Water Baptism

[eph3Nine]

You're rejecting Hebrews as Pauline, right? Just checkin'.

Hebrews was written to whom? Hebrews!

See how simple God has made it to rightly divide? Pauls commission was not to Israel, but to gentiles. He didnt write Hebrews, so no, we dont count Hebrews as part of the Mystery epistles. Pauls epistles are Romans thru Philemon.

Again, your bible is laid out dispensationally.

Times PAST=

Gen (actually Exodus) thru Acts deal with the Nation Israel/prophecy/an earthly program/Kingdom gospel

But NOW=

Romans thru Philemon deal with the church which is His
body/MYSTERY/a heavenly program/Gospel of the
grace of God



Ages to come=

Hebrews thru Revelation deals again with Israel at a future time and completes her program that was INTERRUPTED by the MYSTERY.

What WAB pointed out was that Paul endorsed baptism and baptized people, and not just early on. So the fact that Paul didn't have to teach in letters what he'd already taught by practicing it tends to deprive this argument of a great deal of force.

As has been stated before, Paul only baptized a few, and then he STOPPED. Scripture was given to show that "Christ sent me (paul) NOT to baptize but to preach the gospel"...if the gospel Paul preached here was the same as Peters, then Paul would not have made this very significant distinction, as water baptism WAS indeed part of Peters gospel.

Again: historically all of the churches Paul founded practiced water baptism from the very moment it's mentioned in their histories.

And again, the reason for this is that before Paul even passed OFF the scene, "all had left him" AND the doctrine given him by God. Early church history shows the reversal BACK to the Kingdom program that God SET ASIDE. So, the lesson is: the early church fathers got off on the wrong foot by not acknowledging Pauls unique ministry OR message and did a dis-service to the entire
Body of Christ.

 

[WAB]

Hebrews was written to whom? Hebrews!

See how simple God has made it to rightly divide? Pauls commission was not to Israel, but to gentiles. He didnt write Hebrews, so no, we dont count Hebrews as part of the Mystery epistles. Pauls epistles are Romans thru Philemon.

Again, your bible is laid out dispensationally.

Times PAST=

Gen (actually Exodus) thru Acts deal with the Nation Israel/prophecy/an earthly program/Kingdom gospel

But NOW=

Romans thru Philemon deal with the church which is His
body/MYSTERY/a heavenly program/Gospel of the
grace of God



Ages to come=

Hebrews thru Revelation deals again with Israel at a future time and completes her program that was INTERRUPTED by the MYSTERY.




As has been stated before, Paul only baptized a few, and then he STOPPED. Scripture was given to show that "Christ sent me (paul) NOT to baptize but to preach the gospel"...if the gospel Paul preached here was the same as Peters, then Paul would not have made this very significant distinction, as water baptism WAS indeed part of Peters gospel.



And again, the reason for this is that before Paul even passed OFF the scene, "all had left him" AND the doctrine given him by God. Early church history shows the reversal BACK to the Kingdom program that God SET ASIDE. So, the lesson is: the early church fathers got off on the wrong foot by not acknowledging Pauls unique ministry OR message and did a dis-service to the entire
Body of Christ.

Right up close to the top you state... "He (Paul) didnt write Hebrews,..."

One of my Bibles is a KJV published by World Bible Publishers, Inc. and the title of the epistle in question is:

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE
HEBREWS​

Don't know who all the scholars were who came to that conclusion, but probably asking World Publshers would provide an answer. ​

My own conclusion is that Paul did write the epistle to the Hebrews, and I arrived at that through what is written in:
#1. Chap. 5:11-14; w/ref. to 1 Cor.3:1-4; 1 Cor.14:20; and Eph. 4:7-15.
#2. Chap. 10:34; w/ref. to 2 Tim.1:16.
#3. Chap.12:1 w/ ref.to 1 Tim.4:1-11; and...
#4. Chap. 13:22-25. ​

When one is familiar with the wording that Paul uses in his other epistles, it is difficult to not come to the conclusion that the wording used in the references given are synonymous.​

Shalom... WAB​

 

[Schroeder]

I point out again: if "water" in :5 IS "flesh" in :6, Jesus is contradicting Himself! So "water" IS NOT "flesh" -- but Spirit. Then Jesus would have no need to reiterate "water" every time. It's subsumed in His use of water to invoke God's vow to be the God of those who turn to Him.

how would he be contradictinf himself in verse 6. he clears it up. we are born TWICE one from water (flesh) the new birth(Spirit) verse 7 he says do not be surprised at me saying you must be born again and then he says in verse 8 more clearing up, that it is the SPirit. he NEVER relates water(literale) with salation EVER. So you are saying he says water WHICH is the SPirit. So he is sayinbg in verse5 you must be born of water baptism AND the SPirit. AGAIN the water baptism DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE SPIRIT. and no scripture says it only works THROUGH water baptism. scripture says we get the sanctification of the blood THROUGH the SPIRIT. if it was not for the Blood the new birth would not happen.

and 2:12?

having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him Col 2:12a

​

What you're doing here is headily rushing in as if I'm an elemental regenerationist.

Your conflict with me can't be argued like that. Because I don't believe the element is magic, nor do I believe the Spirit is proximate to the element of baptism.

2:12 is the SPirit baptism because it is the SPirit that gets us to the Blood or Christ work of the cross. heb. 9:14. read rom 8:1-11. it says here the SPirit raised Jesus and it will also raise us as well. no water needed. so it is saying your sinfull nature was circumcised by the Spirit when you were Spirit baptized, or given the new birth. it is all the same thing, or it all happens together. verse 11 happens when verse 12 happens. john the baptist NEVER said his baptism was the same as his WITH the Spirit. he said mine was with water but his will be with the SPIRIT.

Nevertheless I believe it is acknowledged and instituted by the Spirit of God, thus invoking Him and reminding us of His vow.

if you wish to believe that fine. dont think it will hurt to much. it is just adding to it. not good but not completly harmfull.

