but being "immersed" into suffering, namely His sacrificial death on the cross.

In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we read - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. This is Spirit baptism and not water baptism.

 

[The Liturgist]

In John 3:3 reads , I say unto you , Except a man be BORN AGAIN , he cannot see the Kingdom of GOD .

So can you be BORN AGAIN ?

Your thought as to HOW that can happen TODAY ?

dan p

If one has not been baptized at any point in their life, as an infant or as an adult, one should hasten to the baptismal font because that is where we are born again. Likewise if one has not been chrismated (or confirmed, in either case, that is to say, having received the Holy Chrism) one should seek that as well, since it is the sacramental seal of the Holy Spirit.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Not sure why the focus on water baptism and being born again, as water baptism has nothing to do with being born again.

A person is permanently born again at the very moment they believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. The believer immediately at belief in Jesus, crosses over from death to life and will not come in to judgment.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

 

[The Liturgist]

When anyone says that they believe in WATER BAPTISM ,

#1 When did WATER BAPTISM BEGIN ?

Long before St. John the Baptist; indeed, Jews today continue to be baptized and rebaptized in fonts which they call Mikvahs in order to purify themselves, but as Christians we confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not sure why the focus on water baptism and being born again, as water baptism has nothing to do with being born again.

On the contrary, according to the New Testament it is literally the means by which we accomplish this. In so doing we are grafted onto the Body of Christ, the Church, and partake of His Body and Blood through Holy Communion, which is the very medicine of immortality.

 

[d taylor]

On the contrary, according to the New Testament it is literally the means by which we accomplish this. In so doing we are grafted onto the Body of Christ, the Church, and partake of His Body and Blood through Holy Communion, which is the very medicine of immortality.

Oh I strongly disagree and The Bible strongly disagrees, Jesus strongly disagrees, Peter would, John would, Paul would strongly disagree, along with the rest of The New Testament and Tankah believers (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc..) in Jesus.

The thief on the cross would also strongly disagree.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh I strongly disagree and The Bible strongly disagrees, Jesus strongly disagrees, Peter would, John would, Paul would strongly disagree, along with the rest of The New Testament and Tankah believers (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc..) in Jesus.

The thief on the cross would also strongly disagree.

No they don’t: in stating that baptism is the means for us to be born again, I am simply repeating what St. Peter teaches in Acts 2:38: “ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Now, the Thief on the Cross is an example of someone saved through the special mercy of Christ, like the righteous of Israel rescued in the Harrowing of Hell. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

Baptism is merely the normal means of being born again. However, even in the Orthodox church we perform a full Orthodox funeral, which can only be done for someone who might well be saved, for catechumens who might perish before being baptized.

I would also note that being born again through baptism was not regarded by anyone in the early church as guaranteeing salvation. It also is not the same as developing a faith in Christ. But it is regarded as something one should do if possible.

Baptismal regeneration is also the doctrine of Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans and the other Eastern churches. it is also believed in by Roman Catholics, which I suppose will cause some people to reject the doctrine without regard to its truth based on the fallacious assumption that whatever doctrine the Roman Catholic Church teaches must be wrong, which is of course nonsense, since most of the Catholic faith is shared with Protestants and the Orthodox, albeit different parts (for example, the Orthodox disagree on the filioque, the Protestants on the number and type of sacramanets, and both groups disagree with Rome on the authority of the Pope and on married clergy; indeed the Eastern churches rebuffed the suggestion of Roman legates at the Council of Nicaea to adopt a canon prescribing celibacy for clergy, however, I do regard based on the antiquity of the practice a celibate clergy as something acceptable within the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed other rites of the Catholic Church, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, have married priests.

 

[The Liturgist]

Here is a link to the OCA’s baptismal liturgy, which reflects the correct doctrine and practices concerning the Holy Mystery of Baptism: https://www.oca.org/files/PDF/Music/Baptism/baptism-service.pdf

“As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, Alleiluia.”

