Baptism--Why?

DHK · Aug 29, 2005

Originally posted by mman:
That law died because Jesus put it to death!

If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it. Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus. He didn't require it of the thief on the cross. He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHK

mman · Aug 30, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
That law died because Jesus put it to death!

If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it. Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus. He didn't require it of the thief on the cross. He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]All the examples you give are under the old law. Yes, John baptized in preparation for the kingdom (church) which was at hand.

I don't keep the old law. Jesus lived and died under the old law. He had the power to forgive sins. Baptism was never a requirement under the old law.

When Jesus gave Nicodemus instructions, it was for the coming kingdom. One must be born of water and the Spirit to enter that kingdom (church).

That is EXACTLY what happened on the day of Pentecost.

When you say, "Jesus never required that", it is true, before his death. After His death, HE DID REQUIRE IT!

Something occured at his death. Heb 9:16-17 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

After Jesus death, when the old law was taken out of the way and under the new law, he said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:15-16

That is why baptism was not a requirment for the examples you used, because the new law was not in effect.

Fast forward to Acts 2. EVERY example, not some, not a few, not most, BUT EVERYexample of conversion included water baptism at the first opportunity. That fact is undeniable and undisputed. Neverdid anyone wait, not 2 days, not 2 weeks, not 2 months, not 2 years.

When I accept what Jesus said under the new covenant as truth, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", some may call me a legalist. When I follow the new testament examples, some may call me a pharisee. When I, by faith, accept Jesus plain teaching, some say I am trying to earn my way to heaven by works. Jesus said the way was narrow and few there be that find it. Some teach that anything goes, as long as you "only believe". That doesn't sound like a very narrow way to me.

Rom 6:3-4, our baptism in water is a death, burial, and resurrection.

We are baptized into his death. Rom 6:3-4
We are buried WITH Him. Rom 6:4
We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4)
We are united with him in death (Rom 6:5)
We are united with him in resurrection (Rom 6:5)

People (under the old law) could not be united with Him in death, before his death.

People (under the old law) could not be united with Him in resurrection before his resurrection.

People (under the old law) could not be buried with Him, before he was buried.

But, under the new covenant, we CAN do those things.

ascund · Aug 30, 2005

Hey mman:

Nice try!

Originally posted by mman:
You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death

What you miss is that Christ eliminated it "IN HIS FLESH." Believers die to the law only when they are united with Christ by the Spirit's baptism.

We die to the law - not the law dieing to us.
Gal 2:20 For I have been crucified with Christ - it is no longer I who live ...

In Rom 7:4, Paul presents the same analogy where the woman is freed from one husband (the law) and lives to another husband (Christ).

The law is only old and ready to vanish (Heb 8:8).

Do not pit the Bible against itself without the proper harmony. This is really bad hermeneutics.

Lloyd

Click to expand...

mman · Aug 30, 2005

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman:

Nice try!

Originally posted by mman:
You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death

What you miss is that Christ eliminated it "IN HIS FLESH." Believers die to the law only when they are united with Christ by the Spirit's baptism.

We die to the law - not the law dieing to us.
Gal 2:20 For I have been crucified with Christ - it is no longer I who live ...

In Rom 7:4, Paul presents the same analogy where the woman is freed from one husband (the law) and lives to another husband (Christ).

The law is only old and ready to vanish (Heb 8:8).

Do not pit the Bible against itself without the proper harmony. This is really bad hermeneutics.

Lloyd

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you will re-read the text, you will see that Jesus put to death the enmity. What was the enmity? The law (Eph 2:15).

Your attempt to use Gal 2:20, totally out of it's context, to say that we die to the law is really absurd.

Let's look a little closer at Heb 8.

Heb 8:7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Verse 13 is the one I think you were intending to reference, not verse 8. Anyway, it says, 'In speaking of a new covenant".

Notice, this is a reference to Jer 31. When God made mention of a new covenant, by default, the existing covenant was "old" and "obsolete". Therefore, when he made the statement originally of a new covenant, he was showing that existing covenant was becoming obsolete, growing old, and ready to vanish away.

Ephesians tells us, "13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. - Eph 2:13-16 ESV

This clearly teaches that the law of commandments and ordinances was abolished. Yes, He broke down that wall, in his flesh. How? Through the cross. When his flesh was nailed to the cross, so was the old law. Both were put to death, thereby "killing the hostility." At his death, the new covenant went into effect (Heb 9:17).

There are no contradictions, only complete harmony in what I believe. Your perception or understanding must be the source for your preceived lack of harmony.