You can't make disciples without discipling. Proclaiming doesn't make disciples. Otherwise there are certain Pharisees who are Jesus' disciples, who never accepted Him.

no kidding is not proclaiming the gospel of Christ discipleing. and how does it NOT. that is true and he had many untill he spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. we foound out they NEVER ACCEPTED IT. that is the Truth. you can be a disciple withoout be true to it. ONLY God KNOWS who truelly is saved or a disciple.

Greek permits it. Scripture says it in Greek. I'll translate it that way. I certainly won't stop translating Greek just for your theology to pick at it.

I didn't realize you had a comprehensive history of their baptismal activities!

dont need to pick at it all of scripture says water baptism was not commanded for SALVATION to happen in you. after salvation possible not before.

I've said it often: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course in this case there is strong evidence! It's just not in the words themselves, but in the churches the Apostles founded. Was there a controversy, a struggle or an alignment in the early church over the formula to baptize people? Find that.

again it is not whether or not they did water baptize it is WHY they did it. they did not do it so they would be born again or saved. i think that is what we are discussing. and in scripture THEY DID NOT do it in that formula. they did it in the name of Christ. not the trinity formula. that is the EARLYest record so why is it thrown out for your church history and or traditions. doesnt matter how you do it or what words you speak when you do it. it is all about the inside not the outside.

Meanwhile, consider: every church Paul founded; every church Peter visited; every disciple tracing his teachers back to an Apostle -- every one of them baptized by this formula, founded churches which baptized by this formula early in their history, and baptized in water.

History is not kind to dry baptismal theologies.

again it is not whether they did it but why. they did not do it because it was commanded to do in order to be saved or born again. scripture is SOOO very clear on that. other then that it doesnt matter HOW it was done or whgat words were spoken while you were doing it. well if you dont get DRY cleaned you arent saved. and you can be dry cleaned without water.

So ... you really do believe the early church had two baptisms. If they can be separated completely, then there are two baptisms. Yet Paul calls them one.

yes it did never said it didnt. one saves you and gives you your new birth. the other doesnt. So Paul says there is only one that counts. the SPirit baptism. if you arent DRY cleaned the water cleaned does no good. and you dont need to be water cleaned to be dry cleaned.

 

[heymikey80]

how would he be contradictinf himself in verse 6. he clears it up. we are born TWICE one from water (flesh) the new birth(Spirit)

By actually meaning what He said. Look at it from your view. First He requires that spirit and water (flesh) are necessary -- both births :5. Then He demands that they're not both caused by the Spirit :6. Finally He says the Spirit can do what He wants :8.

If the flesh is independent 6) and necessary 5), then the Spirit is dependent on the flesh. But that contradicts :6 and :8, both saying the Spirit does what He pleases, where He pleases.

verse 7 he says do not be surprised at me saying you must be born again and then he says in verse 8 more clearing up, that it is the SPirit. he NEVER relates water(literale) with salation EVER. So you are saying he says water WHICH is the SPirit. So he is sayinbg in verse5 you must be born of water baptism AND the SPirit. AGAIN the water baptism DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE SPIRIT. and no scripture says it only works THROUGH water baptism. scripture says we get the sanctification of the blood THROUGH the SPIRIT. if it was not for the Blood the new birth would not happen.

Um, look at what you're saying:

baptism: "water baptism DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE SPIRIT"
blood: "if it was not for the Blood the new birth would not happen."

Ah, so the Spirit of God is limited. Only by the Blood, not by the water. I'm simply saying the water serves the same purpose as the signature on the blood covenant. I point out (for the twentieth time, maybe?) that I also agree water baptism does not give you the Spirit -- whatever that means. However, through water baptism grace is conferred by the Spirit on those God chooses.

Your argument here has fallen far, far shy of the mark. I don't believe what you're saying I believe about this passage.

In :5 water is an allusion to baptism. That's sustained by Jesus (a Hebrew) expanding (Hebraistically) the same concept again, "water ... and the Spirit". Different objects -- but the same general category. Different roles -- but the same purpose and task. "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. " 1 Cor 12:4-6

2:12 is the SPirit baptism because it is the SPirit that gets us to the Blood or Christ work of the cross.

That's called "reading in" to Scripture what you want to read. Paul thought so highly of this teaching of yours about Spirit baptism, that he neglected to even mention the Spirit in Col 2.

heb. 9:14. read rom 8:1-11. it says here the SPirit raised Jesus and it will also raise us as well. no water needed.

Guess you just missed Heb 10:22

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
​

no kidding is not proclaiming the gospel of Christ discipleing. and how does it NOT.

It does not disciple people who already know the proclamation you're making.
It does not disciple people to neglect their discipleship further afield of the Gospel proclamation. Teaching is discipleship, announcing the Gospel is prerequisite to discipleship, but is not discipleship. Not any more than matriculation is the same as taking a course in college.

that is true and he had many untill he spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. we foound out they NEVER ACCEPTED IT. that is the Truth. you can be a disciple withoout be true to it. ONLY God KNOWS who truelly is saved or a disciple.

Ah, so they were disciples UNTIL they heard the proclamation? That sounds like the contrary of what you're trying to prove, Schroeder. And it's exactly what I'm trying to point out.

A disciple is discipled by discipline, not by proclamation. The proclamation is the Great Divider. It's a threshing floor, splitting off believers from unbelievers. Disciples are trainees; they're students. You disciple people by TEACHING them (Matthew 28:20). Which is why baptism is part of discipleship, not proclamation.

dont need to pick at it all of scripture says water baptism was not commanded for SALVATION to happen in you. after salvation possible not before.

Who you talkin' to, Schroeder? Is there some ghost around you whining about baptism saving people?

again it is not whether or not they did water baptize it is WHY they did it. they did not do it so they would be born again or saved.

Yelling at the ghost again.

i think that is what we are discussing.

