Regeneration before or after saving faith

[Hammster]

We do have the clear words of Paul in Romans six saying that indeed baptism is our second birth. John gives us clear notification in twenty second verse of the same chapter that Jesus was indeed talking about baptism.

You need to keep your arguments straight.

You say that circumcision is the new baptism, which if true, Paul would argue that justification would need to come before baptism since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.

Then you argue that Paul says that baptism is our second birth, which would contradict most everything he’s said up to that point. And, he never comes close to saying that in chapter 6, or elsewhere. You are welcome to try to show it, though. (And John 3:22 says nothing about baptism being required for regeneration or justification or that it was in reference to v. 6.)

So far your arguments have been a verse here and a verse there, with no context, and a lot of presupposition. You haven’t made one argument from scripture that shows how we can be justified by faith, which requires no work, and still need a work to be both regenerated and justified. Not to mention, you might want to explain how we can do all these good things (baptism, faith, etc) in the flesh when scripture says that we cannot please God in the flesh.

 

[Gup20]

No it isn't. Were this talking about amniotic fluid, Jesus would be saying that only people who survived birth would be saved. That would mean that babies who die in the womb are going to hell.

But we also know he wasn't talking about a man's first birth because the topic was being born "again" and he's responding to Nicodemus who asks if a man can go back into the womb. The topic of a man's first birth is excluded by this context.

So people have to born 3 times... born physically... born of water... and born of spirit?

So in your opinion this is talking about water baptism and spiritual baptism? Are these two baptisms required for salvation and do they happen before someone is made righteous for their faith or after?

 

[Al Touthentop]

You need to keep your arguments straight.

You say that circumcision is the new baptism, which if true, Paul would argue that justification would need to come before baptism since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.

So we take his argument totally out of context?

Neither baptism nor circumcision was required of Abraham. His justification came through his obedience to the commands that God gave him and even circumcision was not required at that time. Circumcision came to him as a sign of the covenant that he entered into with God.

Then you argue that Paul says that baptism is our second birth, which would contradict most everything he’s said up to that point.

No it wouldn't. He says, "as many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death," and he goes on to say that also, we were resurrected with Christ, born a second time. He has connected the water with our second birth and with the way that we come into contact with the blood of his sacrifice.

And, he never comes close to saying that in chapter 6, or elsewhere. You are welcome to try to show it, though. (And John 3:22 says nothing about baptism being required for regeneration or justification or that it was in reference to v. 6.)

So it was an accident of context that just after Jesus has a conversation with Nicodemus about what it takes to be born again, that he was baptizing in the Jordan? Funny.

So far your arguments have been a verse here and a verse there, with no context, and a lot of presupposition. You haven’t made one argument from scripture that shows how we can be justified by faith, which requires no work, and still need a work to be both regenerated and justified. Not to mention, you might want to explain how we can do all these good things (baptism, faith, etc) in the flesh when scripture says that we cannot please God in the flesh.

Baptism is mentioned in every new testament book except maybe Jude and James. That it was required is clear and that it provided remission of sins is clear. Baptism is not in the flesh. It is of God as Jesus explained to the Pharisees who refused to get baptized. In fact, the scripture says that by refusing to be baptized, they rejected the will of God for themselves.

 

[Hammster]

Neither baptism nor circumcision was required of Abraham. His justification came through his obedience to the commands that God gave him and even circumcision was not required at that time. Circumcision came to him as a sign of the covenant that he entered into with God.

You continue to make that error. I’m not sure why.


After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying,
“Do not fear, Abram,
I am a shield to you;
Your reward shall be very great.”
Abram said, “O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
— Genesis 15:1-6

There was no obedience to a command. He believed the gospel. Plus, Paul says this


But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
— Romans 4:5

So no works, no obedience.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So people have to born 3 times... born physically... born of water... and born of spirit?

So in your opinion this is talking about water baptism and spiritual baptism? Are these two baptisms required for salvation and do they happen before someone is made righteous for their faith or after?

He's saying that baptism in water IS our spiritual rebirth. He doesn't talk about two separate things, he's connected them together. Just like Peter tells us in his first letter that baptism is not fleshly and that it "now saves us." From what? Our past sins. Baptism is our rebirth, our resurrection from the dead man of sin that once was. The spirit is connected with this. It seals us and marks us for redemption as Paul explains in Ephesians 1. And the water and the spirit and the blood testify as one that we are Christ's as John explains in his first letter. The proof that we are Christ's is our baptism.

 

[Hammster]

No it wouldn't. He says, "as many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death," and he goes on to say that also, we were resurrected with Christ, born a second time. He has connected the water with our second birth and with the way that we come into contact with the blood of his sacrifice.

Good example of what I’m talking about. You don’t even quote the scripture. You just make reference, then draw conclusions that can’t be substantiated if shown in context.


Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
— Romans 6:3

It doesn’t say that all of us who have been baptized have been baptized into His death. That’s the error and assumption you keep making.

 

[Hammster]

So it was an accident of context that just after Jesus has a conversation with Nicodemus about what it takes to be born again, that he was baptizing in the Jordan? Funny.

You may not realize it, but you are showing here how you are reading things into scripture.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You continue to make that error. I’m not sure why.



There was no obedience to a command. He believed the gospel. Plus, Paul says this


But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
— Romans 4:5

So no works, no obedience.

