How was Paul saved and when ?

[A New Dawn]

Christ was not speaking of baptism to Nicodemus, the water you have highlighted is referring to his physical birth. The physical and the spiritual were both clearly described in that passage. The first birth, our natural birth by water, and the second birth, the spiritual one Christ called "born again". Christ likens our new birth to being born. Prior to being born, can we ask to be born? Does a baby have a choice in being born? No, it is an action beyond his control. That is how it is with the new birth, too. Clearly you have chosen to believe that "putting on Christ" means a physical baptism. I do not believe that, especially since Christ, himself, stated all that is required is to be born again and believe (both gifts from God, per Ephesians 2). Regeneration comes from God and requires nothing. God does all the work. All of it, that way, we can't boast in saying we took part.

Paul continually likens the natural man's ability to respond to a dead person. A dead person cannot do anything. He can't breathe, he can't move, he can't act, and he can't respond. Everything that God does, he does to us, he doesn't ask our permission and participate with us, so there is nothing to receive. He gives it, and it's ours automatically (because a dead person can't reject, either.)

Ephesians 2:1 ¶ And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

If we are dead, then it is required of God to do it all. Can a person who has died ask for life? When a person dies, does he ask someone to resuscitate him? When he comes back to life, does he say "I accept the new life you gave me"?. He's already alive, there was nothing to accept.

Jhn 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Christ did it all.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Dawn –

Dawn -

If you would take the time to answer my points, you would have a better opportunity to see the truth on water baptism being the means selected by God through which man appropriates salvation. But to humor you, I will deal with your last post first, and then return to the many unanswered items on our list…

Dawn said - Christ was not speaking of baptism to Nicodemus, the water you have highlighted is referring to his physical birth.


What Jesus is talking about to Nicodemus is – being “born AGAIN”, this is the CONTEXT. Being born again takes WATER and the SPIRIT!

Dawn said - The physical and the spiritual were both clearly described in that passage..

Being more carnally minded, Nicodemus is thinking about the womb. Being spiritually concerned, Jesus is speaking about spiritual matters - being born AGAIN – which He says requires water and Spirit.

Of course, you will now have to shun Titus 3:5 which confirms this truth to be so... water and Spirit.

Dawn said - Clearly you have chosen to believe that "putting on Christ" means a physical baptism. I do not believe that, especially since Christ, himself, stated all that is required is to be born again and believe (both gifts from God, per Ephesians 2). .

Thanks for the offer on what I believe, but here is what I believe.

Galatians 3:27 – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Paul says that those who had chosen to be baptized had “PUT ON” Christ. Like putting on a garment these had taken on the attitude and characteristics of Christ!

You on the other hand REJECT this verse because of your bias against the plain teaching on baptism. You attempt to bypass the MEANS chosen by God for one to appropriate His salvation and “put on” Christ.
So Dawn, have YOU “put on” Christ? If so – HOW?

Second, it is good to see that you recognize that something is REQUIRED in order to be “regenerated and believe”. Did we not agree that faith came from hearing the word of God – Romans 10:17? So man must HEAR God’s word – no??
SO what does separate the lost from the saved - in your opinion Dawn?

In John 3 Jesus says it takes WATER and the Spirit!

Titus 3:5 says we are “regenerated” by the washing of WATER AND the renewing of the Holy Spirit. Paul, John, and Jesus are in agreement – and I agree with them. What does this verse mean to you Dawn?

Dawn - Regeneration comes from God and requires nothing. God does all the work. All of it, that way, we can't boast in saying we took part. .

Jesus, John, and Paul says it DOES require something… WATER –AND- the Spirit !! Where does this attempt at “do nothing” religion come from? Now you may be ready to lie down in a heap and say “Come and get it God!” but scripture suggests more is required to obtain the blessings of God that He offers to man by His grace.

No wonder when Jesus says – “He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved.” you have such a difficult time accepting His words. You can’t believe and be baptized lying in a heap!

Dawn said - Paul continually likens the natural man's ability to respond to a dead person. A dead person cannot do anything. He can't breathe, he can't move, he can't act, and he can't respond. .

This is inaccurate. In reference to Ephesians 2 Paul is discussing the spiritual STATE of man – that of being spiritually dead. (Paul does NOT discuss man’s ability to RESPOND to that lost condition in Eph. 2.) It appears your errant reading of the passage has caused you to believe the wrong things about HOW a man is able to respond to the blessings God offers man by His grace. In this passage Paul goes on to explain how God’s mercy caused Him to provide for man’s salvation through Christ.

