• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I think it's a repentant heart and willingness to be saved that's important. Why would God not save someone if they ask him willingly? Would he hold what they don't know against them? If he does that doesn't sound like a loving God who wants to save people.

God has already said for a sinner to be saved he must believe John 8:24; repent Luke 13:3; confess Matthew 10:32-33 and be baptized. Why would God change his mind? (God does not change His mind)
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Is it water that baptizes one in Christ?

Or is it CHRIST who baptizes one in CHRIST?
When Phillip water baptized the eunuch, then Phillip baptized the eunuch into Christ.

Rom 6:3 ".... so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death..."

The verb baptized above in red is passive voice. One is passive when he is being baptized.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No Peter said in the very next chapter after he questioned what happened and said for them to be baptized that then he remembered the word of the Lord ( in Acts 1) how that John baptized [past tense] with water, but ye shall be [future tense] baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Peter was confused because he saw the gentiles come in and be saved by God's grace and speak with tongues before any works of the law were done. Water baptism was of the law and OT diverse washings that were imposed upon the Jews. Peter was still under the law at that time and following the halavah law or oral traditions and customs of the jews. When a Gentile convert came to Judaism they had to be water baptized in full submersion and be circumcised. This is why the Pharisees that believed in Acts 15 said that the gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved.

Peter was either following the traditions of the Jews in their oral traditions and customs or following Johns OT baptism that was to fade away as all the OT covenant was ( Hebrews 8 and 9)

Notice that there were also the circumcison group with Peter and he knew he would meet more of them and rehersed what he would say when he met them.

All through Acts we see this aspect of the Jews zealous for the law. Peter did not understand all these things yet. Peter even argued with God about not eating unclean meats. Peter was still under the OT dietary laws. Also Peter said it was unlawful to eat with a Gentile. This is not the Mosaic law but rather the Halakah law or customs of the Jews. So Peter was still under this as many thousands of Jews were right up to Acts 21 and beyond as the scripture shows. Peter and many other Jewish believers were going into the temple all this time and sacrificing animals and following the law. But in Acts 15 when there was a disputation about the Gentiles Peter said that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were saved by grace. He understood this. He did not seek to bring them at that time under the law and the entire jewish group there agreed and did not put the Gentiles under the law. They only had to do four things that were required for strangers in Israel.


Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you ...."

Who does the pronoun "you" refer to?
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
so the thief on the cross did not meet the Lord in paradise(I saw the response to this, a rather unsatisfying argument from silence)?
Yes he did go to paradise as the Lord said he would. Yet the thief is not an example of NT gospel salvation Hebrews 9:16-17...Christ and the thief were both still alive and the NT was not in effect when Christ promised him paradise. Christ, being the Testator of the NT, must first die before His testament went in force.
 
Upvote 0

JohnKing67

Active Member
Dec 2, 2014
113
28
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
✟26,631.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
God has already said for a sinner to be saved he must believe John 8:24; repent Luke 13:3; confess Matthew 10:32-33 and be baptized. Why would God change his mind? (God does not change His mind)
Ok, so God doesn't take circumstances into account then. Maybe he's not as loving and forgiving as I thought.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The reason Jesus mentioned being born of water and also being born of the spirit is because he first said a man must be born again, very simple, then Nicodemus asked how can a man be born when he is old, can he ENTER INTO HIS MOTHERS WOMB AND BE BORN. Jesus answered this question and added to the original statement "you must be born again". Jesus added that which is born of the flesh is flesh( this would be a person coming out of h the mothers womb when the water breaks, born of water. But the spirit al birth is unseen born of the spirit, like the wind. If water baptism was mean with the spirit here then when a person gets water baptized you would see it. But jesus said the new birth is unseen like the wind. so is everyone that is born of the spirit. He did not end the talk with "born of the spirit and water.

also Nicodemus may have thought he was saved just by his natural birth being a child in Israel from Abraham etc. But Jesus corrects any misunderstanding of this.

notice the order and flow of this section

"3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [Jesus first simply mentions being born again]

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? [Nicodemus then ask how a man can go into his mothers womb and be born, so the context does refer in part to a natural birth, or being born after the flesh, for flesh is flesh as jesus said, and the baby comes out of the womb with water , when the water breaks, to e born of water is an expression of this, very simple really to the unbiased reader]

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. [ Jesus answers Nicodemus question and shows a difference in the two births, Jesus is saying that none enter into the kingdom of God unless they have two births, not just one as Nicodemus had, just by claiming to be a descendant of Abraham and belonging to the Jews did not make them saved as many may have thought, something else is needed and that is to be born of the spirit.]