 

[d taylor]

No they don’t: in stating that baptism is the means for us to be born again, I am simply repeating what St. Peter teaches in Acts 2:38: “ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Now, the Thief on the Cross is an example of someone saved through the special mercy of Christ, like the righteous of Israel rescued in the Harrowing of Hell. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

Baptism is merely the normal means of being born again. However, even in the Orthodox church we perform a full Orthodox funeral, which can only be done for someone who might well be saved, for catechumens who might perish before being baptized.

I would also note that being born again through baptism was not regarded by anyone in the early church as guaranteeing salvation. It also is not the same as developing a faith in Christ. But it is regarded as something one should do if possible.

Baptismal regeneration is also the doctrine of Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans and the other Eastern churches. it is also believed in by Roman Catholics, which I suppose will cause some people to reject the doctrine without regard to its truth based on the fallacious assumption that whatever doctrine the Roman Catholic Church teaches must be wrong, which is of course nonsense, since most of the Catholic faith is shared with Protestants and the Orthodox, albeit different parts (for example, the Orthodox disagree on the filioque, the Protestants on the number and type of sacramanets, and both groups disagree with Rome on the authority of the Pope and on married clergy; indeed the Eastern churches rebuffed the suggestion of Roman legates at the Council of Nicaea to adopt a canon prescribing celibacy for clergy, however, I do regard based on the antiquity of the practice a celibate clergy as something acceptable within the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed other rites of the Catholic Church, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, have married priests.

Acts 2 is not about unbelievers becoming believers (all though there may be unbelievers in the crowd) . It is addressing believers what they must do (repent and be baptized) to receive the Holy Spirit and to be separated from the generation that committed the unpardonable sin (Matthew 12). who is facing God's judgment, for rejecting the kingdom of God, for rejecting Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Not a single mention in Acts 2 about believing in Jesus for Eternal Life and no mention of being born again in Acts 2.

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”

 

[The Liturgist]

Acts 2 is not about unbelievers becoming believers (all though there may be unbelievers in the crowd) .

I never said that it was. Rather, my Patristics-oriented assertion, as compared to your hermeneutics which I have not come across before, are that this is plainly an explanation to the faithful on how to receive the Holy Spirit through baptismal regeneration.

I also assert that Christ, who is truly God Himself stresses that being born again is through baptism in John 3:5. This at least is how Lutherans and the early church and the Orthodox interpret it, as my stalwart comrade @MarkRohfrietsch can attest (I have Mark attest to a lot, but this demonstrates the extent to which Lutherans, particularly the liturgical Confessional Lutherans, or Evangelical Catholics as they often prefer to be called, have an Orthodox phronema. However on this point even Calvinists are in agreement. My view is that where Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree, this constitutes a sufficiently ecumenical consensus.

Indeed my Calvinist friend @bbbbbbb might be pleased to note that this is because I regard Calvinists, like Lutherans, to be among the denominations that most carefully studies the sacred scriptures, which is why on a purely scriptural basis, Calvinist systematic theology holds up. That might not be enough for those of us who desire maximum continuity from the Early Church, and for those of us who believe that there was never any kind of systematic loss of the Apostolic faith across the entire church, in other words, a past great apostasy, since all warnings concerning such an apostasy seem to point to the future.

This is also perhaps why despite being Orthodox I have such a love for Lutherans, because of the views articulated by @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch and @JM which tend to be in agreement with my theology, at times even more so than many Anglican members (usually Anglicans tend to be the closest to Orthodoxy, and I was briefly Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox in 2014 due to the war in Syria, after the retirement of my friend Fr. Dean). There also seems to be something of a healthy rivalry between Anglicans and Lutherans as well as cooperation between some Lutheran denominations and some Continuing Anglican churches (and of course between the ELCA and TEC and the C of E and the Lutheran churches of Northwestern Europe, the Porvoo communion, but it is less obvious and therefore more impressive to see Anglican-Lutheran cooperation persist in the more traditional environment of traditional continuing Anglicanism and confessional Lutheranism. If I recall my friend @Shane R occasionally assists with a traditional Lutheran church in addition to his duties as an Anglican presbyter.