2:8- For by GRACE (God’s part) – you have been saved – through faith (man’s part).
Salvation is the gift of God!

From my last post we learned that someone MUST ACT – MUST DO SOMETHING – even to accept a gift! Very odd though – YOU refused to comment on that – huh?


Dawn said - Christ did it all..

What is the CONTEXT here? Yes – Christ “did it all” in reference to providing SALVATION for man, but we know not all men will be saved – Matthew 22:14. It is up to man to do anything that God requires of man to appropriate the salvation He offers by His grace.

Jesus via John said it takes water and the Spirit. Paul says it take water and Spirit. You just won’t accept what the Spirit is saying.

Ephesians 5:26- “…having cleansed [the church] by the washing of water with the word…”

It takes water – and it takes the Spirit…

<<<<<<*>>>>>>

Now just to let you know I am paying attention, here is the rolling list of items you seem content to ignore, but alas, I am not so patient. So please stop jumping from one scripture to another in hopes the next one will prove your cause. It just isn’t going to happen…

I was not talking about JOHN’s baptism – were you?
I am talking about the baptism authorized by Jesus Christ as read about in Matthew 28:18-20, for ALL NATIONS, in water Acts 10:47, for the remission of sins Acts 2:38, 10:48 22:16, and “in the name of Jesus Christ” (authorized) Acts 2:38 and 10:48. .
Dawn – did you have anything to say about all of this?? -- 2nd request.
-----------------------------
HS baptism was the result of promise (to the Apostles) and of prophecy. Only two events ever occurred – see Acts 2 and Acts 10.
Baptism in fire is Hell !! If you read just one more verse – Luke 3:17 (or its parallel Matthew 3:12) – you can see this to be true… “…His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Nothing in either of these passages suggests your errant notion that the “baptism of fire” instills anyone with belief.
Dawn – any comment on these items?? – 2nd request !!
-----------------
Mark 16:16 – He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved. YOU believe something else. Some say…
He that believes SHOULD be baptized. Or…
He that believes WILL be baptized. Or…
He that believes is saved, and CAN be baptized.
Dawn – what do YOU believe this verse says?? – 2nd request !!
<<<*>>>

 

[dan p]

Wrong, all who were chosen in Christ before the foundation, were in Christ then !

The First Believers, which are Adam and Eve, they were in the body of Christ.

Hi anthony 55 , where is it mentioned that they were PLACED into the Body of Christ ??

And what Gospel or good news saved them ?

And where is the gospel f the grace of God preached to them ??

Where is the EKKLESIA /ASSEMBLY mentioned to Adam and Eve ??

 

[A New Dawn]

Hey Dawn &#8211;

Dawn -

If you would take the time to answer my points, you would have a better opportunity to see the truth on water baptism being the means selected by God through which man appropriates salvation. But to humor you, I will deal with your last post first, and then return to the many unanswered items on our list&#8230;

Dawn said - Christ was not speaking of baptism to Nicodemus, the water you have highlighted is referring to his physical birth.


What Jesus is talking about to Nicodemus is &#8211; being &#8220;born AGAIN&#8221;, this is the CONTEXT. Being born again takes WATER and the SPIRIT!

Dawn said - The physical and the spiritual were both clearly described in that passage..

Being more carnally minded, Nicodemus is thinking about the womb. Being spiritually concerned, Jesus is speaking about spiritual matters - being born AGAIN &#8211; which He says requires water and Spirit.

Of course, you will now have to shun Titus 3:5 which confirms this truth to be so... water and Spirit.

Dawn said - Clearly you have chosen to believe that "putting on Christ" means a physical baptism. I do not believe that, especially since Christ, himself, stated all that is required is to be born again and believe (both gifts from God, per Ephesians 2). .

Thanks for the offer on what I believe, but here is what I believe.

Galatians 3:27 &#8211; &#8220;For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.&#8221;

Paul says that those who had chosen to be baptized had &#8220;PUT ON&#8221; Christ. Like putting on a garment these had taken on the attitude and characteristics of Christ!

You on the other hand REJECT this verse because of your bias against the plain teaching on baptism. You attempt to bypass the MEANS chosen by God for one to appropriate His salvation and &#8220;put on&#8221; Christ.
So Dawn, have YOU &#8220;put on&#8221; Christ? If so &#8211; HOW?