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [This is so clear her that I marvel any could miss it. Two births are mentioned in this section, one is of the flesh and that birth is only flesh, NOT a spiritual birth in any way), the other is to be born after the spirit and this is by the word of God as scripture teaches]

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. [ Jesus now goes away from answering Nicodemus question about being born a second time from the womb of a woman and clarifies his original words in vs 3]

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [Here we see that the expression to be born again is a spiritual one not of the flesh but of the spirit, like the wind which cannot be seen so is everyone that is born of the spirit. Notice here Jesus does not mention born of the flesh or born of water. He simply reaffirms his original words in vs 3 about being g born again. This birth is from above not of the earth. this birth is a spiritual birth[

Paul says similar about this birth here,

Galatians 4:19
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,..."

Notice here that the birth he speaks of is a spiritual one. They had already received the spirit by the hearing of faith in Chapter three we read , and then they were trying to be perfect by the works of the law and adding the law and circumcision to the gospel. This caused some to fall from grace ( or salvation for by grace are ye saved) and they had to be born again, again, as Paul said. But there is no water baptism mentioned here. To have "birth again", is to have Christ formed in you. This is a spiritual life. If any try to add water baptism to the gospel , they fall into the game judgement Paul warned about adding circumcision to salvation also. The gospel is 1 Cor 15: 1-4, plain and simple, no works of the law added no water baptism or Sabbaths or circumcision etc.

To be born again is a spiritual life not physical, not water or ritual . We see this here

"23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It is the word of God that gives life and birth and this word is sown in the heart,

"9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." ( 1 John 3:9)

an

"18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,...and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls."( James 1:18,21)


Psalm 119:50
"This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hathquickened me."

Nicodemus should have known this already as jesus said. Quickened means to make alive.

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;"

Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

this last verse is important because by grace we are saved not of works. Not of water baptism. Paul said Christ sent him not to baptism but to preach the gospel. This shows the difference of water baptism to the gospel, and they are not the same. Yet the gospel is what saves as Paul said in 1 Cor 15.


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?"

I see that Nicodemus understood the impossibility of a MAN entering a second time into his mothers' womb and be born again. So Nicodemus knew Jesus was not talking about the physical birth because of the impossibility of a second physical birth yet Nicodemus did not understand what kind of birth Christ was talking about.....though he should have John 3:10.

Again, water baptism is where sins are remitted. Can you see one's sins being remitted, being forgiven, see the body of sin being cut away when one is baptized? No.

Nowhere did Christ say "the new birth is unseen like the wind", no such verse is in the bible.
But Colossians 2:11-12 says "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

This passage speaks of a circumcision that is "made without hands" yet says nothing at all about a baptism done without hands. The "buried with Him in baptism" is a literal burial in water baptism as the Phillip did with the eunuch....a literal burial "wherein also ye are risen".

Now you can continue down your path of trying to make "water" mean the physical birth but it makes Christ look ignorant....."Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be physically born and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." You are essentially arguing that Christ was to ignorant to know a full grown man standing in front of HIm has ALREADY been physically born. Christ would NOT say to an already full grown man you MUST be physically born. And how could Nicodemus follow this command (MUST) to be physically born again when he already was physically born. Horribly bad position for you to try and argue water baptism out of the text. It would be no different if you came to me and ask me how to get to the local WalMart and I respond "you first must be physically born to get to WalMart"....as if I do not know you are ALREADY physically born.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟55,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
When an infant is born they are saved by the grace of God for Jesus died for the sin of the whole world. They are not aware of the law yet. Paul said he was alive once ( as an infant or young child) without the law, but when the commandment came sin revived ( his sin nature being provoked by the law) and he died ( he died spiritually not physically). All infants , I believe are in this similar state until they have sin revive ( or their old sin nature revives) it lies dormant so to speak until revived. Also Jesus said the reason men are condemned is when they hate the light because their deeds are evil. But the child has not done any good or evil yet until sin revives. Where no law is there is no transgression and sin is not imputed where there is no law.

