Question regarding baptism

[KEPLER]

The obvious answer is, in order to get to the Truth of the matter.

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.

There is no arguing over whether Jeus meant water, that is what He said. Do you believe what Jesus said? Please answer with a (yes) or (no).

You have to wonder why Our Lord would say that a person has to be born in order to go to heaven....?

Aren't there some thing that are so obvious that they don't need to be said? And if we rule out (simply because of the sheer ridiculousness of it) that "water" is referring to natural birth, then it must mean baptism.

Seems pretty simple.

K

 

[jad123]

Although various Gnostic leaders had diverse beliefs, a common teaching was that converts would be saved through knowledge. They cannot be reborn or regenerated through water baptism. 1 One of the most respected of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus (circa 130? - circa 200? CE), condemned the Gnostics as heretics. He wrote: "And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith...For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins" 2

Some Gnostic beliefs about baptism live on today among Evangelical and other conservative Protestant faith groups. They teach that baptism is a public acknowledgement of having been earlier saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The rite of baptism has no saving, regenerative power by itself.



The early church taught the necessity of Baptism. This question among Christains was not until the Reformation.

So keep this simple:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)

 

[Maximus]

Maximus:

There is a difference in being born of "above" and being baptised with water.

Not according to Jesus. Water baptism is an essential part of the new birth.

Well then they are universally incorrect and misunderstood just like the "teacher of Israel" did.

For those who did not see your post, what you wrote above was in response to my statement that the early Church Fathers who wrote on the subject universally agreed that baptism is regenerative.

It is obvious you believe they were incorrect, and that is your right, of course.

Just the same, there were no early Christians who believed as you do, at least not who have left any writings behind them.

Thus you are pitting your interpretation of the Bible, or that of the tradition from which you derive your interpretation, against the threefold testimony of universality, antiquity, and ubiquity, i.e., against the continuum of Christian teaching that comes to us from Christ and His Apostles.

Are you asking us to believe that you know more about the Bible, and baptism in particular, than the Church Fathers did?

I hope you will pardon me if I go with the Church Fathers.

Go back and read my post properly. For one, I never said that the water and wind are a direct reference to the Holy Spirit. The article said:

"We are not saying that pneuvmato" in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures which represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women, a truth pointed to by the OT passages [Isa. 44:3-5, Ezek. 37:9-10] mentioned above. These were passages which should have been familiar to Nicodemus as “the teacher of Israel” (cf. 3:10).

I read it and the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel to which it referred.

I am sorry, but I found it profoundly unconvincing, especially since it needed to overcome nearly 2,000 years of Christian teaching to the contrary.

Jesus did not say, "born of water and wind," which would not have made sense, even given the references to Isaiah and Ezekiel your commentary cited.

He said, "born of water and of the Spirit."

If you had read my initial response, you would have noticed that I asked where in the Scripture "water and wind" are used together as an expression to represent the Holy Spirit.

Of course, that was a rhetorical question, since I gave the answer: nowhere.

Since "water and wind" is not a biblical symbol for the Holy Spirit, Nicodemus would have had no clue to what our Lord was referring.

However, since water baptism was well known, what our Lord actually said - "born of water and of the Spirit" - was fully comprehensible to Nicodemus and served its purpose as the answer to Nicodemus' question of the prior verse (i.e., how one is born the second time).

What your commentator did was endeavor to explain away John 3:5, which has always been a problem for those who would reduce baptism to a mere symbolic ceremony.

Please read my posts properly before you respond. I have a zero tolerance attitude for people who post tripe out of misreading my posts.

I am truly sorry that we do not agree.

You should not allow the fact that we disagree to lead you into rudeness.

My posts may not be all that great, but they are hardly "tripe."

What you hoped to express by speaking of your "zero tolerance" is beyond me, unless it was simply anger and frustration.

What will you do if I post more of what you regard as "tripe"?

Beat me up?

eladoni has already addressed this, but consider the following verses:

I really don't want to divert this thread from its topic - baptism - into a discussion of Sola Fide.

Needless to say, however, I do not believe in that doctrine.

I merely pointed out that the words faith and alone are not used together in Scripture except in James 2:24.

Anyone who wants to can read that verse for himself, in context or out.

 

[KEPLER]

Although various Gnostic leaders had diverse beliefs, a common teaching was that converts would be saved through knowledge. They cannot be reborn or regenerated through water baptism. 1 One of the most respected of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus (circa 130? - circa 200? CE), condemned the Gnostics as heretics. He wrote: "And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith...For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins" 2

Some Gnostic beliefs about baptism live on today among Evangelical and other conservative Protestant faith groups. They teach that baptism is a public acknowledgement of having been earlier saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The rite of baptism has no saving, regenerative power by itself.

The early church taught the necessity of Baptism. This question among Christains was not until the Reformation.

So keep this simple:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)

Bravo! Everything you said was perfect, except for the part in red. There were many, many, many precursors to the Anabaptist heretics (such as the ones Irenaus was preaching against!).

Kepler

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CalJoe---

You are a quasi-Lutheran who attends an RC congregation, and you dared to use the word "ordinance"?



Kepler

I also used the word Sacrament...