Never has been.

and in scripture THEY DID NOT do it in that formula. they did it in the name of Christ. not the trinity formula.

Guess Matthew 28:19 isn't in your Bible.

baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
​

You can't say what's not mentioned. You can only say that Acts didn't mention what formula they used.

But that formula is locked into history like a steel cable:

But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:5

When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition

he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. Tertullian, Against Praxeas
​

that is the EARLYest record so why is it thrown out for your church history and or traditions. doesnt matter how you do it or what words you speak when you do it. it is all about the inside not the outside.

It isn't thrown out. The earliest record is entirely consistent with my view. Acts doesn't say what the formula was. Matthew does.

In Acts the distinctive point about Christian baptism is that it's in Christ. But that doesn't mean baptism is not in the Father nor in the Spirit. At least you'd better hope it's not, because your whole argument hinges on the ONE baptism being in the Spirit! If that means it's NOT in Christ, then you've made the critical error against Scripture; not I.

again it is not whether they did it but why. they did not do it because it was commanded to do in order to be saved or born again.

Charging at ghosts again I see.

well if you dont get DRY cleaned you arent saved. and you can be dry cleaned without water.

=Chuckle=. I'll leave that to show how new this idea really is. Dry cleaning appeared in the 1840's. Hm. Any connection to this innovation in theology?

yes it did never said it didnt. one saves you and gives you your new birth. the other doesnt. So Paul says there is only one that counts. the SPirit baptism. if you arent DRY cleaned the water cleaned does no good. and you dont need to be water cleaned to be dry cleaned.

So why did Paul baptize people into Christ? Acts 19:5. I'll stick with Scripture instead, in which Christ, then the Apostles, instituted baptism across the board. That's clear from history when Scripture is silent about certain regular features of baptism -- and when people want to shoe-horn in a particular theology irrespective of history.

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10:22
​

 

[eph3Nine]

Mikey....dry cleaning appeared when the Holy Spirit baptized each believer in Pauls gospel INTO the body of Christ. NO water, DRY baptism. Unless I am mistaken, Paul didnt live til the 1800's but died well before then. LOL...So, your theory that this practice began or was invented THEN is bogus.

The ONE baptism without water began with Paul. It is still going on today.

 

[heymikey80]

Hebrews was written to whom? Hebrews!

Prove it.

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. Heb 11:39-40
​

It requires that we analyze (Greek: "divide") Scripture rightly.

See how simple God has made it to rightly divide? Pauls commission was not to Israel, but to gentiles. He didnt write Hebrews, so no, we dont count Hebrews as part of the Mystery epistles. Pauls epistles are Romans thru Philemon.

Yeah. A little too simple. The title of this letter wasn't given by the inspired author. It has about as much inspired force as a verse citation (e.g. Heb 10:22).

 

[eph3Nine]

The epistle TO the Hebrews. Gee, that was easy.

And we need to get past these ELEMENTAL teachings, baptism being ONE of them, and onto things that will grow us up in GRACE.

This water baptism nonsense is like a broken record. MOVE ON...acknowledge that we are NOT required or even admonished ONCE to be water baptized in this dispensation, and that we have a NEW apostle with new information. Peter isnt our apostle and we arent in any covenant with God, but under GRACE.

This would clear up alot of things for you, Mikey.

 

[heymikey80]

Mikey....dry cleaning appeared when the Holy Spirit baptized each believer in Pauls gospel INTO the body of Christ. NO water, DRY baptism. Unless I am mistaken, Paul didnt live til the 1800's but died well before then. LOL...So, your theory that this practice began or was invented THEN is bogus.

The ONE baptism without water began with Paul. It is still going on today.

Missed the joke, eh?

I doubt seriously dry baptism started with Paul; if it did it ended with Paul. It didn't continue in any of Paul's churches.

History's not kind to ahistorical theology.

 

[heymikey80]

The epistle TO the Hebrews. Gee, that was easy.

Yeah. A little too easy. The title of this letter wasn't given by the inspired author. It has about as much inspired force as a verse citation (e.g. Heb 10:22).

 

[heymikey80]

And we need to get past these ELEMENTAL teachings, baptism being ONE of them, and onto things that will grow us up in GRACE.

This water baptism nonsense is like a broken record. MOVE ON...acknowledge that we are NOT required or even admonished ONCE to be water baptized in this dispensation, and that we have a NEW apostle with new information. Peter isnt our apostle and we arent in any covenant with God, but under GRACE.

I won't acknowledge what you haven't shown.

Every church Paul ever founded was founded using water baptism, and you have zero -- ZERO -- evidence that Paul ever commanded the church to stop baptizing converts.

The real Program is this: when Jesus Christ came there was no other dispensation. Jesus Christ is the total, entire focus of the total, entire history of the total, entire Creation. The Program is that He be before all, and in all, and above all, through the unfathomable Grace of God.

What He does rules. Not Paul -- can't you even hear yourself? "We follow Paul, they follow Peter!" Paul would be disgusted -- 1 Cor 1:10-12. And for you you propose 1 Cor 1:14 argues for your point? Nah!

In fact the total, complete unanimity of every church Paul founded is testimony to his baptismal activity. They baptized in water. They baptized in the threefold formula.

 

[eph3Nine]

How can you say this when Paul himself said that "Christ sent me NOT to baptize (with water) but to preach the gospel (the only gospel that saves today...the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as being sufficient to reconcile us to God)"

You are simply NOT in the loop, but are preaching the OTHER gospel that God left BEHIND to reveal His MYSTERY plan.

You have been given evidence and refuse to acknowledge it. That is willful ignorance.

 

[heymikey80]

How can you say this when Paul himself said that "Christ sent me NOT to baptize (with water) but to preach the gospel (the only gospel that saves today...the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as being sufficient to reconcile us to God)"

You are simply NOT in the loop, but are preaching the OTHER gospel that God left BEHIND to reveal His MYSTERY plan.