 

[d taylor]

I never said that it was. Rather, my Patristics-oriented assertion, as compared to your hermeneutics which I have not come across before, are that this is plainly an explanation to the faithful on how to receive the Holy Spirit through baptismal regeneration.

I also assert that Christ, who is truly God Himself stresses that being born again is through baptism in John 3:5. This at least is how Lutherans and the early church and the Orthodox interpret it, as my stalwart comrade @MarkRohfrietsch can attest (I have Mark attest to a lot, but this demonstrates the extent to which Lutherans, particularly the liturgical Confessional Lutherans, or Evangelical Catholics as they often prefer to be called, have an Orthodox phronema. However on this point even Calvinists are in agreement. My view is that where Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree, this constitutes a sufficiently ecumenical consensus.

Indeed my Calvinist friend @bbbbbbb might be pleased to note that this is because I regard Calvinists, like Lutherans, to be among the denominations that most carefully studies the sacred scriptures, which is why on a purely scriptural basis, Calvinist systematic theology holds up. That might not be enough for those of us who desire maximum continuity from the Early Church, and for those of us who believe that there was never any kind of systematic loss of the Apostolic faith across the entire church, in other words, a past great apostasy, since all warnings concerning such an apostasy seem to point to the future.

This is also perhaps why despite being Orthodox I have such a love for Lutherans, because of the views articulated by @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch and @JM which tend to be in agreement with my theology, at times even more so than many Anglican members (usually Anglicans tend to be the closest to Orthodoxy, and I was briefly Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox in 2014 due to the war in Syria, after the retirement of my friend Fr. Dean). There also seems to be something of a healthy rivalry between Anglicans and Lutherans as well as cooperation between some Lutheran denominations and some Continuing Anglican churches (and of course between the ELCA and TEC and the C of E and the Lutheran churches of Northwestern Europe, the Porvoo communion, but it is less obvious and therefore more impressive to see Anglican-Lutheran cooperation persist in the more traditional environment of traditional continuing Anglicanism and confessional Lutheranism. If I recall my friend @Shane R occasionally assists with a traditional Lutheran church in addition to his duties as an Anglican presbyter.

-
​

Again you say that is not what you are saying but then turn around and use baptismal regeneration. Which plainly means by people who believe in baptismal regeneration, that that is how a person is saved and born again. By using a four step process a person must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be saved. I will also add that the person must also live a life in obedience to the church or they will lose their salvation. Which is belief created by combing different contextual verse to create this salvation plan.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

Again you say that is not what you are saying but then turn around and use baptismal regeneration. Which plainly means by people who believe in baptismal regeneration, that that is how a person is saved and born again. By using a four step process a person must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be saved. I will also add that the person must also live a life in obedience to the church or they will lose their salvation. Which is belief created by combing different contextual verse to create this salvation plan.

That’s not correct. As I asserted, according to Orthodox theology, persons who intend to be baptized, who have become catechumens, can be saved, and indeed anyone can be saved through the special mercy of Jesus Christ. Also, obviously, in the case of infants, none of the churches who baptize them, including Anglicans, Calvinists and Lutherans, assert that infants must believe, repent or confess. Now I forget what the Lutheran explanation is, but in Orthodoxy we regard Baptism as working noetically rather than intellectually, which is important because non-sacramental approaches to being born again appear to in many cases require intellectual knowledge and thus run into problems concerning how to explain the salvation of children or the mentally disabled. Now, explanations are provided by Baptists and others, but I am unmoved by these, particularly since the Eastern Church in a manner consistent with the Early Church completely rejects this.

Faith is not a question of intellectual assent but a living practice.

What is more, I would note that if we were to accept your incorrect argument that sacramental baptism in Orthodoxy is procedural, there would be six or seven or more steps, since you omitted or are unaware that the mysteries of Chrismation and the Eucharist directly follow from Baptism in our tradition. And furthermore, all traditional churches exorcise and bless the water in the baptismal font, and also all Holy Water in any font, and we also exorcise the person being baptized. Indeed being baptized and chrismated as an infant is of immediate benefit because of the protection it offers to children against being demonically possessed, which unfortunately has been known to occur, due to the extreme evil of the devil. Baptizing infants and adults as the means of regeneration also functions as a form of exorcism, and likewise Chrismation applies the Seal of the Holy Spirit.