Now, go to Eph 2 and tell me what was abolished and how peace was accomplished? You can make the hollow claim, "This is really bad hermeneutics" all you want, but it does not change the simple truth of God's word.

Click to expand...

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Aug 31, 2005

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd

Now I do NOT disagree with you, Lloyd, by maintaining, that CHRIST had been crucified to the Law and became alive to the Law. It is HE, Christ, who have died - THE Law to us for whom HE, was nailed to the cross - THE LAW!

I find NO difficulty in the divine truth, THE LAW was nailed to the cross, and was abolished, and extinguished - as long as it actually, happened, and occurred, in the body of HIM who died and was raised. Never forget the "was raised"! "IN HIM" The Law, revived to live for ever the Eternal Word and the Eternal Law of God in PERSON - even the person of Jesus Christ.
NO contradiction, no opposition, no disagreement IN, the Law WHO, IS, God's Word incarnate from the dead through the power of the Spirit of God.
God is not divided against Himself. There cannot be war between the Law and The Law - only when in the hands of men the Old no longer serves the glory of the New.

bmerr · Aug 31, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it.

DHK,

bmerr here. mman is not proposing that we keep the Mosaic Law. There were aspects of the Mosaic Law (Levitical priesthood, sacrificial system, diverse feast days, etc.) that were peculiar to that system of worship, that were only applicable to the Jews.

These are the things spoken of when the law is said to be taken out of the way.

There are also things that have been part of God's law since the Creation. For example, murder has always been a sin. These aspects of God's law are still applicable to all men today.

Additionally, there is a different system of worship in place under the NT, and it also has laws. These laws have to do with how man is to approach God, just as the Mosaic Law governed how the Israelites were to approach God.

mman, Frank, and I are not advocating the keeping of the Mosaic Law, but of the Law of Christ.

Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus.

Actually, Jesus did tell Nicodemus that one would have to be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Born of water is a reference to baptism.

He didn't require it of the thief on the cross.

As has been discussed before, it cannot be proved whether the thief had been baptized or not.

Also, the thief died under the OT, as did Jesus, and so the gospel of Christ was not what saved men at that time. Heb 9:16-17 would be recommended reading.

He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?

Again, it can't be proved that this man had not been baptized by John. It can't be proved that he had been, either. Regardless, the forgiveness of sins was something Jesus could grant to whomever He chose, under any conditions He chose, up until His death. After His death, these things are only granted under the conditions of the New Testament.

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHK

How did Jesus see their faith? Was it not by their works? I think it was. Not much help for the "faith only" crowd, huh?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK · Sep 1, 2005

Originally posted by bmerr:
How did Jesus see their faith? Was it not by their works? I think it was. Not much help for the "faith only" crowd, huh?
In Christ,
bmerr

Read the chapter.
The Pharisees were correct in asserting that "Only God can forgive sins. In that they spoke truthfully, though they would not admit that Christ was the Messiah, God come in the flesh. He was the one able to forgive sins, as he demonstrated.
Recognize also that almost every world religion is able to do good works: Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. Living among Muslims I have seen some of the most sacrificial good works done in the name of Allah that would put Christians to shame. Do their good works demonstrate their faith in Christ? Of course not. Neither did Christ ascertain their faith by their good works. He knew they had faith in Him as Messiah because Christ was God and He knew the hearts of all men, not because he saw their good works. It is man that looks on the outward appearance; but God that looks on the heart, not as man sees.
DHK

ascund · Sep 1, 2005

Greetings bmerr

I've been away for a while. I've been concentrating on that water baptism debate. You should rush over and help my opponent. He is in ICU. He crossed swords with a tiger and got a bad whipping.

Meanwhile, how is it that you can't learn? I've shown you at least twice that your narrow look at just one verse (John 3:5) ignores the rest of context.

In context, Jesus makes three attempts to teach about the new birth.

First, He shows that the new birth is “from above” (anwthen). Thus, the new birth is not associated with human activity. In 3:6, Jesus continues the contrast ELDV misses from just looking at v5. Physical life is contrasted with eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; spiritual life comes by God’s Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from above and not from human activity below. You ignore this contrast and wrongly redefine it as water baptism.

Second, Jesus shows that the new birth is like the unseen wind. You can’t see it but you can see the results. 2 Cor 4:18 shows that anything seen is temporal; anything unseen is spiritual. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual nature of the new birth. No water here at all!

Third, Jesus uses the brazen serpent. When the murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this look with “whosoever believeth” has everlasting life (John 3:16)! No water here.