Second, it is good to see that you recognize that something is REQUIRED in order to be &#8220;regenerated and believe&#8221;. Did we not agree that faith came from hearing the word of God &#8211; Romans 10:17? So man must HEAR God&#8217;s word &#8211; no??
SO what does separate the lost from the saved - in your opinion Dawn?

In John 3 Jesus says it takes WATER and the Spirit!

Titus 3:5 says we are &#8220;regenerated&#8221; by the washing of WATER AND the renewing of the Holy Spirit. Paul, John, and Jesus are in agreement &#8211; and I agree with them. What does this verse mean to you Dawn?

Dawn - Regeneration comes from God and requires nothing. God does all the work. All of it, that way, we can't boast in saying we took part. .

Jesus, John, and Paul says it DOES require something&#8230; WATER &#8211;AND- the Spirit !! Where does this attempt at &#8220;do nothing&#8221; religion come from? Now you may be ready to lie down in a heap and say &#8220;Come and get it God!&#8221; but scripture suggests more is required to obtain the blessings of God that He offers to man by His grace.

No wonder when Jesus says &#8211; &#8220;He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved.&#8221; you have such a difficult time accepting His words. You can&#8217;t believe and be baptized lying in a heap!

Dawn said - Paul continually likens the natural man's ability to respond to a dead person. A dead person cannot do anything. He can't breathe, he can't move, he can't act, and he can't respond. .

This is inaccurate. In reference to Ephesians 2 Paul is discussing the spiritual STATE of man &#8211; that of being spiritually dead. (Paul does NOT discuss man&#8217;s ability to RESPOND to that lost condition in Eph. 2.) It appears your errant reading of the passage has caused you to believe the wrong things about HOW a man is able to respond to the blessings God offers man by His grace. In this passage Paul goes on to explain how God&#8217;s mercy caused Him to provide for man&#8217;s salvation through Christ.

2:8- For by GRACE (God&#8217;s part) &#8211; you have been saved &#8211; through faith (man&#8217;s part).
Salvation is the gift of God!

From my last post we learned that someone MUST ACT &#8211; MUST DO SOMETHING &#8211; even to accept a gift! Very odd though &#8211; YOU refused to comment on that &#8211; huh?


Dawn said - Christ did it all..

What is the CONTEXT here? Yes &#8211; Christ &#8220;did it all&#8221; in reference to providing SALVATION for man, but we know not all men will be saved &#8211; Matthew 22:14. It is up to man to do anything that God requires of man to appropriate the salvation He offers by His grace.

Jesus via John said it takes water and the Spirit. Paul says it take water and Spirit. You just won&#8217;t accept what the Spirit is saying.

Ephesians 5:26- &#8220;&#8230;having cleansed [the church] by the washing of water with the word&#8230;&#8221;

It takes water &#8211; and it takes the Spirit&#8230;

<<<<<<*>>>>>>

Now just to let you know I am paying attention, here is the rolling list of items you seem content to ignore, but alas, I am not so patient. So please stop jumping from one scripture to another in hopes the next one will prove your cause. It just isn&#8217;t going to happen&#8230;

I was not talking about JOHN&#8217;s baptism &#8211; were you?
I am talking about the baptism authorized by Jesus Christ as read about in Matthew 28:18-20, for ALL NATIONS, in water Acts 10:47, for the remission of sins Acts 2:38, 10:48 22:16, and &#8220;in the name of Jesus Christ&#8221; (authorized) Acts 2:38 and 10:48. .
Dawn &#8211; did you have anything to say about all of this?? -- 2nd request.
-----------------------------
HS baptism was the result of promise (to the Apostles) and of prophecy. Only two events ever occurred &#8211; see Acts 2 and Acts 10.
Baptism in fire is Hell !! If you read just one more verse &#8211; Luke 3:17 (or its parallel Matthew 3:12) &#8211; you can see this to be true&#8230; &#8220;&#8230;His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Nothing in either of these passages suggests your errant notion that the &#8220;baptism of fire&#8221; instills anyone with belief.
Dawn &#8211; any comment on these items?? &#8211; 2nd request !!
-----------------
Mark 16:16 &#8211; He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved. YOU believe something else. Some say&#8230;
He that believes SHOULD be baptized. Or&#8230;
He that believes WILL be baptized. Or&#8230;
He that believes is saved, and CAN be baptized.
Dawn &#8211; what do YOU believe this verse says?? &#8211; 2nd request !!
<<<*>>>

Let's review John 3.

