In Rebirth, what does Water and Spirit symbolizes?

[Albion]

He said it is required for salvation.

Exactly. He didn't say that it saves anyone. Yet the replies attempted to rebut this idea rather than the one he actually referred to and, also, to stick him with something he hadn't said. And no, they are not "the same thing."

 

[Grandpa2390]

Exactly. He didn't say that it saves anyone. Yet the replies attempted to rebut this idea rather than the one he actually referred to and, also, to stick him with something he hadn't said. And no, they are not "the same thing."

lol...
Required for salvation = required to be saved.

I don't understand what your hang up is.

One of us is saying that we are saved through repentance, the other is saying that we are saved through repentance and water baptism. That is our disagreement. Whether or not we are saved through repentance, or repentance and water baptism.

 

[Grandpa2390]

All I did was call attention to the fact that you insisted to TheSeabass that he's said that baptism saves (you), but he apparently never did say that.

by the way

Water baptism saves 1 Peter 3:21

so actually, he did say that.

 

[Albion]

lol...
Required for salvation = required to be saved.

Yes, that would be right because they say the same thing. However, the idea that
Baptism saves is a different proposition altogether.

I don't understand what your hang up is.

I can see that. Now.

One of us is saying that we are saved through repentance, the other is saying that we are saved through repentance and water baptism. That is our disagreement. Whether or not we are saved through repentance, or repentance and water baptism.

With the exception of 1 Peter which was misrepresented, everything else he wrote was about baptism being required for salvation. The rebuttals claimed that they had said that baptism saves. Those do not mean the same thing for the first one makes the sacrament/ordinance itself capable of guaranteeing salvation while the second one merely says that whatever it is that causes us to be saved (Faith, works, obedience, all of some of these or something else), being baptised is part of it.

It's worth knowing.

 

[Grandpa2390]

No. You said he took the position that Baptism saves, not that it is necessary for salvation. That's quite an important difference. The first one makes the sacrament/ordinance itself capable of guaranteeing salvation. The second one merely says that whatever it is that causes us to be saved (Faith, works, obedience, all of some of these or something else), being baptised is part of it.

So you see now you are putting words and ideas into my mouth. Things that I never said. I never said that he said that water baptism alone saves and is guaranteed to save. I have only ever said what I have been saying. that he is saying that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.

even when he said water baptism saves, I still didn't assume that he meant water baptism ALONE saves. Because that wouldn't make any sense.
Until he corrects me, I know what he believes because I used to believe what he believes.

I think we know what each other is saying. Even if we disagree or don't understand.

 

[FrankDux]

Rather simply

The Holy Spirit is " ruach " in Hebrew, meaning

air
breath
spirit
sky
etc

Cognate to the Sumerian " an " ( dingir ) meaning

sky
heaven

Then, considering that Mesopotamians like the Sumerian / Akkadian / Babylonian, etc, thought of the sky as " the seas " or " the waters "

...it's not so hard to see that the manifestation of the spirit in earthly form is " the living water " AKA Jesus Christ



That's also where your Biblical " beast from the sea " comes from

Cheers

 

[Albion]

So you see now you are putting words and ideas into my mouth. Things that I never said. I never said that he said that water baptism alone saves and is guaranteed to save. I have only ever said what I have been saying. that he is saying that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.

This (below) wouldn't seem to be a case of putting any words into anyone's mouth.

Peter outright says that water baptism is not what saves you. It is the baptism of repentance. He says it directly. It is not (as you put it) the laver that erases your sins and saves you. It is repentance.

 

[TheSeabass]

and yet in neither one of those places is it translated that way, or would that way make any sense.

It would not make sense to those that have an anti water baptism bias. It makes perfect sense and is in complete harmony with the rest of the bible that water baptism is requried to be saved.

and neither one of those scriptures translated it that way... Spirit produces spirit and flesh produces flesh. You are arguing that the physical world cleans the spiritual... Sorry, but no.

Spirit producing spirit and flesh producing flesh does not change John 3:5 that requires water baptism.

John 3:5--------------spirit+++++++++water>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor 12:13-----------spirit+++++++++baptized>>>>>>>in the kingdom

Perfect,total harmony among verse that proves 'water' in Jn 3:5 is water baptism.

Peter outright says that water baptism is not what saves you. It is the baptism of repentance. He says it directly. It is not (as you put it) the laver that erases your sins and saves you. It is repentance.

Acts 2:38--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins
1Pet 3:21--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Again, perfect, complete harmony among verses that BAPTISM saves. Nowhere ever did Peter say "repent for the remission of sins".

I don't know how he could say it anymore clearly. And with that, and others, you realize that when talking about baptism in the New Testament, we have to be mindful of which baptism.