These three illustrations are ONE. How is it that none of the three specifically says “water baptism” yet you force this upon the text? How is that the last two don’t mention water baptism at all, but you think water is a proper interpretation for the unsaving physical aspect from below that stands in stark contrast to the saving spiritual birth from above?

They show justification is spiritual, from above. Your wayward appeal to John 3:5 is really a support for God’s activity alone in justification and a denial of your conditional human-centered process justification.

How many times will you need to see God’s Word before you put down denominational creeds?

Wishing for nothing but the best to go your way!
Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 2, 2005

Quoting bmer, "Actually, Jesus did tell Nicodemus that one would have to be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Born of water is a reference to baptism."

You mis-apply the words of Jesus! Did He say, one would have to be baptised with or in water to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Born of water is NOT a reference to baptism, but to one's natural birth; the "born of the Spirit" is reference to one's spiritual birth - "regeneration".

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 2, 2005

One of the pillars of RC Error: "baptismal regeneration" - away with it!

ascund · Sep 3, 2005

Hey Gerhard

Most of these guys only want to use John 3:5 apart from context. This verse is "book ended" by John 3:3 and 3:7 which show that the new birth is "from above." Verse 6 explains verse 5 as a contrast between physical and spiritual.

They cling to the water part which is clearly shown to be physical. They want this to be the physical waters of baptism that have spiritual significance. But the contrast denies the spiritual significance!

The waters tie into the errant idea of getting back into the womb and being born through the breaking of water (placenta).

There are several things rolling in these few verses. Only a blinded self-righteous human-centered theology can miss it all.

Good Post!
Lloyd

bmerr · Sep 3, 2005

Lloyd + Gerhard,

bmerr here. Sorry I've been absent so much lately. My back is felling better, so my schedule is getting back to it's usual hectic pace. I may not be able to spend as much time here as I have been lately.

Gerhard, concerning the RC "baptismal regenration" thing, please bear in mind that their sprinkling of babies and such is rooted in "original sin", yet another false doctrine. Please don't mistake the NT command to be baptized for the remission of sins found in Acts 2:38 for what they do. What the papists teach and what I teach concerning baptism are very different things.

Getting back to John 3:3-7, I still say it's ridiculous to maintain that "born of water" is a reference to physical birth. It forces Jesus to correct Nicodemus by saying he's right.

I don't know who ever held the idea of "getting back into the womb and being born through the breaking of water (placenta)", that you mentioned, Lloyd. I've never heard of such a thing, except for Nicodemus' mention of it, which was a result of Jesus' statement the "ye must be born again".

Imagine being there. If "born of water" does not mean physical birth, the conversation might have gone like this:

Jesus - "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nic - "You mean go back into my mother's womb and be born? How can a man do that?"

Jesus - "No, of course I don't mean that. But, except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Even Nicodemus knew that "born again" meant something other than his own birth.

On the other hand, if "born of water" is a reference to physical birth, the conversation might have gone like this:

Jesus - "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nic - "You mean go back into my mother's womb and be born? How can a man do that?"

Jesus - "Yes, Nicodemus, you must first be born through natural childbirth by your mother. Except a man be born of water at his birth, and of the Spirit later on by some mystical operation of God on his heart, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

You know, I can't even make that view make sense. Like I said, even Nicodemus understood that born of water didn't mean the water breaking at his own birth. That's why he asked about going back into his mother's womb to be born again. Come to think of it, Nicodemus didn't even ask his question in John 3:4 about "born of water". He asked it about "born again".

I try not to insult people, but you guys holding the view that "born of water" refers to the water breaking at childbirth really makes you look, let's just say, not as educated as I know you are.

Okay, as you know, I'm not formally educated, but I think I've got decent "horse sense". I think I've made a pretty good case showing that "born of water" is not a reference to childbirth.

If nothing else, you must admit that being born of water is a prerequisite to seeing or entering the kingdom of God, right? "Born of water and of the Spirit" is simply an expanded version of "born again". "Born again" = "born of water and of the Spirit". Fair statement?

So if it's not childbirth, (and it's not), and it's not baptism (which I believe it is, but I'll allow that it might not be for the sake of investigation), then what is it?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund · Sep 4, 2005

Greetings bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
You know, I can't even make that view make sense. Like I said, even Nicodemus understood that born of water didn't mean the water breaking at his own birth. That's why he asked about going back into his mother's womb to be born again. Come to think of it, Nicodemus didn't even ask his question in John 3:4 about "born of water". He asked it about "born again".