John 3:1 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 3:3 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.
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.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

(The blue demonstrates physical birth, the red demonstrates spiritual birth.)

First off, I'm not seeing anywhere in this verse where it says it takes water and spirit. However, since one cannot be born again unless he is born, then yes, I'll agree it takes water and spirit. There does need to be a physical birth before there can be a spiritual birth.

As far as Titus 3:5, you are interpreting "the washing of regeneration" to mean water baptism???? Do you know that the only other use of the word translated here as "washing" in the NT has to do with spiritual cleansing? I do not believe that Paul was claiming that baptismal regeneration is a true concept here since he never claimed that it was a true doctrine in any of his other writings.

Galatians 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

You can't take Galatians 3:27 without verse 26 because it pulls it out of context. You are reading into scripture what you want to see there. There is no water baptism mentioned in this verse. The word "baptism" corresponds to 'faith' in the previous verse. That is what the "For" at the beginning of verse 27 means.

Let's look more closely at that Mark scripture, too, because it seems part of it is missing.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Hold yer horses!!! It seems that salvation is related to "believeth", not baptized. hmmm................

Who's taking scripture out of context now?

Anyway, there you have it. Water baptism is not discussed by Jesus, Paul, Mark or John. BUT, I agree that baptism is necessary because Christ commanded that it follow belief on Him. It helps complete our relationship.

 

[Apollos1]

Dawn–

Instead of asking for answers to specific scriptures that I know I will not get from you, I will instead share some exegetical study from John 3 hoping it will enlighten you... Enjoy!
<<<<*>>>>

Some have insisted that “born of water” (John 3:5) refers to the physical birth. They view "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" as two different births. According to this view, Jesus is saying, "you must not only be born physically (‘born of water’), but you must also be born again spiritually (‘born of the Spirit’) to enter into the kingdom of God." It seems to me that this view ignores the question to which Jesus was responding: "How can a man be born when he is old?" The natural birth concerns infants, but Nicodemus wanted to know how a MAN could be born when he is OLD. Jesus then was answering a question about the birth of men/being born again - NOT babies.

Such an interpretation (as yours) of John 3:5 makes Jesus' answer quite ridiculous. Nicodemus wanted to know how he could "see the kingdom of God" (verse 3), so Jesus answered (according to you), "Unless you are born as a baby (‘born of water’) and born again spiritually (‘born of the Spirit’) you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." Now what would be the purpose of telling that man- or indeed any man- that he must be born as a baby before he can be saved? Those of you who hold this position, do you tell a sinner you are trying to convert that, "Now one of the conditions of going to heaven is that you must be born as a baby"? Why, certainly not! You realize how foolish you would look to make such a statement, yet that is precisely what you have Jesus doing!

Another observation is that “water” is water. Although we often use the term “water” in the English language to refer to the amniotic fluid surrounding the infant while in the mother’s womb, the fact is that this fluid is not “water.” Now it is liquid, but so is milk and vinegar. Jesus didn’t say, “Except a man be born of amniotic fluid…” Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water…”

This (your) position fails to understand the entire context of what is happening. In verse 3, Jesus had said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus understood everything Jesus said except the meaning of "born again", and it is this one phrase which he asked the Lord to explain further. Verse 5 then is simply an explanation of verse 3. This is readily apparent when the two verses are read in parallel. Notice:

1. Except a man (John 3:3) Except a man (John 3:5)
2. be born again, (John 3:3) be born of water and the Spirit, (John 3:5)
3. he cannot see (John 3:3) he cannot enter into (John 3:5)
4. the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

The verses are parallel ! Lines 1 and 4 in the above table are identical in the two verses. In verse 3, line 3, "he cannot see" is equivalent in meaning to verse 5, "he cannot enter into". This just leaves line 2, where "born of water” and the Spirit" is equivalent to "born again." Jesus is saying that there are two elements (water and the Spirit) which together comprise the rebirth. To make "born of water" one birth and "born of Spirit" a second birth destroys the unity of the context of verses 3 through 5.

The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" refers to only ONE birth, not two. I think that some have been confused because the translators supplied a word in the King James Version which is not present in the original Greek. In the KJV, the phrase reads "born of water and of the Spirit." The word "of" ("of the Spirit") is printed in italics in the KJV, indicating that it was supplied by the translators in an effort to make the meaning of the verse more apparent. Unfortunately, in this case they made the passage more difficult to understand for some.