Now, interestingly, the sacrament of Chrismation (also known as Confirmation in the West) unlike that of Baptism, can in Holy Orthodoxy be repeated, so if someone commits apostasy by practicing another religion, Chrismation can be used to receive them, and can also serve as the most convenient means by which any demons they may have picked up through unwise dalliance in occult religions such as Voudon or Theosophy or Spiritism or Wicca, to name just a few, can be disposed of, unless someone is severely posessed in which case the exorcism prayers of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, who also composed the two main Eastern Orthodox liturgical texts, can be used.

 

[d taylor]

That’s not correct. As I asserted, according to Orthodox theology, persons who intend to be baptized, who have become catechumens, can be saved, and indeed anyone can be saved through the special mercy of Jesus Christ. Also, obviously, in the case of infants, none of the churches who baptize them, including Anglicans, Calvinists and Lutherans, assert that infants must believe, repent or confess. Now I forget what the Lutheran explanation is, but in Orthodoxy we regard Baptism as working noetically rather than intellectually, which is important because non-sacramental approaches to being born again appear to in many cases require intellectual knowledge and thus run into problems concerning how to explain the salvation of children or the mentally disabled. Now, explanations are provided by Baptists and others, but I am unmoved by these, particularly since the Eastern Church in a manner consistent with the Early Church completely rejects this.

Faith is not a question of intellectual assent but a living practice.

What is more, I would note that if we were to accept your incorrect argument that sacramental baptism in Orthodoxy is procedural, there would be six or seven or more steps, since you omitted or are unaware that the mysteries of Chrismation and the Eucharist directly follow from Baptism in our tradition. And furthermore, all traditional churches exorcise and bless the water in the baptismal font, and also all Holy Water in any font, and we also exorcise the person being baptized. Indeed being baptized and chrismated as an infant is of immediate benefit because of the protection it offers to children against being demonically possessed, which unfortunately has been known to occur, due to the extreme evil of the devil. Baptizing infants and adults as the means of regeneration also functions as a form of exorcism, and likewise Chrismation applies the Seal of the Holy Spirit.

Now, interestingly, the sacrament of Chrismation (also known as Confirmation in the West) unlike that of Baptism, can in Holy Orthodoxy be repeated, so if someone commits apostasy by practicing another religion, Chrismation can be used to receive them, and can also serve as the most convenient means by which any demons they may have picked up through unwise dalliance in occult religions such as Voudon or Theosophy or Spiritism or Wicca, to name just a few, can be disposed of, unless someone is severely posessed in which case the exorcism prayers of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, who also composed the two main Eastern Orthodox liturgical texts, can be used.

There is no can be saved, a person either has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life (salvation) and has become a permanent born again child of God or they have not.

No amount of repenting or being baptized, etc... can make the believers belief a real, truer or better belief.

This will be my last reply to your quoting of my post, I have said all i need to say.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no can be saved, a person either has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life (salvation) and has become a permanent born again child of God or they have not.

No amount of repenting or being baptized, etc... can make the believers belief a real, truer or better belief.

This will be my last reply to your quoting of my post, I have said all i need to say.

Once saved, always saved was never a doctrine of the Early Church, but I would note that Calvinists believe in something similar to your position, that being that persons who go on to become apostate were unregenerate despite having been baptized. This is also conceptually related to Calvinist monergism, which I disagree with.

At any rate, God bless you, and I do hope you have a very pleasant and enjoyable day!

 

[JM]

-
​

Again you say that is not what you are saying but then turn around and use baptismal regeneration. Which plainly means by people who believe in baptismal regeneration, that that is how a person is saved and born again. By using a four step process a person must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be saved. I will also add that the person must also live a life in obedience to the church or they will lose their salvation. Which is belief created by combing different contextual verse to create this salvation plan.

I'm not interested in a long, protracted debate but I will add, even from a Reformed/Calvinist perspective regeneration isn't salvation.