How more clear can 'baptism doth also now save us" be?

Again, Peter did not say in eitehr Acts 2:38 or 1 Pet 3:21 that repentance remits sins.

[/quote=Grandpa2390]
oh my goodness. And with your attempt to use 1 Peter 3:21 to say that water baptism saves us... you are just being willingly ignorant. lol.
Nevermind. Good luck to you.[/QUOTE]

Peter says 'baptism doth also now saves us" and I am being willfully ignorant of plane language.

You are trying to change the "w" in the word "now" to a "t" to force you bias into the verse.

 

[eldios]

Based on Jn.3:1-21, some says it is literal water as of ‘‘water baptism’’ and the “Spirit” was the Holy Ghost.

The "water" represents the visible images and the "spirit" represents the invisible thoughts of our Creator where all men were created before He spoke everything into existence. First we were created invisible and then bodies were formed for us within the womb of our mothers. Adam and Eve woke up in the world without ever being formed in the womb. So you can see that it's not necessary for our bodies to be formed in a womb. God could have us wake up in visible bodies and start living but being birthed into the world from the womb makes it more real like.

 

[TheSeabass]

except that it is not a loophole. The Bible commands us to flee fornication. But if you didn't get the opportunity to flee fornication before you died, does that mean you weren't saved.

You are confusing the things we do because we are saved with the things we do to be saved.
We are commanded to live holy and righteous, but we are not saved because we lived holy and righteous. We lived holy and righteous because we were saved. The mode of living is an evidence of our salvation, not a prerequisite.
Likewise with baptism.

There are even people the Bible says were saved before they were baptized.

--Sure it is a loophole an nothing more. The bible requires baptism equally as it requires belief. If you can use loopholes to try and get around baptism then anyone can use loopholes to get around anything the bible says.

--You post "You are confusing the things we do because we are saved with the things we do to be saved." THis is your bias in trying to put salvation before baptism. NO verse puts salvation before baptism.

You also post "We are commanded to live holy and righteous, but we are not saved because we lived holy and righteous."

So one can be saved while remaining in an unholy and unrighteous way of life? No verse says this either.

 

[Albion]

I think we know what each other is saying. Even if we disagree or don't understand.

And For what it's worth, I personally disagree with the views expressed by both of you concerning Baptism , but I just thought a slip-up had occurred on that one point where there was similar wording, and that someone might want to correct things. It's not unusual for any of us, from time to time, to read some of these posts too quickly.

 

[Grandpa2390]

This (below) wouldn't seem to be a case of putting any words into anyone's mouth.

No, there you go again. You still haven't apologized for your false accusation against me. I did provide a quote where he said water baptism saves.

Allow me to break it down for you.

The bible does teach:
Water baptism is when God removes the body of sins, sins remitted Col 2:11-12; Acts 2:38
Water baptism saves 1 Peter 3:21
Water baptism is how one gets in Christ Gal 3:27
Water baptism is how one becomes 'dead' and justified Rom 6
Water baptism is accepting the gospel Acts 2
Water baptism is the new birth John 3:5

Now let me explain what that means.
Those who believe that water baptism is required for salvation tend to believe:

Repentance: We ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven
Baptism: our sins are washed away. They are erased, remitted, the slate is washed clean.

so, with that in mind... I'm still lost as to where I put words into his mouth and said he believed that Water Baptism was the sole requirement for salvation.

so you are still sticking words in my mouth.

 

[Grandpa2390]

It would not make sense to those that have an anti water baptism bias. It makes perfect sense and is in complete harmony with the rest of the bible that water baptism is requried to be saved.



Spirit producing spirit and flesh producing flesh does not change John 3:5 that requires water baptism.

John 3:5--------------spirit+++++++++water>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor 12:13-----------spirit+++++++++baptized>>>>>>>in the kingdom

Perfect,total harmony among verse that proves 'water' in Jn 3:5 is water baptism.



Acts 2:38--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins
1Pet 3:21--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Again, perfect, complete harmony among verses that BAPTISM saves. Nowhere ever did Peter say "repent for the remission of sins".




How more clear can 'baptism doth also now save us" be?

Again, Peter did not say in eitehr Acts 2:38 or 1 Pet 3:21 that repentance remits sins.

[/quote=Grandpa2390]
oh my goodness. And with your attempt to use 1 Peter 3:21 to say that water baptism saves us... you are just being willingly ignorant. lol.
Nevermind. Good luck to you.

Peter says 'baptism doth also now saves us" and I am being willfully ignorant of plane language.

You are trying to change the "w" in the word "now" to a "t" to force you bias into the verse.[/QUOTE]

but he clarifies what the baptism is.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

that whole sentence between the -- and the -- is qualifying the baptism that now saves us.

it's like saying

look at the car -- not the red one, but the blue one -- it is going really fast.