But infant salvation is a long talk. Jesus did bless the infants and said of such is the kingdom of Heaven. They also had angels for each off them.

Unless any here want to say that when a one day old child dies they will sand before God and hear the words "away from me all ye that work iniquity"

The analogy is there. When one is born again, that is, raised up from the water grave to walk in newness of life he emerges as a new born baby free from sin and pure.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?"
I see that Nicodemus understood the impossibility of a MAN entering a second time into his mothers' womb and be born again. So Nicodemus knew Jesus was not talking about the physical birth because of the impossibility of a second physical birth yet Nicodemus did not understand what kind of birth Christ was talking about.....though he should have John 3:10.
Again, water baptism is where sins are remitted. Can you see one's sins being remitted, being forgiven, see the body of sin being cut away when one is baptized? No.
Nowhere did Christ say "the new birth is unseen like the wind", no such verse is in the bible.
But Colossians 2:11-12 says "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

This passage speaks of a circumcision that is "made without hands" yet says nothing at all about a baptism done without hands. The "buried with Him in baptism" is a literal burial in water baptism as the Phillip did with the eunuch....a literal burial "wherein also ye are risen".
Now you can continue down your path of trying to make "water" mean the physical birth but it makes Christ look ignorant....."Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be physically born and born
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." You are essentially arguing that Christ was to ignorant to know a full grown man standing in front of HIm has ALREADY been physically born. Christ would NOT say to an already full grown man you MUST be physically born. And how could Nicodemus follow this command (MUST) to be physically born again when he already was physically born. Horribly bad position for you to try and argue water baptism out of the text. It would be no different if you came to me and ask me how to get to the local WalMart and I respond "you first must be physically born to get to WalMart"....as if I do not know you are ALREADY physically 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.
This was spoken to a Jewish priest, who thought that being born a Jew, in and of itself, ensured his salvation. This was spoken early in Jesus' ministry and certainly before He was crucified.
.....If I understand the argument correctly Jesus told Nicodemus a Jewish priest that he needed to be baptized and born of the spirit before he could enter the kingdom of God.
.....If Jesus was talking about baptism in John 3:5, why did you say in an earlier post that

"the thief is not an example of NT gospel salvation ...Christ and the thief were both still alive and the NT was not in effect when Christ promised him paradise."
Jesus and Nicodemus were both alive when Jesus told him, according to you, "Except a man be born of water [i.e. be baptized]... he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Your earlier post quoted below.
Yes he did go to paradise as the Lord said he would.
Yet the thief is not an example of NT gospel salvation
Hebrews 9:16-17...Christ and the thief were both still alive and the NT was not in effect when Christ promised him paradise.
Christ, being the Testator of the NT, must first die before His testament went in force.
When Jesus, the Testator of the NT, spoke to Nicodemus He was not dead and His testament was not in force, yet He told Nicodemus that "
Except a man be born of water [which is being interpreted as baptism]... he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
 
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,643
Michigan
✟106,234.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Yes he did go to paradise as the Lord said he would. Yet the thief is not an example of NT gospel salvation Hebrews 9:16-17...Christ and the thief were both still alive and the NT was not in effect when Christ promised him paradise. Christ, being the Testator of the NT, must first die before His testament went in force.

that verse is talking about forgiveness of sins in Christ sacrifice and shedding of blood for the remission of sins, not about new testament law.

the laws that Jesus gave in the sermon on the mount were in effect when he said them.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When Phillip water baptized the eunuch, then Phillip baptized the eunuch into Christ.

Rom 6:3 ".... so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death..."

The verb baptized above in red is passive voice. One is passive when he is being baptized.
No he didn't
CHRIST baptized the eunuch into HIMSELF

Of course it's passive
It's not man's work
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,656
5,529
73
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟601,500.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No he didn't
CHRIST baptized the eunuch into HIMSELF
Of course it's passive
It's not man's work
Acts 8:38
He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.​

Very hard to argue that Philip did not baptise the Ethiopian eunuch, in the face of the witness of Acts.