I didn't realize that your back was as serious as you now mention. My 33 year old son has had multiple back surguries to no avail. He is now getting shots directly to the pain spot every 3 months. Next step is the pain pump. There is nothing after this that they can do for him. I hope you are not so trapped by the ineptness of doctors.

But friend - you are wrong about Nicodemus. He did realize that the water referred to physical birth. That's why he asked about a rebirth from the womb. One can't pass through those waters unless you get back into the womb.

Verse 6 amplifies this with the contrast between physical birth and spiritual. This whole thought is surrounded by two "born again" which are actualy "born from above" verses. The new birth has nothing to do with "from below."

The next two illustrations deal with spiritual birth without further reference to water. All three illustrations teach the same thing.

So it is easy to see that your interpretation of the first illustration is patently wrong.

May your back heal.
Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 4, 2005

Quoting bmerr, "Jesus - "Yes, Nicodemus, you must first be born through natural childbirth by your mother. Except a man be born of water at his birth, and of the Spirit later on by some mystical operation of God on his heart, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

You know, I can't even make that view make sense."

Why not, bmerr, it's perfectly understandable? The stress should be on the word "AND". Any man living, or, of all men living, ONLY those "born of the Spirit (also)" - that is, 'born AGAIN' - shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven (be saved eternally).

bmerr · Sep 6, 2005

Gerhard,

bmerr here. Both of my children were delivered by Cesarean section. They were not "born of water" by your definition. But Jesus said one must be born of water and of the Spirit. Do they have a hope of Heaven?

Do you not yet understand that if "born of water" means physical childbirth, that Jesus corrected Nicodemus by telling him he was correct?

Jesus is saying that all men living must be born again, or born of water and the Spirit. Living men do not need to be born.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund · Sep 6, 2005

Hey bmerr

The metaphor is one of natural birth. That you can overcome the natural birthing process does not change the natural meaning of the metaphor.

Born of water still points to the physical birth "from below" in contrast to the spiritual birth "from above."

Nicodemus fully well understood for he wondered how it would be possible to re-enter the womb.

Jesus' next two illustrations continue this theme. The second illustration shows that the new birth is invisible like the wind. The third illustration shows that the new birth happens by the LOOK of faith in Jesus without sacrament, sacrafices or works.

The three illustrations are one! Water engenders to the physical birth.

Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 6, 2005

Thanks ascund, for your simple explanations! And inpsiring and consoling!

Quoting bmerr, "delivered by Cesarean section. They were not "born of water" by your definition."
What's the difference; its still of water?

"... Jesus said one must be born of water and of the Spirit" to have a hope of regeneration - call it "a hope of Heaven" if you like!

"... Do you not yet understand that if "born of water" means physical childbirth, that Jesus corrected Nicodemus by telling him he was correct?"
Surely! Jesus finds some common ground which both He and Nicodemus could understand; then reasons the ununderstandable from there!

"... Jesus is saying that all men living must be born again, or born of water and the Spirit. Living men do not need to be born."
You sit with exactly Nicodemus' enigma! Jesus' explanation is also valid for you - He answers your question; He does not for nothing repeat it.

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 6, 2005

I say, there are only three things that divide the Church, they are, the matter of how a person is saved; how he is confirmed in his salvation; and how he is found in his salvation - faith, baptism and Sabbath.
Show me something else of essence that divides?

ascund · Sep 6, 2005

Hey Gerhard

The Trinity!

Outside Christendom, Buddha, Confuscus, Zen, etc. all deny Jesus.

Within Christendom, it divides Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, all Gnostic derivatives.

Within "orthodoxy" and on a lesser scale, while Eastern Orthodoxy agrees on the Trinity, they view the Persons while Western Christendom emphasizes the unity or substance of the Trinty.

LLoyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 8, 2005

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey Gerhard

The Trinity!

Outside Christendom, Buddha, Confuscus, Zen, etc. all deny Jesus.

Within Christendom, it divides Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, all Gnostic derivatives.

Within "orthodoxy" and on a lesser scale, while Eastern Orthodoxy agrees on the Trinity, they view the Persons while Western Christendom emphasizes the unity or substance of the Trinty.

LLoyd

Yes, I agree; but I can agree on the supposition The Church is those who in the first place accept and believe God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But now I am talking of these - The Church - what divides this Church? Only the things pertaining sovereign and free grace!
Ascund, that's what makes division so heart-breaking but unavoidable!

Baptism--Why?

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member