 

[Albion]

Now let me explain what that means.
Those who believe that water baptism is required for salvation tend to believe:

Repentance: We ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven
Baptism: our sins are washed away. They are erased, remitted, the slate is washed clean.

Yes, that seems fair to say. But so what? It doesn't mean that "baptism saves."

 

[TheSeabass]

by the way


so actually, he did say that.

Yes,

The baptism that saves in 1 Pet 3:21 is the same baptism that saves (remits sins) in Acts 2:38. This one baptism that saves is Christ's baptism of the great commission that had disciples-humans administering water baptism.


In 1 Peter 3:20-21 Peter makes and OT type to NT anti-type connection. The KJV uses the word "lie figure" which is from the Greek "antitypos" and means a mirror reflection. A die would be the type and the impring the die makes is the anti-type. Looking in a mirror you would be the try, your reflection is the anti-type.

The OT type-------saved by water (flood)
The NT antitype---saved by water (baptism)

Obviously the world was not flooded with Spirit and men at Noah's time did not drown in spirit but in water.

Why would Peter say "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" is he was not talking about water?

 

[Grandpa2390]

Yes, that seems fair to say. But so what? It doesn't mean that "baptism saves."

but that's what they believe.
(keeping in mind that it is one step of three.. the third of which is God's filling with the spirit)
They believe it saves.
The rest of us
--and I am not implying a majority. I really have no clue what the statistics are, but that is irrelevant. Just making sure you understand that I am not implying a majority --
believe that baptism is a symbol. It is a physical representation, proclamation, what-have-you of what happened on the inside. It is a picture. It is very important. but it is something we do because.

Just because water baptism must immediately follow, doesn't mean it is the cause, anymore than the sound of a bullet being fired causes the bullet to fire.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Yes,

The baptism that saves in 1 Pet 3:21 is the same baptism that saves (remits sins) in Acts 2:38. This one baptism that saves is Christ's baptism of the great commission that had disciples-humans administering water baptism.


In 1 Peter 3:20-21 Peter makes and OT type to NT anti-type connection. The KJV uses the word "lie figure" which is from the Greek "antitypos" and means a mirror reflection. A die would be the type and the impring the die makes is the anti-type. Looking in a mirror you would be the try, your reflection is the anti-type.

The OT type-------saved by water (flood)
The NT antitype---saved by water (baptism)

Obviously the world was not flooded with Spirit and men at Noah's time did not drown in spirit but in water.

Why would Peter say "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" is he was not talking about water?

because he letting them know that he is not talking about water. Otherwise he would not have needed to say that. Or he would have said the opposite.

Because baptism have multiple meanings. and it is easy to think he would be talking about water baptism. So he clarifies. and he explains. not the baptism of water. but the baptism of repentance.
Water washes our flesh. It is a picture of what God does to our hearts when we repent. and turn ourselves over to him. Peter is making sure they understand that. it is not the physical act that saves us. It is the spiritual act when we repent and our hearts are washed clean and circumcised.

The same way that the Ark saved Noah and his family through the "baptism of the earth "
Repentance saves us from the coming judgment.

the OT has a physical act because the earth is physical
the NT has a spiritual act cleansing the spiritual.

The OT was a picture of what was to come. and we preserve that picture in water baptism.

 

[Halbhh]

Christ Himself choose to be baptized in the water also.

So I think a wonderful way to is to see what our model did, and we are to do --

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness...

 

[Grandpa2390]

Christ Himself choose to be baptized in the water also.

So I think a wonderful way to is to see what our model did, and we are to do --

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness...

Actually that's really interesting. John's Baptism was actually a different baptism than what we do. I am not well-versed in it, I would recommend you research it out, or I could provide you with a link to a sermon.
It has a lot to do with the process the Gentiles (and/or Samaritans?) had to go through if they wanted to convert to Judaism.

Fascinating Stuff!

 

[Halbhh]

Actually that's really interesting. John's Baptism was actually a different baptism than what we do. I am not well-versed in it, I would recommend you research it out, or I could provide you with a link to a sermon.
It has a lot to do with the process the Gentiles (and/or Samaritans?) had to go through if they wanted to convert to Judaism.

Fascinating Stuff!

Even so, yes, and John was questioned by the religious leaders as to why he was baptizing Jews right? As the text tells us, he was baptizing for the remission of sins (!) -- "And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
That's a dramatic new fact, because sacrifices were the old covenant way to pay for sins.

Of course, Christ wasn't needing to repent. But, even so, He choose, Himself, to be baptized in water. He is our model.