Sinners are regenerated to believe, it precedes faith, and can be lost. I think you are assuming a OSAS theology, that once regenerated you will be saved, period. Baptismal regeneration was the view held by the early church Fathers and found in their commentaries on scripture. It's not a work of man but a work of God, it's completely monergistic. Once regenerate, like an infant when not taken care of, the new life can die. The new life is sustained by God through the Sacraments of the Table and Confession/Holy Absolution.

On another note, confessional Lutherans believe we are saved by Christ alone through faith. Luther is kinda famous for it...you inherited his doctrine of justification without giving a nod but I digress. In a Lutheran sense, a person can be saved by faith alone, no works needed. No obedience needed. Lutherans do not believe in progressive sanctification like other Prots do, but believe sanctification is about "getting better at suffering" [Wolfmueller]. Since we cannot remove our sinful nature this side of glory we must be justified by faith.

Baptism regenerates but faith justifies.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dan Perez]

If one has not been baptized at any point in their life, as an infant or as an adult, one should hasten to the baptismal font because that is where we are born again. Likewise if one has not been chrismated (or confirmed, in either case, that is to say, having received the Holy Chrism) one should seek that as well, since it is the sacramental seal of the Holy Spirit.

And in Eph 4:5 it reads , ONE LORD ONE FAITH ONE BAPTISM !!

Will all believe that , and the answer is NO ?

Why ??

Because of what they have been taught , and have also , been taught the same that WATYER BAPTISM and SPEAKING IN TONGUES was also taught to me !!

Here is a question you and reads like this ?

If BAPTISM is for those that WATER BAPTISM SAVES and cleanses all sin , WHY WAS JESUS WATER BAPTIZED since he had NO SIN and what would He have to REPENT , Acts 2:38 and Matt 3:15 and 16 ?

dan p

 

[d taylor]

I'm not interested in a long, protracted debate but I will add, even from a Reformed/Calvinist perspective regeneration isn't salvation.

Sinners are regenerated to believe, it precedes faith, and can be lost. I think you are assuming a OSAS theology, that once regenerated you will be saved, period. Baptismal regeneration was the view held by the early church Fathers and found in their commentaries on scripture. It's not a work of man but a work of God, it's completely monergistic. Once regenerate, like an infant when not taken care of, the new life can die. The new life is sustained by God through the Sacraments of the Table and Confession/Holy Absolution.

On another note, confessional Lutherans believe we are saved by Christ alone through faith. Luther is kinda famous for it...you inherited his doctrine of justification without giving a nod but I digress. In a Lutheran sense, a person can be saved by faith alone, no works needed. No obedience needed. Lutherans do not believe in progressive sanctification like other Prots do, but believe sanctification is about "getting better at suffering" [Wolfmueller]. Since we cannot remove our sinful nature this side of glory we must be justified by faith.

Baptism regenerates but faith justifies.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

-
​

All i have to say to you in a reply is that it is not as you say (i believe) that once regenerated you will be saved, period.

It is once a person believes in Jesus they are saved or the way i say it. They have received God's free gift of Eternal Life and have crossed over from death to life and become a permanent born again child of God.

Not they eventually will cross over, but that they cross over at the very moment of belief in Jesus.

 

[JM]

-
​

All i have to say to you in a reply is that it is not as you say (i believe) that once regenerated you will be saved, period.

It is once a person believes in Jesus they are saved or the way i say it. They have received God's free gift of Eternal Life and have crossed over from death to life and become a permanent born again child of God.

Not they eventually will cross over, but that they cross over at the very moment of belief in Jesus.

Isn't saying "...become a permanent born again child of God" admitting to OSAS? Do you believe someone can fall away from the faith?

The early church and Lutherans in particular use "bucket theology," meaning we gather together what scripture teaches on a subject and just confess what we find. It's all in one theological bucket and whatever we find, even if it seems like a contradiction, we believe it. We do not try to reconcile away passages about being eternally secure with passages that admit we can fall away for both are true.

Yours in the Lord,

JM