Jesus did NOT say, "born of water and OF the Spirit" (possibly implying two births- water birth and Spirit birth); rather, he said "born of water and the Spirit." Thus, the one action which he called "born again" in John 3:3 is comprised of two elements: water and the Spirit. To be "born of water and the Spirit" simply means to be baptized in water as directed or commanded by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God.

When we are baptized in water for the remission of sins, we are following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are "born of water and the Spirit".

Now, a question or two. In John 3:3-5, Jesus was teaching about the spiritual birth. That is why He called it “born again.” I don’t think that anyone so far on this thread would disagree with that general proposition. But here are my questions:

1. In order for a “new birth” to occur, there must first be a “conception.” Can someone tell me when or by what we are “conceived” for this spiritual birth?
2. Once this conception has occurred, can anyone tell me at what point we are “born again?”


Before anyone rushes to answer, please take a moment to consider that in every form of life created by God, birth does not follow immediately upon conception. That is to say, after the seed has been planted (conception), there is a period of “gestation” during which the plant or animal begins to take shape. It is only after this period of “gestation” that the “birth” occurs.

You must be born again!

 

[Apollos1]

Dawn used....

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Dawn then said - Hold yer horses!!! It seems that salvation is related to "believeth", not baptized. hmmm................

LOL !!! Salvation IS related to "believeth"... Oh, Jesus included "AND is baptized".
It still says "He that believes AND is baptized - shall be saved."

You just won't accept what Jesus said, will you?
He that doesn't believe, of course, will not be baptized, and therefore damned!

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn used....

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Dawn then said - Hold yer horses!!! It seems that salvation is related to "believeth", not baptized. hmmm................

LOL !!! Salvation IS related to "believeth"... Oh, Jesus included "AND is baptized".
It still says "He that believes AND is baptized - shall be saved."

You just won't accept what Jesus said, will you?
He that doesn't believe, of course, will not be baptized, and therefore damned!

It doesn't say "He that is not baptized will be damned", it says "He that believeth not will be damned". It is belief that is being demonstrated as the salvific agent. Baptism (a work) follows faith.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn–

Instead of asking for answers to specific scriptures that I know I will not get from you, I will instead share some exegetical study from John 3 hoping it will enlighten you... Enjoy!
<<<<*>>>>

Some have insisted that “born of water” (John 3:5) refers to the physical birth. They view "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" as two different births. According to this view, Jesus is saying, "you must not only be born physically (‘born of water’), but you must also be born again spiritually (‘born of the Spirit’) to enter into the kingdom of God." It seems to me that this view ignores the question to which Jesus was responding: "How can a man be born when he is old?" The natural birth concerns infants, but Nicodemus wanted to know how a MAN could be born when he is OLD. Jesus then was answering a question about the birth of men/being born again - NOT babies.

Such an interpretation (as yours) of John 3:5 makes Jesus' answer quite ridiculous. Nicodemus wanted to know how he could "see the kingdom of God" (verse 3), so Jesus answered (according to you), "Unless you are born as a baby (‘born of water’) and born again spiritually (‘born of the Spirit’) you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." Now what would be the purpose of telling that man- or indeed any man- that he must be born as a baby before he can be saved? Those of you who hold this position, do you tell a sinner you are trying to convert that, "Now one of the conditions of going to heaven is that you must be born as a baby"? Why, certainly not! You realize how foolish you would look to make such a statement, yet that is precisely what you have Jesus doing!

Another observation is that “water” is water. Although we often use the term “water” in the English language to refer to the amniotic fluid surrounding the infant while in the mother’s womb, the fact is that this fluid is not “water.” Now it is liquid, but so is milk and vinegar. Jesus didn’t say, “Except a man be born of amniotic fluid…” Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water…”

This (your) position fails to understand the entire context of what is happening. In verse 3, Jesus had said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus understood everything Jesus said except the meaning of "born again", and it is this one phrase which he asked the Lord to explain further. Verse 5 then is simply an explanation of verse 3. This is readily apparent when the two verses are read in parallel. Notice:

1. Except a man (John 3:3) Except a man (John 3:5)
2. be born again, (John 3:3) be born of water and the Spirit, (John 3:5)
3. he cannot see (John 3:3) he cannot enter into (John 3:5)
4. the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

The verses are parallel ! Lines 1 and 4 in the above table are identical in the two verses. In verse 3, line 3, "he cannot see" is equivalent in meaning to verse 5, "he cannot enter into". This just leaves line 2, where "born of water” and the Spirit" is equivalent to "born again." Jesus is saying that there are two elements (water and the Spirit) which together comprise the rebirth. To make "born of water" one birth and "born of Spirit" a second birth destroys the unity of the context of verses 3 through 5.