You have been given evidence and refuse to acknowledge it. That is willful ignorance.

Pshaw. If you knew that much about early baptismal practice you would quickly discover: deacons baptized. Once they were selected, the Apostles preached.

And if you pulled the King Jimmie out of the expressions, you'd discover Paul saying, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel."

But you'd never conclude Christ didn't send an Apostle! =Chuckle!= That'd be absurd.

Christ didn't say, "I'm sending you ... so don't baptize!" No. Christ sent Paul to preach the Gospel. It just so happens that Christ didn't send Paul personally to baptize, but that responsibility spread to the church deacons as they were appointed.

Oh, and btw, Paul would've been violating such a command against baptism every time he baptized someone: that'd be ... at the church at Ephesus, the Philippian jailer, Lydia's household, and some of the people at Corinth. And also all the people Acts doesn't mention, but Paul baptized nevertheless.

You don't really believe Paul would treat a command of Christ's with such flippancy?

Oh, and once again you're injecting "water" into this by way of your own theology. Paul made no such distinction.

 

[Schroeder]

By actually meaning what He said. Look at it from your view. First He requires that spirit and water (flesh) are necessary -- both births :5. Then He demands that they're not both caused by the Spirit :6. Finally He says the Spirit can do what He wants :8.

If the flesh is independent 6) and necessary 5), then the Spirit is dependent on the flesh. But that contradicts :6 and :8, both saying the Spirit does what He pleases, where He pleases.

Ok lets look at it from a different angle. Jesus is speaking of being born again the rebirth, regeneration, however you want to say it. he says you MUST be born from above. verse 3. NOTICE in verse 3 he DOES NOT mention water BUT only the SPirit(from above) Then nicodemus askes his question, seeing only the physical birth. then Jesus mentions it again in verse 5 but with what nicodemeus said about the physical birth. NOTICE he says the same thing (BUT ADDS the water part with it) as he said in verse 3. he then explains it in verse 6. SOOO you say he says in verse 3 you cant enter the kingdom unless born again(or from above) AND then in verse 5 adds to it by making water baptism a part of it. though he doesnt in verse 3 or 6-8 and on. So who is trying to make Jesus say more then he is. the way you are seeing poor nicodemus would be totally confused. and if youy read every passage that deals with this rebirth only the Spirit is mentioned. Titus 3:5 being one Col 3:10-12 2:11-13 eph 4:22-23 Gal 3:27 Rom 13:14, 2 cor 3:17-18

Um, look at what you're saying:

baptism: "water baptism DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE SPIRIT"
blood: "if it was not for the Blood the new birth would not happen."

Ah, so the Spirit of God is limited. Only by the Blood, not by the water. I'm simply saying the water serves the same purpose as the signature on the blood covenant. I point out (for the twentieth time, maybe?) that I also agree water baptism does not give you the Spirit -- whatever that means. However, through water baptism grace is conferred by the Spirit on those God chooses.

How did you come up with this. the Blood is what saved us. we dont get this blood on us unless we are SPirit baptized. So yes if it was not for the Blood we could not be saved. your new birth is your salvation because it is the SPirit of Christ in you that is your new birth. As for the Signiture read eph 1:13-14 explains it all really clear what our mark which GUARANTEES our inheratance. Well for you to say water baptism doesnt, and to say that john 3:5 is speaking of water baptism and it is about this new birth. YES YOU ARE. you say john 3:5 says YOU MUST be born of water baptism and the SPirit to enter into the kingdom. he is speaking of salvation by GRACE. And NO scripture says GRACE is confered to us THROUGH water baptism. And as eph 2:8-10 say it is by GRACE you are saved and since you say we get this GRACE through water baptism then you are SAYING we are saved ONLY if you get water baptized. though you keep saying you dont believe that.

Your argument here has fallen far, far shy of the mark. I don't believe what you're saying I believe about this passage.

So as far as argument you are the one that doesnt understand your own theology.

In :5 water is an allusion to baptism. That's sustained by Jesus (a Hebrew) expanding (Hebraistically) the same concept again, "water ... and the Spirit". Different objects -- but the same general category. Different roles -- but the same purpose and task. "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. " 1 Cor 12:4-6

dont know what your getting at but just becasue he uses reference to water doesnt mean it is to be understood as Always water baptism. Water is a ALLUSION to cleansing not baptism, baptism just means to dip under or to fully submerse. that has nothing to do with cleansing or water. the FACT that this word baptism is used is because the SPirit does truelly submerse you into his sacrifice or blood which covers your sins. The SPirit TRUELLY does ingulf you and becomes your new birth or person. the anology with water is becasue this baptism does cleanse you as Titus 3:5 says. But it has nothing to do with water baptism. it is a different thing or purpose alltogether.

That's called "reading in" to Scripture what you want to read. Paul thought so highly of this teaching of yours about Spirit baptism, that he neglected to even mention the Spirit in Col 2.

just col. 2. well if you read it correctly in verse 10 he says baptism which is refering to the SPirit baptism. as rom 8:11 would show you. Alll Paul speaks on is the SPirit you cant read anything he writes and not see his mentioning of it.

Guess you just missed Heb 10:22

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.​

see you see water and ASSUME it is water baptism. read heb 9:14. it says " How much more, then, will the BLOOD of Christ, who THROUGH the eternal SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God, CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCE from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" Titus 3:5 says we are washed by the SPirit. SEEEE it is a reference to water(which cleanses) not water baptism. you all see any reference to water and automatically assume it is speaking of water baptism.