Romans 6:1-4
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?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.​

The two themes of Baptism on the New Testament are the sense of re-birth or new birth, as seems to be explored in John 3, and the Pauline concept of death to the old self and walking in newness of life. These are not polar opposites, so much as exploring a concept that is both deep and broad.

Personally I don't think we make enough of Baptism in the Church, I think we should be exploring ways to ensure that the liturgy of Baptism is both Wet and Wild, in order that people will understand that we think it is important. In order that people walk away saying 'Wow, that really meant something'.

And yes, I do believe that Baptism is a sacrament, which is a sign, that points us in the way of Christ, and a marker of our encounter with the light of the world, Risen from Death, and calling us to be salt in the life of the world. Let us make sure that Baptism is a celebration, not just a sombre rite followed by a family celebration, lets make sure that the Baptism itself is a celebration. Let's make sure everyone gets damp. Lets make sure everyone sees the light.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Historically Christian churches have recognized three forms of baptism:
1. traditional water baptism
2. baptism of blood --- this would be a person who desired to be baptized but was martyred for his/her faith before baptism could take place. This would include the "good thief".
3. baptism of desire --- similar to the above but the person dies rather than being martyred.
Thanks for pointing the three out. I had conflated the second two to meaning the same thing and also more importantly I misrepresented or at least did not fully presented the Church's actual position.

In the Church Water Baptism is of course a Sacrament and in valid one, the Grace of Justification is applied (complete washing away of all prior sins).
The distinction the Church makes between two and three is that the sacrifice of the martyr's life/blood for their faith, is in itself and like a Baptism, obtaining the Grace of Justification (having the complete washing away of sins) just like the Sacrament of a water Baptism does. "Confess me before men..." and "he who gives his life...". In this understanding the thief could not be said to having given his life for the faith, as his life/blood was taken for his crimes not for his faith.
A Baptism of desire would be someone, like the thief on the cross, that performs a pure act of contrition or charity or pure love of God that in itself implies a desire for Baptism (but obviously wasn't water Baptized). The thief did this on the Cross in verbal act of contrition to God Himself and was immediately recognized for it.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree. Also if baptism were so important to salvation why would Paul say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)?

Wouldn't Paul want to baptize if it were necessary for salvation?
Reading the whole story it seems obvious to me that Saint Paul was not saying he did not want to Baptize, he was saying he was glad most of the people he was talking to, who had been wrongly boasting about who had Baptized them(as James, or John - IOW like a status thing) had not been baptized by him. So he is glad because other than the few names he recalled and maybe a few others he could not remember, the rest of them could not use his name to boast about it. He does not want them boasting or thinking who was performing the Baptism mattered, it doesn't as he said, you are all Baptized into one Baptism that of Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you're going to accuse me of cherry-picking then at last have a scripture to back up your argument.
She is actually using the whole section of the same letter to the Church from which you quoted, I thought that would be obvious from her response. Factions, would be another way of looking at someone that thought their Baptism or maybe even their faith was better that other groupings of Christians because say the Apostle Peter baptized them instead of the Apostle Paul and they were boasting to that effect.

Saint Paul has more to say about and the need for Baptism than any other NT writer. So to take a single verse and claim thereby that he was attempting to emphasize it less does not hold water if the rest of the NT is considered. So the concept of picking a cherry to make some point seems valid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MarysSon

Active Member
Jan 5, 2017
279
50
61
Southern California
✟33,155.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My purpose for being here is to learn what God has for me to learn, and sometimes that is teaching, and sometimes reading and always praying that I may be preserved from the pomposity of always believing that I am right.
And I don't believe that I'm right.
I believe the CHURCH is right because the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - not you or anybody else on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

MarysSon

Active Member
Jan 5, 2017
279
50
61
Southern California
✟33,155.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No he didn't
CHRIST baptized the eunuch into HIMSELF

Of course it's passive
It's not man's work
Acts 8:38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and HE (Philip) baptized him

Matt. 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, BAPTIZING them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Case CLOSED.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acts 8:38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and HE (Philip) baptized him

Matt. 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, BAPTIZING them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Case CLOSED.
Lol thanks. But since I wanted to know about the jailer please go and "help" with that one

If you had read my post PROPERLY, you wouldn't be repeating what I already knew
 
Upvote 0