The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" refers to only ONE birth, not two. I think that some have been confused because the translators supplied a word in the King James Version which is not present in the original Greek. In the KJV, the phrase reads "born of water and of the Spirit." The word "of" ("of the Spirit") is printed in italics in the KJV, indicating that it was supplied by the translators in an effort to make the meaning of the verse more apparent. Unfortunately, in this case they made the passage more difficult to understand for some.

Jesus did NOT say, "born of water and OF the Spirit" (possibly implying two births- water birth and Spirit birth); rather, he said "born of water and the Spirit." Thus, the one action which he called "born again" in John 3:3 is comprised of two elements: water and the Spirit. To be "born of water and the Spirit" simply means to be baptized in water as directed or commanded by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God.

When we are baptized in water for the remission of sins, we are following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are "born of water and the Spirit".

Now, a question or two. In John 3:3-5, Jesus was teaching about the spiritual birth. That is why He called it “born again.” I don’t think that anyone so far on this thread would disagree with that general proposition. But here are my questions:

1. In order for a “new birth” to occur, there must first be a “conception.” Can someone tell me when or by what we are “conceived” for this spiritual birth?
2. Once this conception has occurred, can anyone tell me at what point we are “born again?”


Before anyone rushes to answer, please take a moment to consider that in every form of life created by God, birth does not follow immediately upon conception. That is to say, after the seed has been planted (conception), there is a period of “gestation” during which the plant or animal begins to take shape. It is only after this period of “gestation” that the “birth” occurs.

You must be born again!

One thing that you are neglecting to consider is that baptism was not a concept that the Jews of Jesus' time were familiar with. It was a new practice with Jesus, and the baptismal covenant replaced circumcision. You can't expect that your understanding of those scriptures would be what Nicodemus would have understood them to be. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, Nicodemus was indeed puzzled and questioned why (and how) Jesus expected him to be born again from his mother since he was an adult. Jesus response indicated he understood Nicodemus' puzzlement and went on to explain, as I noted above and paralleled spiritual birth to physical birth. One being a type for the other. You can see that this was the thought process going on when Jesus said "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." That is exactly what the "Marvel not" meant. He was indicating to Nicodemus to not be shocked that Jesus was suggesting being born again because he was not referring to another physical birth.

I think you need to step away from your 21st century understanding of the scriptures and try to understand them the way they were said and perceived in AD 30 to figure out their true meaning.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Dawn –

Once again you neglect to answer the simple things I ask you to consider. But no surprise, I realize you have NO ANSWERS. Each reply you post, you go off on yet another tangent of thought hoping desperately to find refuge from the error you profess about water baptism. Alas, I refuse to allow you to escape.

Dawn conjectured - One thing that you are neglecting to consider is that baptism was not a concept that the Jews of Jesus' time were familiar with.

Beg your pardon. Are you making this up as you go along???

John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
25 There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying.
26 And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Or perhaps you need a simpler verse such as…

Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire…

Odd… For a “concept” that the Jews were not familiar with, there was certainly A LOT of talk and actions going on concerning BAPTISM. Would you like to reconsider your position?

Dawn said - You can't expect that your understanding of those scriptures would be what Nicodemus would have understood them to be.

That’s rather awkward wording…

I only have to know what the Holy Spirit is telling me through the scriptures, and in this case, the information contained in John 3:3-5. Your problem is that you refuse to accept the simple truth about water baptism here and so you go looking for all the sophistry you can to change what is said in John 3 in a way to make it palatable to you. Such as – What was Nicodemas thinking at that time? …and… What were the Jews familiar with? (And looking at the above you obviously have no idea!). John chapter 3 suffices for my understanding.

The CONTEXT shows that Nicodemas asked a question specifically about being “born again”. That is, "How can a man be born when he is old?" - verse 4.
Jesus then answers the question that Nicodemas posed.

YOUR position makes Jesus’ remark ridiculous and makes a mockery of the conversation. How much truth can you hide from Dawn?

CHALLENGE: Find ANYWHERE in scripture where the word WATER is used to refer to the amnionic/embryonic fluid of a woman when giving birth.
Do that for me Dawn !!! The reference to “water breaking” is of English origin, unknown in scripture, and is erroneously applied to John 3 in order to teach error.


Dawn said - When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, Nicodemus was indeed puzzled and questioned why (and how) Jesus expected him to be born again from his mother since he was an adult.