It does not disciple people who already know the proclamation you're making.
It does not disciple people to neglect their discipleship further afield of the Gospel proclamation. Teaching is discipleship, announcing the Gospel is prerequisite to discipleship, but is not discipleship. Not any more than matriculation is the same as taking a course in college.

so you think he is telling the apostles about how to deal with disciples and not the lost. he is telling them to go make disciples(save people) in doing that they are joining them into Christ, and from there to teach them all he has taught them. Your saying he says to them go make disciple BY water baptizing them in this formula and then teach them. as i said being a disciple doesnt make you saved. as you also pointed out. So to tell them this doesnt make much since. But if he was telling them to go save people because it joins them into the Church and then to teach them because they wont understand it unless they are saved and have the Spirit in them to discern it. that makes since. and scripture shows that is what they did.

Ah, so they were disciples UNTIL they heard the proclamation? That sounds like the contrary of what you're trying to prove, Schroeder. And it's exactly what I'm trying to point out.

No they heard the proclamation but just becasue you heard it and or believe it doesnt mean you will accept it. being a true disciple is following his commands( his two about loveing your neighbor and God) All his commands are summed up into those two. you know faith hope love but the greatest is LOVE.

A disciple is discipled by discipline, not by proclamation. The proclamation is the Great Divider. It's a threshing floor, splitting off believers from unbelievers. Disciples are trainees; they're students. You disciple people by TEACHING them (Matthew 28:20). Which is why baptism is part of discipleship, not proclamation.

i never said a disciple is discipled by proclamation a said they are MADE by the proclamation he is discipled by the teaching, which is why he said it AFTER the baptized into the name of... Becasue you have to be in the SPirit too understand the teaching. and being joined INTO the Church you MUST be saved.

Who you talkin' to, Schroeder? Is there some ghost around you whining about baptism saving people?

Yelling at the ghost again.

Never has been.

as i stated above you do believe this because what you understand or how you interpet john 3:5

Guess Matthew 28:19 isn't in your Bible.

baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

​

You can't say what's not mentioned. You can only say that Acts didn't mention what formula they used.


But that formula is locked into history like a steel cable:

​

it is i just read it the way it is supposed to be read. Cant understand why the apostles couold not have spoke of this when they spoke about how to set up churches in 1,2 cor. he spoke about communion but not water baptism. well he does but again you dont read it right. in 1 cor 1:10-17 he tells us what it was for. ASSOCIATION. anbd showes us that even then in the FIRST churches they didnt get it right. but know you seem to think they are infalible in understanding it all. though it is many years past the origanal apostles. No way they could have got it wrong or added to it.

It isn't thrown out. The earliest record is entirely consistent with my view. Acts doesn't say what the formula was. Matthew does.

well since this isnbt a formula for how to water baptize but Jeus telling them to go and preach the gospel to save them and join them into the Church and to continue to teach them. scripture is written, or i should say the bible is the accumilation of that teaching of disciples.

In Acts the distinctive point about Christian baptism is that it's in Christ. But that doesn't mean baptism is not in the Father nor in the Spirit. At least you'd better hope it's not, because your whole argument hinges on the ONE baptism being in the Spirit! If that means it's NOT in Christ, then you've made the critical error against Scripture; not I.

the one Baptism IS ONLY IN THE SPIRIT. how can ONE be done in TWO baptisms. 1 cor 12:13 says we are all baptized by ONE spirit into ONE body. sounds like eph 4.
.

=Chuckle=. I'll leave that to show how new this idea really is. Dry cleaning appeared in the 1840's. Hm. Any connection to this innovation in theology?

1 cor 12:13. eph 1:13-14 there are many many others. john the baptist said it first.

So why did Paul baptize people into Christ? Acts 19:5. I'll stick with Scripture instead, in which Christ, then the Apostles, instituted baptism across the board. That's clear from history when Scripture is silent about certain regular features of baptism -- and when people want to shoe-horn in a particular theology irrespective of history.

yes they received the water baptism which did what for them NOTHING. that is why he baptised them in the SPirit or i should say he placed his handson them and they were baptized by the SPirit. it was done on his behalf i guess you could say. it was SPIRITUAL. they were not rewater baptized. history is full of truths and lies and add ons ect. i will stick to what is ALWAYS TRUE. the scriptures.

​

 

[heymikey80]

Whew, too many words to interpret through your sentence structures. I'll hit the first:

Ok lets look at it from a different angle. Jesus is speaking of being born again the rebirth, regeneration, however you want to say it. he says you MUST be born from above. verse 3. NOTICE in verse 3 he DOES NOT mention water BUT only the SPirit(from above) Then nicodemus askes his question, seeing only the physical birth. then Jesus mentions it again in verse 5 but with what nicodemeus said about the physical birth. NOTICE he says the same thing (BUT ADDS the water part with it) as he said in verse 3. he then explains it in verse 6. SOOO you say he says in verse 3 you cant enter the kingdom unless born again(or from above) AND then in verse 5 adds to it by making water baptism a part of it. though he doesnt in verse 3 or 6-8 and on. So who is trying to make Jesus say more then he is. the way you are seeing poor nicodemus would be totally confused. and if youy read every passage that deals with this rebirth only the Spirit is mentioned. Titus 3:5 being one Col 3:10-12 2:11-13 eph 4:22-23 Gal 3:27 Rom 13:14, 2 cor 3:17-18

Ah yes, Titus, "washed" by the Spirit. And Heb 10:22:

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
​

And Eph 5:26

so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word
​

How did you come up with this. the Blood is what saved us. we dont get this blood on us ...

You realize I'm quite familiar with the theology of the Atonement, right? Maybe if you stopped and considered that you might gain a little more insight into what I'm saying. The interdependencies that you're rejecting baptism on, you're forced to embrace again for the sake of the Blood.

Well for you to say water baptism doesnt, and to say that john 3:5 is speaking of water baptism and it is about this new birth. YES YOU ARE. you say john 3:5 says YOU MUST be born of water baptism and the SPirit to enter into the kingdom.

Ah, so if you think this passage asserts this about my view, then by your own argument the person must be born to enter the Kingdom. No aborted infant need apply, no stillbirth?

You see the problem. You're not arguing consistently. You're judging my view more critically than your own. I see Jesus speaking to the ordinary visible need and then the invisible necessary need. In extraordinary cases, yes, the ordinary is not required.

