Do you believe the born again experience is a miracle from God?

Fervent said:

That's not really an answer since it's not knowable on our end. From our perspective, when do these sins become "future sins?"

And once we establish what you mean by "future sins," I'll take a shot at answering the question but as I currently don't know what that means I can't adequately assess the question at hand.

Click to expand...

Future sins means exactly what it says. Sins that you have not yet committed and they are in the future. For example: God may know Bob may sin 2 years from now. So that would be a future sin.

ViaCrucis said:

Except, of course, you are adding all of these things into the text. Romans 6 simply speaks of Baptism. You are adding "baptism into the Holy Spirit" where it's not.

You are also speaking of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which the Scriptures do talk about, and applying it where Scripture never applies it.

Outside of Pentecost and what happened at Cornelius' house, can you find a single mention of "baptism with the Holy Spirit" happening in Scripture? I mean explicitly.

For example, many point out to the laying on of hands such as what happened with the Samaritans and with the disciples mentioned in Acts ch. 19 as "baptism with the Holy Spirit", but the Bible doesn't say that.

Instead, the laying on of hands and the sealing of the Spirit associated with that is what is historically called Chrismation, which is the anointing with oil and laying on of hands that, historically, has always accompanied Baptism. To this day if you were to spectate a traditional baptism in any of the historic churches, you will find that the baptized has hands laid on them, they are anointed with oil (Greek: "chrism", hence Chrismation).

Now, yes, in Holy Baptism we have "been baptized into one Spirit into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13); in the same way we have been baptized into the one Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27); and indeed we have been baptized into the Father also--since we have the Lord's words: "Baptize ... in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". And so it is that three-fold name into which we are baptized. We have been baptized into the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; we have been baptized into the seal of God's Triune name. But it does not mean that there are multiple baptisms that Christians must experience, there is only one Baptism, St. Paul says, just as there is one Spirit, one Lord, one Body, one God and Father. The one Baptism is what Scriptures make frequent mention of: what we ordinarily call "Christian Baptism", because it is that which Christ instituted by His own authority for His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Does simple water immersion into water really baptize you into the death of Christ when God is not involved? Surely not. This is why the early church was also baptized into the Spirit when they were water baptized as a part of receiving Christ as their Savior.

ViaCrucis said:

You've accurately pointed out that, without God, the water is just water, and thus does nothing. But your solution to this is to introduce something new, rather than to take what is already there.

Baptism is never just the water. Rather, Baptism is always water with the Spirit (John 3:5), water with the word (Ephesians 5:26).

It is precisely because the Spirit is there with the water, precisely because God's word is there, with the water, that it isn't just water, but is instead Baptism.

Nobody believes that getting wet saves a person.

When we say that Baptism brings us new birth, forgiveness of sins, salvation (etc) we don't mean the water, but the Baptism. And Baptism is always, always water WITH the word, water WITH the Spirit. It is always water connected to God's word, God's power, which makes it God's work. As it is God who works to regenerate us by giving us faith, by giving us the Holy Spirit, by uniting us to Christ's death and resurrection, etc. It is God who does this in Baptism, His word accomplishes this, because His word accomplishes what it is given for (Isaiah 55:11).

The Holy Spirit is fully active and present in the Sacrament of Baptism. Without Him, it wouldn't even be Baptism.

EDIT: If all you're saying is that the Holy Spirit is there, and that we are receiving Him and His work in Baptism, then I completely agree with you. It's just that I wouldn't call that "baptism with the Holy Spirit", as I believe that exegetically this is incorrect; baptism with the Spirit refers to something very specific. We do receive the same Holy Spirit that was poured out on Pentecost (that's what the baptism with the Holy Spirit is, according to Scripture); we receive Him through faith, and thus we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit through faith (Ephesians 1:13), we have received Him through our baptism (Acts of the Apostles 2:38). And thus we share in the fullness of life from the Spirit, the same life and vibrancy that was poured out on that ancient day, and which has been ours since the beginning: Wherever the word is preached and the Sacraments administered, there the Spirit in all His fullness still is. Converting us, saving us, sanctifying us, holding us in Christ, holding us in faith to God's promises, and preserving us here and in death to the hope of salvation which is ours in Jesus freely as grace.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 12:13.

