Baptism--Why?

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

 

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.

 

Hey mman:

Nice try!

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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".

 

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

 

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

 

Greetings bmerr

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

 

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).

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!