Yet if you demand this of the passage, then you demand ordinary birth -- by your own argument. I assert your position is false.

he is speaking of salvation by GRACE. And NO scripture says GRACE is confered to us THROUGH water baptism.

More yelling at ghosts.

And as eph 2:8-10 say it is by GRACE you are saved and since you say we get this GRACE through water baptism then you are SAYING we are saved ONLY if you get water baptized. though you keep saying you dont believe that.

Nope. You keep saying it about me. What's that? Is that a lie? Does your theology have anything to say about lying?

So as far as argument you are the one that doesnt understand your own theology.

If you knew about "my theology" you'd know I just quoted directly from it.

I'll leave it at that. I assure you, I know something of what I'm talking about. But that doesn't mean you'll agree with me.

 

[Schroeder]

Whew, too many words to interpret through your sentence structures. I'll hit the first:

Ah yes, Titus, "washed" by the Spirit. And Heb 10:22:

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
​

And Eph 5:26

so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word​

are you saying these speak of water baptism? you keep showing me them, but they speak of the work of the Spirit not the work of the Spirit through water baptism.
​

You realize I'm quite familiar with the theology of the Atonement, right? Maybe if you stopped and considered that you might gain a little more insight into what I'm saying. The interdependencies that you're rejecting baptism on, you're forced to embrace again for the sake of the Blood.

i dont reject water baptism but i do reject what you believe it asssumingly does. which scripture does not speak on. The baptism which is for salvation and rebirth is the SPirit baptism. What does the Spirit baptism do for you and when does it occcur?

Ah, so if you think this passage asserts this about my view, then by your own argument the person must be born to enter the Kingdom. No aborted infant need apply, no stillbirth?

You see the problem. You're not arguing consistently. You're judging my view more critically than your own. I see Jesus speaking to the ordinary visible need and then the invisible necessary need. In extraordinary cases, yes, the ordinary is not required.

didnt we already discuss this. he was speaking to a living person one that HAS been born ONCE. he was talking about being born again(FROM ABOVE) to bring in this aborted or still birth issue is just to dance around the issue of what he was speaking about. your inserting what is not there. the invisible necssary need is all that is need for salvation not the visible need. that is why heb 9:10 says external regulation UNTILL the new order. it is no longer about the outside visible need but the inside needs. really it always was that way.

Yet if you demand this of the passage, then you demand ordinary birth -- by your own argument. I assert your position is false.

More yelling at ghosts.

Nope. You keep saying it about me. What's that? Is that a lie? Does your theology have anything to say about lying?

What do you mean about "ordinary" birth. he was speaking to a living person one that has been born ONCE already. he was telling him he needed to be BORN AGAIN from above, verse 3. why would he say he must be born again from above to enter heaven(onr thing) then say he MUST be born of water and Spirit (two things) he was merely adding to what he was thinking. he only saw the physical birth so Jesus makes it more clear. if that was what he meant(of water baptism and Spirit baptism) he would have said that in verse 3. your ghost are yours. you say water baptism is how God imnparts his grace on us. eph says we are saved by Grace thorugh Faith. is Faith in this passage water baptism. SOoo yes if that is what you believe that we only get this Grace through water baptism you believe you are saved through water baptism. and if you believe what you believe of John 3:5 it again says you DO believe water baptism saved us. HOW CAN YOU DENY IT.

If you knew about "my theology" you'd know I just quoted directly from it.

I'll leave it at that. I assure you, I know something of what I'm talking about. But that doesn't mean you'll agree with me.

well you insist that you dont believe water baptism saves you but keep interpreting scripture to say just that. as i showed above.

 

[heymikey80]

are you saying these [Heb 10:22, Ep 5:26] speak of water baptism? you keep showing me them, but they speak of the work of the Spirit not the work of the Spirit through water baptism.

Schroeder, where else does the water appear in such a form that you could relate it to something else? Look at the object receiving the water: what else connects water and Spirit to this object?

Both verses explicitly declare the Spirit cleanses by water, word, and faith.

Where's your Spirit use water?

i dont reject water baptism but i do reject what you believe it asssumingly does. which scripture does not speak on. The baptism which is for salvation and rebirth is the SPirit baptism. What does the Spirit baptism do for you and when does it occcur?

Spirit baptism is itself distinct from birth and receipt of the Spirit in my view, so suffice it to say that the Spirit of God is involved in causing the person to become spiritually alive, to embrace Christ and believe in Him, and to follow after Him through the Spirit.

didnt we already discuss this. he was speaking to a living person one that HAS been born ONCE. he was talking about being born again(FROM ABOVE) to bring in this aborted or still birth issue is just to dance around the issue of what he was speaking about. your inserting what is not there. the invisible necssary need is all that is need for salvation not the visible need. that is why heb 9:10 says external regulation UNTILL the new order. it is no longer about the outside visible need but the inside needs. really it always was that way.

So you think Jesus is only talking to Nicodemus' present state. Jesus isn't educating Nicodemus about something broader or more expansive, not dealing with Nic. as a teacher of Israel (which Jesus also points out in the discussion as a necessary reason for having the discussion). There are other people in view in Jesus' discussion with Nic., that's why I'm bringing it up.

What do you mean about "ordinary" birth. he was speaking to a living person one that has been born ONCE already. he was telling him he needed to be BORN AGAIN from above, verse 3. why would he say he must be born again from above to enter heaven(onr thing) then say he MUST be born of water and Spirit (two things) he was merely adding to what he was thinking. he only saw the physical birth so Jesus makes it more clear. if that was what he meant(of water baptism and Spirit baptism) he would have said that in verse 3. your ghost are yours. you say water baptism is how God imnparts his grace on us. eph says we are saved by Grace thorugh Faith. is Faith in this passage water baptism. SOoo yes if that is what you believe that we only get this Grace through water baptism you believe you are saved through water baptism. and if you believe what you believe of John 3:5 it again says you DO believe water baptism saved us. HOW CAN YOU DENY IT.