Except that James said that the scripture was fulfilled when Abraham obeyed. And he was inspired by the spirit to tell us this. Paul was not arguing with James. The scriptures harmonize, they do not fight one another. Paul was talking about works in context of the law of Moses. Abraham was not justified by obedience to a law that didn't yet exist, but in obedience to the commands God gave him.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Good example of what I’m talking about. You don’t even quote the scripture. You just make reference, then draw conclusions that can’t be substantiated if shown in context.


Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
— Romans 6:3

It doesn’t say that all of us who have been baptized have been baptized into His death. That’s the error and assumption you keep making.

Have you ever read the chapter? I am assuming you have. I could quote it but you don't seem to accept it anyway.

 

[Hammster]

Except that James said that the scripture was fulfilled when Abraham obeyed. And he was inspired by the spirit to tell us this. Paul was not arguing with James. The scriptures harmonize, they do not fight one another. Paul was talking about works in context of the law of Moses. Abraham was not justified by obedience to a law that didn't yet exist, but in obedience to the commands God gave him.

I just posted the scripture from Genesis that showed Abraham was justified by believing in God, and Paul’s conclusion that it was not by works. Your argument completely ignores that, and you read into it that which isn’t there.

 

[Hammster]

Have you ever read the chapter? I am assuming you have. I could quote it but you don't seem to accept it anyway.

That doesn’t address my post.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You may not realize it, but you are showing here how you are reading things into scripture.

I'm not reading things into scripture. Many Christians realize that Jesus was talking about baptism in John 3:5.

John's telling of Jesus baptizing right after that conversation is important, not just some coincidental artifact. Jesus himself was baptized by John 'to fulfill all righteousness.' That itself ought to be a clue as to his belief of its importance.

What did he ask the Pharisees about baptism? He asked if it was from man or God. Clearly, it's from God and it's important to fulfill righteousness in us, the believer. It's the very last instruction he gave to his apostles before ascending.

To preach that it isn't a requirement is to repudiate his and his apostles teachings. Why would we as Christians do that?

 

[Al Touthentop]

That doesn’t address my post.

It does, because you don't even acknowledge that I in fact quoted it in the post.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I just posted the scripture from Genesis that showed Abraham was justified by believing in God, and Paul’s conclusion that it was not by works. Your argument completely ignores that, and you read into it that which isn’t there.

Not by works of the law, as the context so aptly shows us. I do not ignore it, I make the proper distinction that is required.

And you want me to ignore James telling us that Abraham's belief was not limited to the thoughts in his head but that in order for the scripture to be understood, which tells us that Abraham was accounted righteousness, has to include the works he did in obedience to God. He says that the scripture was fulfilled when Abraham obeyed.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Good example of what I’m talking about. You don’t even quote the scripture. You just make reference, then draw conclusions that can’t be substantiated if shown in context.




Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
— Romans 6:3

It doesn’t say that all of us who have been baptized have been baptized into His death. That’s the error and assumption you keep making.

You claim I didn't quote scripture. And then you quote what I quoted and directly contradict what it says, by saying it doesn't say what it says, verbatim.

The scripture clearly states that "all of us" - the new King James version translates it "as many of us" - "who have been baptized have been baptized into his death." And you say it doesn't say that, quoting it saying exactly that.

Did you even notice yourself doing that?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not reading things into scripture. Many Christians realize that Jesus was talking about baptism in John 3:5.

John's telling of Jesus baptizing right after that conversation is important, not just some coincidental artifact. Jesus himself was baptized by John 'to fulfill all righteousness.' That itself ought to be a clue as to his belief of its importance.

What did he ask the Pharisees about baptism? He asked if it was from man or God. Clearly, it's from God and it's important to fulfill righteousness in us, the believer. It's the very last instruction he gave to his apostles before ascending.

To preach that it isn't a requirement is to repudiate his and his apostles teachings. Why would we as Christians do that?

The main problem is that you assume that Jesus was taking about baptism, even though He wasn’t, and that somehow relates to v 22.

Like I said, you are reading into the text.

 

[Hammster]

It does, because you don't even acknowledge that I in fact quoted it in the post.

It doesn’t because it doesn’t address what I said.

It doesn’t say that all of us who have been baptized have been baptized into His death.

 

[Hammster]

Not by works of the law, as the context so aptly shows us. I do not ignore it, I make the proper distinction that is required.

And you want me to ignore James telling us that Abraham's belief was not limited to the thoughts in his head but that in order for the scripture to be understood, which tells us that Abraham was accounted righteousness, has to include the works he did in obedience to God. He says that the scripture was fulfilled when Abraham obeyed.

There’s nothing in scripture that equates faith as thoughts in one’s head.

And if you read James in context, it’s clear he’s contrasting someone who really is saved with someone who just says he is.

context context context.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The main problem is that you assume that Jesus was taking about baptism, even though He wasn’t, and that somehow relates to v 22.

And your evidence is what, that he wasn't talking about baptism? What does he mean by water?

Like I said, you are reading into the text.

This coming from somebody who quotes a scripture and then boldly proclaims that it doesn't say the exact words it says.

I'm not reading anything new into the text.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It doesn’t because it doesn’t address what I said.

It doesn’t say that all of us who have been baptized have been baptized into His death.

That is exactly what it says. Word for word.

Romans 6
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (NASB)

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? (NKJV)