Careful Dawn, you are too close to the truth with this statement.
Remember, Nicodemas included “…WHEN HE IS OLD…?” This is the CONTEXT !!!

Dawn said - Jesus response indicated he understood Nicodemus' puzzlement and went on to explain, as I noted above and paralleled spiritual birth to physical birth.

Well yes, YOU paralleled it to physical birth…. But Jesus did NOT ! Jesus did not tell Nicodemas you must first be born as a baby. Who talks this way? How truly silly!

Jesus explained to Nicodemas how to see/enter the kingdom by being born of WATER and SPIRIT – under the context of “…born…when you are old…”. The parallel of verse 3 and 5 can not be obfuscated by you.

Dawn said - That is exactly what the "Marvel not" meant. He was indicating to Nicodemus to not be shocked that Jesus was suggesting being born again because he was not referring to another physical birth.

You DO make this up as you go along. Nicodemas was “shocked” because he did not understand how one could be born again “when he is old” ! You keep losing the context Dawn – probably because it does not fit into your theology.
Jesus, after explaining how one is born again (when he is old), told Nicodemas to “Marvel not…”. Why? Because it is possible.

Dawn accused - I think you need to step away from your 21st century understanding of the scriptures and try to understand them the way they were said and perceived in AD 30 to figure out their true meaning.

Puh-leeze… I gave the context of the passage and applied all the information spoken by the two participants in a logical manner. I gave the parallel of verses 3 and 5 (something you will never be able to respond to holding you current errant position). I previously offered Ephesians 5:27 and Titus 3:5 to collaborate my position of WATER and SPIRIT. Now you want to say I have a 21st century understanding?? LOL!! Your man-made bias against water baptism prevents you from accepting the truth authorized by the Son of God in 33AD. You just don’t have the courage to accept the truth.

“He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved…” (Matthew 28:18).
Salvation here, as elucidated by Jesus includes –2- things:
believing and water baptism.
“He that doesn’t believe shall be damned…” – because they won’t be baptized if they don’t believe. It is self-explanatory.

That little word “and” just messes up your brand of theology doesn’t it?

 

[A New Dawn]

Hey Dawn –

Once again you neglect to answer the simple things I ask you to consider. But no surprise, I realize you have NO ANSWERS. Each reply you post, you go off on yet another tangent of thought hoping desperately to find refuge from the error you profess about water baptism. Alas, I refuse to allow you to escape.

Dawn conjectured - One thing that you are neglecting to consider is that baptism was not a concept that the Jews of Jesus' time were familiar with.

Beg your pardon. Are you making this up as you go along???

John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
25 There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying.
26 And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Or perhaps you need a simpler verse such as…

Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire…

Odd… For a “concept” that the Jews were not familiar with, there was certainly A LOT of talk and actions going on concerning BAPTISM. Would you like to reconsider your position?

Dawn said - You can't expect that your understanding of those scriptures would be what Nicodemus would have understood them to be.

That’s rather awkward wording…

I only have to know what the Holy Spirit is telling me through the scriptures, and in this case, the information contained in John 3:3-5. Your problem is that you refuse to accept the simple truth about water baptism here and so you go looking for all the sophistry you can to change what is said in John 3 in a way to make it palatable to you. Such as – What was Nicodemas thinking at that time? …and… What were the Jews familiar with? (And looking at the above you obviously have no idea!). John chapter 3 suffices for my understanding.

The CONTEXT shows that Nicodemas asked a question specifically about being “born again”. That is, "How can a man be born when he is old?" - verse 4.
Jesus then answers the question that Nicodemas posed.

YOUR position makes Jesus’ remark ridiculous and makes a mockery of the conversation. How much truth can you hide from Dawn?

CHALLENGE: Find ANYWHERE in scripture where the word WATER is used to refer to the amnionic/embryonic fluid of a woman when giving birth.
Do that for me Dawn !!! The reference to “water breaking” is of English origin, unknown in scripture, and is erroneously applied to John 3 in order to teach error.


Dawn said - When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, Nicodemus was indeed puzzled and questioned why (and how) Jesus expected him to be born again from his mother since he was an adult.

Careful Dawn, you are too close to the truth with this statement.
Remember, Nicodemas included “…WHEN HE IS OLD…?” This is the CONTEXT !!!

Dawn said - Jesus response indicated he understood Nicodemus' puzzlement and went on to explain, as I noted above and paralleled spiritual birth to physical birth.