OK, once more with feeling.

Jesus says, "Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

You say I think that is an explicit requirement in two parts.

Yet not even your interpretation says that is an explicit requirement in two parts!

If you don't accept that argument as required for interpretation, and I haven't made it, then why are you attributing that argument to me?!!!

well you insist that you dont believe water baptism saves you but keep interpreting scripture to say just that. as i showed above.

You've shown nothing of the sort, Schroeder.

It's an historic problem:

"... being so bent on declaiming against the superstitious and fanatical opinion of the Papists, touching the local presence of Jesus Christ within the sacrament, and the perverse adoration consequent upon it, that they laboured more to pull down what was evil than to build up what was good; for though they did not deny the truth, they did not teach it so clearly as they ought to have done. I mean that in their too great anxiety to maintain that the bread and wine are called the body of Christ, because they are signs of them, they did not attend to add, that though they are signs, the reality is conjoined with them, and thus protest, that they had no intention whatever to obscure the true communion which the Lord gives us in his body and blood by this sacrament." Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, John Calvin
​

 

[Tychicum]

I post this as many folks think that Baptism is a Christian ritual ... but it is far older than that ...




“Immersion” from the Hebraic Roots Glossary

Proselytes to Judaism were immersed as a sign and a seal of their
life-redirecting, regenerating experience. The proselyte had utterly
broken with idolatry (i.e. demon-worship) to the worship of YHWH, the
One Elohim of Yisra'el. He passed from death to life, and was born as
a citizen of the `Olam ha-ba (the World to Come).

The immersion-washing of the proselyte was a graphic reminder, sign (ot)
and seal of this fact. The candidate, fully naked, immersed himself
in the waters, symbolically cleansing himself from antecedent
defilement. At least one witness had to be present to witness the
self-immersion. No part of the body was allowed to be above the
surface during immersion; the fingers and toes had to be moved to
ensure that the water of the mikveh would touch the entire surface of
the body. His past behind him, the proselyte emerged to take his
stand with Am Yisra'el (the covenant-people of Israel).

In the Talmud, newly immersed proselytes are called "born again." In
Tractate Yevamot 62a, e.g., Shim'on Ben-Lakish says that "a proselyte
is like a newborn infant." Rabbi Yosi makes a similar statement in
Tractate Yevamot 48b. Genesis Rabbah 39:11 also alludes to this
concept of rebirth.

The laws of the menstrual cycle specifies that an Israelite husband
and wife should not come together for 2 weeks per month. The first
week was the "seven red days" which were followed by the "seven white
days." Following the separation, the woman would, fully naked,
immerse herself into a mikveh to symbolise her passing from a state of
being tamei (not ready; ceremonially unclean) to tahor (ready;
ceremonially clean). Coming out of the mikveh, she would dress
herself like bride for the married couple's "monthly honeymoon," and
was called "born again."

The earliest artistic depiction of the immersion of Messiah Yahushua
shows Him immersing Himself into the river Yarden, fully naked, with
Yochanan haMatzvil standing right at the edge of the water, witnessing
the self-immersion and lending the Messiah a hand to help Him out of
the river.

It is very important to note that Scriptural immersion is always full
immesion and self-immersion, witnessed by at least one witness, and
never immersion by a second party. It is ironic that virtually none
of the denominations who vehemently denounce each other for practicing
an incorrect form of "baptism," practice it correctly! Any major
library contains all the information that is necessary to establish
how Scriptural immersion should be performed. Most denominations,
however, cherish their inherited traditions more than the truth. The
fathers built a fence, the children installed a gate in the fence and
the grandchildren threw away the gate's key. So the only way out is
to break out.

http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/9802/980204_g.html


†

 

[Schroeder]

Schroeder, where else does the water appear in such a form that you could relate it to something else? Look at the object receiving the water: what else connects water and Spirit to this object?

Both verses explicitly declare the Spirit cleanses by water, word, and faith.

Where's your Spirit use water?

not at all. you MUST have them do so in order to make your theology stick. heb 10:22 Which is water baptism the sprinkeling or the washed with pure water. Just read heb 9:14 it says the blood THROUGH the SPirit cleanses our conscience. SO it would not be the sprinkled word. so what of "bodies washed with pure water. WELL no water is PURE. in as much what would washing our bodies have to do with salvation or sin or anything. 1 peter 5:21 says NOT the removal of dirt from the BODY. so again this phrase is not water baptism either. Eph 5:26 it says "washing with water THROUGH the word". if it was water baptism it would be stated as "washing of the word through water". And notice it says CHRIST gave himself up for her, so it is speaking of the Church, not of individuals getting water baptized but the Church being GUIDED by the Spirit, which if done will keep it clean without corruption. to bad that is not the case. or is if you look at the Church who truelly Follow Christ and not there denom rules and regulations.

Spirit baptism is itself distinct from birth and receipt of the Spirit in my view, so suffice it to say that the Spirit of God is involved in causing the person to become spiritually alive, to embrace Christ and believe in Him, and to follow after Him through the Spirit.

not hardly. your SPirit is your new birth it is the new person in you. that is why Christ said the SPirit gives the SPirit. The Spirit is what makes one a NEW LIFE or makes one ALIVE because we are DEAD with out it. no wonder you cant get the interpretations correct your whole concept of the SPirit baptism is off and what salvation involves or is.

So you think Jesus is only talking to Nicodemus' present state. Jesus isn't educating Nicodemus about something broader or more expansive, not dealing with Nic. as a teacher of Israel (which Jesus also points out in the discussion as a necessary reason for having the discussion). There are other people in view in Jesus' discussion with Nic., that's why I'm bringing it up.