ViaCrucis said:

Yes, into one Spirit we have been baptized:

"There is one Body, and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." - Ephesians 4:4-6

Through the power of God's grace in Holy Baptism, we have received

The one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as our Father.
The one Lord, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
The one Life-Giving Holy Spirit, who was abundantly poured out for us by the word and promise of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as infant baptism in the Scriptures. Sorry. I see that as an obvious fabrication by men. Baptism was only for willing converts in the time of John the Baptist and during the early church. I believe that being baptized into the Spirit (a thing that happens for all who accept Jesus genuinely by the Word) eventually replaced water baptism; Granted, the only rule of exception on this is if a believer’s conscience is strongly telling them to be water baptized (but they would not be doing it for salvation, though).

ViaCrucis said:

Except this isn't true, and the evidence is stacked against your position. Children (including infants) have always been invited to be part of God's people. Abraham circumcised Isaac, and every Jewish male child was circumcised in accordance with the Law of Moses. When Gentiles converted to Judaism whole families were converted, and that conversion included washing in the mikveh.

In the Acts of the Apostles we read of entire households converting and being baptized. Children and infants have always been included, have been included as members of God's People, members of His Church, since the beginning.

The testimony of the ancient fathers also affirm this.

Your position is the Anabaptist position, a false one that arose among the various extremist groups of the Reformation. It's not biblical.

And yes, I did notice you said you think "water baptism" was "eventually replaced". But let's deal first with why you would deny children God's gracious work and power of Baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I see water baptism as an optional instruction for New Testament believers today (after the cross). During the time of John the Baptist, and during Christ’s earthly ministry, water baptism was fully in effect and was a requirement. Jesus primarily taught New Covenant and not Old Covenant (When we look at the Holy Bible) even though it was during the time of the Old Covenant. So I see water baptism as a temporary New Covenant teaching (that is now optional) that was taught during the time of the end of the Old Covenant (during the life of Christ). Now, the baptism as a part of the command of Jesus given to His disciples in the great commission was the command to baptize new converts into the Holy Spirit (even though His disciples did not understand this at the time He gave such a command to them).

So this is why I don’t believe we can compare circumcision as being exactly like baptism (although both have similarities). We cannot mix New Covenant teachings with Old Covenant teachings today because that would cause a tear in the garment or cause wine bottles to burst. Circumcision was for Israel, and water baptism was a part of John the baptist’s ministry and Christ’s ministry before the cross. After the cross, the Jewish Christians still practiced water baptism with them not understanding that such a practice was no longer a requirement. For Paul says he came to preach the gospel and not to baptize. Granted, I believe if a person is convicted by their conscience to be water baptized, they can do so, but it is no longer essential under the New Covenant.

Infant baptism is even more far removed in being alien and foreign to Scripture. One has to make loose connections to Scripture in order to justify it. While circumcision was done upon babies in the Old Covenant, there is no indication that water baptism was to be done in the same way under the New Covenant. The New Testament is simply silent on this issue. Also, the fact that whole households were baptized in the early church does not prove infant baptism, either. Again, it would be conjecture and not an actual command or clear instruction we see in NT Scripture. So one is acting outside of what the Bible says when they baptize a baby. In fact, it is utter nonsense because baptism is only for those who would profess a belief in Jesus Christ. Nowhere we do see a person or baby being forced to be baptized against their free will choice. That’s just crazy talk, and or an addition to Scripture. One cannot assume that because a whole household was baptized that there were babies in that household being baptized. That is merely a large leap of assumption that the Bible does not specifically say.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Add a poll.

Click to expand...

Giving people commands comes off the wrong way, my friend.

For example: Imagine if Rick started to give commands to people he did not know.

For Rick could say to a complete strangers he never met:

The better and more friendlier approach would be to say, “Hey friend, I like what you wrote or I like some of your writings.” “Is it possible if you could maybe add a poll?” “I am curious as to what people’s responses would be.” “Thank you, and may you have a blessed day in the Lord.”

SavedByGrace3 said:

It was just a suggestion.
Thanks

Click to expand...

It did not sound like a suggestion, but it sounded like a command, my friend.
A suggestion would be asked in a form of a question or it would be worded like this:

1. • I would love to see a poll. I think it would be great.
2. • You might want to consider in adding a poll, my friend.

Do you see the difference between saying, “add a poll,” vs. saying the above words? Do you not see how your words could come off like a command (even if that was not your intention)?

Anyways, I added a poll. Hope we get some voters on the topic (this late in the discussion).