Well yes, YOU paralleled it to physical birth…. But Jesus did NOT ! Jesus did not tell Nicodemas you must first be born as a baby. Who talks this way? How truly silly!

Jesus explained to Nicodemas how to see/enter the kingdom by being born of WATER and SPIRIT – under the context of “…born…when you are old…”. The parallel of verse 3 and 5 can not be obfuscated by you.

Dawn said - That is exactly what the "Marvel not" meant. He was indicating to Nicodemus to not be shocked that Jesus was suggesting being born again because he was not referring to another physical birth.

You DO make this up as you go along. Nicodemas was “shocked” because he did not understand how one could be born again “when he is old” ! You keep losing the context Dawn – probably because it does not fit into your theology.
Jesus, after explaining how one is born again (when he is old), told Nicodemas to “Marvel not…”. Why? Because it is possible.

Dawn accused - I think you need to step away from your 21st century understanding of the scriptures and try to understand them the way they were said and perceived in AD 30 to figure out their true meaning.

Puh-leeze… I gave the context of the passage and applied all the information spoken by the two participants in a logical manner. I gave the parallel of verses 3 and 5 (something you will never be able to respond to holding you current errant position). I previously offered Ephesians 5:27 and Titus 3:5 to collaborate my position of WATER and SPIRIT. Now you want to say I have a 21st century understanding?? LOL!! Your man-made bias against water baptism prevents you from accepting the truth authorized by the Son of God in 33AD. You just don’t have the courage to accept the truth.

“He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved…” (Matthew 28:18).
Salvation here, as elucidated by Jesus includes –2- things:
believing and water baptism.
“He that doesn’t believe shall be damned…” – because they won’t be baptized if they don’t believe. It is self-explanatory.

That little word “and” just messes up your brand of theology doesn’t it?

I'm usually not fond of discussing things with people who are condescending.

I just suggest you read several commentaries. Any commentaries would be OK, but just read them. You'll find that some of your beliefs are pretty out there. Just remember, everyone claims to be led to their beliefs by the Holy Spirit. Your attitude that you are above the rest of us that believe differently has been noted and I wish you adieu.

 

[Duckybill]

Was the thief on the cross was baptized?

 

[winsome]

Was the thief on the cross was baptized?

No. and neither were Abraham Moses, David etc. That is not relevant.

Jesus had not died and risen again.

Jesus instituted baptism as the means of salvation just before is ascension:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16).

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)

 

[winsome]

I'm usually not fond of discussing things with people who are condescending.

I just suggest you read several commentaries. Any commentaries would be OK, but just read them. You'll find that some of your beliefs are pretty out there. Just remember, everyone claims to be led to their beliefs by the Holy Spirit. Your attitude that you are above the rest of us that believe differently has been noted and I wish you adieu.

Far from being "pretty out there" Apollos is doing a great (and very patient) explanation of the belief of the vast majority of Christians, and has been the belief of the vast majority of Christians for 2,000 years.

 

[Duckybill]

No. and neither were Abraham Moses, David etc. That is not relevant.

Jesus had not died and risen again.

Jesus instituted baptism as the means of salvation just before is ascension:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16).

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)

So, everyone who dies now and isn't baptized goes to Hell?

 

[Duckybill]

No. and neither were Abraham Moses, David etc. That is not relevant.

Were they baptizing then?

Jesus had not died and risen again.

Jesus instituted baptism as the means of salvation just before is ascension:

They were baptizing long before then.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk

16:16).

That would have been the PERFECT time to add 'he who isn't baptized shall be damned'. He didn't.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)

The Apostles baptized in Jesus' Name.

 

[winsome]

So, everyone who dies now and isn't baptized goes to Hell?

I didn't say that. Not all non Christians go to hell.

 

[Duckybill]

I didn't say that. Not all non Christians go to hell.

John 14:6 (NKJV)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

 

[winsome]

Were they baptizing then?

They were baptizing long before then.
That would have been the PERFECT time to add 'he who isn't baptized shall be damned'. He didn't.
The Apostles baptized in Jesus' Name.

I can't follow what you are trying to say here.


When you say the Apostles baptised in Jesus name I assume you must mean (for example) Acts 2 (Peter), Acts 8 (Philip, though he wasn't an apostle), Acts 19 (Paul).

But what is your point?

 

[winsome]

John 14:6 (NKJV)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

And ?

 

[Duckybill]

And ?

You're saying there's another way, than Jesus?