Yes i know. us all are in view. the broader view is that all there physical ordances havent truelly accomblished anything in way of making things clean or pure or making them sinless or pure or sanctified. That they and or we must be BORN FROM ABOVE. SPirit baptism, you know the one JTB spoke about the one mentioned in 1 cor 12:13. the one that eph 1:13-14 says QUARENTEES our inheratance. NOT water baptism. it doesnt say here that water baptism is our seal or quarentee DOES IT.

OK, once more with feeling.

Jesus says, "Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

You say I think that is an explicit requirement in two parts.

Yet not even your interpretation says that is an explicit requirement in two parts!

If you don't accept that argument as required for interpretation, and I haven't made it, then why are you attributing that argument to me?!!!

WEll in a since yes you are. you are saying we must do two things to inherate the kingdom in verse 5 when in verse 3 he says only of being born from above. i believe that means you are saying he is explaining it in more detail as in to be born from above you must be water baptized. that in verse 6 he says flesh gives the flesh ( from some unnone reason on your part) and that the Spirit give the SPirit(through water baptism. i guess he assumes you assume that, in light of his verse 5 statement) he again leaves it out in verse 8. and of course ignores what Nico is saying in verse 4 about natural birth. THEN says if you JUST believe in him you will have eternal life. So you are having one thing happen NEW BIRTH in two parts water baptism and Spirit baptism. or i guess not since you dont think the SPirit baptism is part of this process. that the SPirit baptism is some on going process two make you more holy, or that it is GOd imposing his Spirit on you before salvation two help you believe in his Son so you can do the work he reguires. which doesnt jive because the Work he reguires is stated in john 6:29 and says to BELIEVE on his son. So it cant be to help you believe so you can do something to be saved because that is what our work is. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED GRACE.

You've shown nothing of the sort, Schroeder.



It's an historic problem:

"... being so bent on declaiming against the superstitious and fanatical opinion of the Papists, touching the local presence of Jesus Christ within the sacrament, and the perverse adoration consequent upon it, that they laboured more to pull down what was evil than to build up what was good; for though they did not deny the truth, they did not teach it so clearly as they ought to have done. I mean that in their too great anxiety to maintain that the bread and wine are called the body of Christ, because they are signs of them, they did not attend to add, that though they are signs, the reality is conjoined with them, and thus protest, that they had no intention whatever to obscure the true communion which the Lord gives us in his body and blood by this sacrament." Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, John Calvin


​

i am slowly getting what your thinking. you believe that the SPirit baptism is when God imparts his Spirit in us to get us to believe on JESUS and when we do we follow his command to be water baptized which gives us HIS Spirit and our rebirth, and it is this ACT of water baptism whne God imparts his GRACE on us. OF course i have given scripture which speaks against this already. Eph 1:13-14, Titus 3:5, john 3:16, gal 3:14, 3:2 eph 2:8-10, 4:30 Col. 1:19-20 Which says that it was THROUGH Christ that ALL thiongs were reconciled to himself. YET you say it is though WATER baptism that ALL things are reconciled to himself. guite a contradiction. TRUE communion is trhought he SPirit as Christ said all true worshipers are to worship in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. 1 thess. 4:9. says again that we RECEIVE salvation through him. HIM is SPirit. again that is why he says Spirit give the Spirit. I am having a VERY difficult time trying to find that THROUGH water baptism passage.

 

[heymikey80]

not at all. you MUST have them do so in order to make your theology stick. heb 10:22 Which is water baptism the sprinkeling or the washed with pure water. Just read heb 9:14 it says the blood THROUGH the SPirit cleanses our conscience.

It's very tiresome to me when you tell me what my theology must do. "Stick"? What, now my theology is Rover, chasing after sticks? No, Schroeder, language is much more fluid than you give it credit. Jesus isn't talking propositionally, Jesus is talking typically, normally. A teacher must know the normal, typical way to grasp knowledge. Jesus is telling him that. Water & Spirit -- both are involved in the process of bringing a person to the awareness -- entrance -- to the Kingdom of God. We look on outward appearance; God looks to the heart. The outward appearance is water; the heart is the Spirit.

Clearly what you've said about my theology is false, because my theology isn't doing what you've asserted. It comes back to false accusation, Schroeder. Where will you turn next, I wonder.

Just read heb 9:14 it says the blood THROUGH the SPirit cleanses our conscience. SO it would not be the sprinkled word. so what of "bodies washed with pure water. WELL no water is PURE. in as much what would washing our bodies have to do with salvation or sin or anything.

I've never seen a "sprinkled word" -- unless it's alpha-bits? Such a fantastic argument from me would correspond very much to your critique you have against "pure (ie, fresh, clean) water". Except for one thing: "pure water" is a characteristic phrase used in ancient Greek for fresh, unmuddied water. Alphabits didn't exist, then.

The argument is simply spiralling into absurdity, Schroeder.

WEll in a since yes you are. you are saying we must do two things to inherate the kingdom in verse 5 when in verse 3 he says only of being born from above. i believe that means you are saying he is explaining it in more detail as in to be born from above you must be water baptized.

And it's wrong to presume my theology says anything of the sort, Schroeder. Jesus isn't making these two equivalent.

But you can't possibly believe John 3:5 is overridden by 3:8, now can you? That's "pitting one verse against another", now, isn't it? We don't have dueling gods in God's Word. God is consistent. So what will you do? You're simply denying 3:5's "water and" exists at all the way you're arguing. It has no meaning. Jesus couldn't have meant it as anything at all. It doesn't really necessitate human birth (as your argument against the unborn interpretation demonstrates). It doesn't mean baptism (as your opposition to me demonstrates).

Face it: the words don't really say anything in this view. They're a meaningless surprise that can't be comprehended by the position.

Yet Jesus Christ said them to Nicodemus.

Don't go running off accusing me of the necessity of baptism as a result. I too deny that the verse necessitates human birth. I too deny that the verse necessitates water baptism. But it does make baptism quite significant nevertheless. It puts the Kingdom of Heaven in view.