Must we obey the gospel to be saved???

dhk:
You have built your doctrine on UNSUBSTANTIEATED ASSUMPTION. The definitive article in the original language is NOT used in Jn. 3: 3-5. Furthermore, neither is the word HOLY. The text employs the word PNEUMATOS.The two nouns hudatos and pneumatos are connected by the preposition ek. The rules of greek grammar require the two nouns to go together. They complement one another. Therefore, both water and spirit are essential in the New Birth.( Anothen).
Men are begotten by the spirit when they receive the word of God in faithful obedience to it. This requires on be baptized for the remission of sins.( Act 2:38, I Cor. 4:15, Jn. 6:63).
The Bible is it's best interpreter and commentator. For both interpretation and commentary on Jn. 3:3-5, see Acts 2:1-47.
Frank

 

dhk:
I believe your question was answered in my original post. Can you see the wind? NO. Does one no where the wind goes? No. Does one know where the wind comes from? No. You can see the EFFECTS OF THE WIND? Yes. By the same axiom one can only see the effects of the spirit, we see only man's response to the word of the spirit, unless you are the Lord himself. I hope this answers the question about the spirit and verse 8.
Frank

 

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
---In John 1:12, it tells us that those who believe are born of God.
---In John 3:3, it tells us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, or that which is born of the Holy Spirit is spiritual.
Please don't beat around the bush. Give me a yes or no answer. Is the word "Spirit" with a capital "S" in verse 5 referring to the Holy Spirit: yes or no? If it is not, you make a very blasphemous statement, in that the Holy Spirit is God. Even the KJV translators believed this. For (John 1:13) we are born of God, the Holy Spirt. Does the Spirit in John 3:5 refer to the Holy Spirit: yes or no?
DHK

 

dhk:
The Greek language does not employ capital letters,or indefinite articles, not punctuation marks. Therefore, the capital S or small s is irrelevant. I have already answered the question based on the original language. Prove the Spirit is the Holy Spirit from the text.
I have already provided the word Pneumatos meaning spirit is used without the definitive article and without the word Holy. I have presented the evidence from the original language Ek links the nouns hudatos and pnematos. The two water and spirit are connected in the new birth, not disconnected.
The spirit that brings life is the word.( Jn. 6:63). This is the case no matter which way you perceive pnematos. It is the word( ICor, 4:15, James 1:18,21,I Peter 1:23) that brings the new birth in man.The Spirit uses the word to direct man as to what he must do. ( Hebs 4:12 Eph. 6:17).
What evidence is there to rationalize that John 3:5 refers to the Holy Spirit?
You are attempting to argue with the inspired language. You may not like " hudakos kai pnematos" but it says no more or no less than the language dictates. The water and spirit are connected to the anothen that is the new birth.
Frank

 

dhk:
The original language does not indicate that the spirit in JN. 3:5 is the Holy Spirit. God inspired pnematos, not hagion pneuma. Therefore, based on the evidence I believe it is the instrument of the spirit which is the WORD OF GOD in view here. The new birth is brought about by hearing the word of God. One cannot see this happen and is like the wind. We see the effect. Water is the essential element that brings one into a new life in Christ. The best commentary on the new birth is Acts 2:1-47.
Now, can you provide evidence that Jn. 3:5 uses the Holy Spirit?
Frank

 

What does the "Spirit" mean in John 3:5? Scholars of every age have interpreted it to mean the Holy Spirit. Your interpretation is askew. It must have come along with Alexander Cambell. Is it the Cambellite official view that was lost for 1700 years?
I don't agree with John Calvin's theology, as baptizes infants, and believes in reformed and covenantal theology. But consider his view on John 3:5, and his interpretation of it.

25. "Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Savior's words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the world water is used. Nicodemus, after our Savior had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Savior intimates the mode in which God regenerates us — viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By "water and the Spirit," therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the
third chapter of Matthew, "He that cometh after me is mightier than I;" "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11). Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing, else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning because our Savior's only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of caviling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this message, our Savior mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, caviling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is that which I have given — viz. that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God." (Page 1495, chapter 16, Calvin's Institutes)

Note that faith must precede baptism, and that the water in John 3:5, even by this reformed infant baptizer, could not mean baptism. The facts speak for themselves.
DHK

 

DHK;
I have no idea what Alexander Campbell thought. I realy do not care. The origianl language speaks for itself. F.F.Bruce states, "It is a pity when reaction against the notion of baptismal regeneation by an opus operatum leads to the complete overlooking of the baptismal illusion in these WORDS of Jesus."( The Gospel of John page 84-88). Vincent states," Jesus asserted the obligation of outward rite..." Water" points to the rite of baptism.... Jesus WORDS inclauded a PROPHETIC reference to the complete ideal of baptism... We are not to understand with Calvin, the Holy Spirit as the purifying water in the spirtual sense: water which is the spirit." Vol. II,pp. 91-92. Albert Barnes said on John 3:5," by water here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the WORD is used in Eph. 5:26: Titus 3:5." Barnes on the New Testament, Luke - John. p. 210.
DHK, I do not have the slightest idea what Alexander Campbell taught. I do not have a single book in my library written by Campbell. However, if he is true to the scriptures, I would agree with him. If he opposes the truth, we would disagree.
Frank

 

No, Sola, I don't think that Calvin believes what you are trying to describe there. In fact I know he doesn't. I read quite a bit of his writings on baptism. He seems to be saying that water is referring to fire, which also refers to the Holy Spirit just as it did on the Day of Pentecost. I have read other commentators who have translated the conjunction "and" as "even." This is the sense that Calvin is giving, although he does not come right out and say it. Nevertheless he does equate both water and the Spirit with the Holy Spirit.
DHK

 

Sola, You have misquoted Calvin, whether deliberately or not, I cannot tell. The context of the entire quote was John 3:5, of which very concisely he says this:

"First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the world water is used."

He goes on to say it refers to the Holy Spirit. The word water is used. No where in this passage is the word baptism used. What are you talking about? You are reading into this passage something that is not there.
DHK

 

SolaScriptura:

Since the beginning of your post, you seem to imply that we are not SAVED by believing in Jesus as our Lord a savior WITHOUT being BAPTISED.
I have been baptised twice in two different denominations. Does that mean I am really on track?

I will leave you with this question:

Are all who are baptised Christians and really believe in Jesus?

If not, then it seems baptism is not glued to faith as you say because baptism doesn't mean you are a Christian. To me, baptism is great to show, not your faith, but your committment to Christ but even then, this can be faked also and does not in any way take away your salvation.

Something more than baptism, is your repentance as seen by others. Many believe and are baptised but NOT ALL repenet immediately. Maybe in some areas, but some still hang on to many , what you would call, minor sins. Overeating is one that many fail to even think about as a sin, yet it is!!

God Bless...............Alex

 

Mat.3:10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Let's consider these passages of Scripture in the light of what you have said, and possibly what Calvin has said. In Matthew chapter three, John the Baptist speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees (verse 7), about the coming judgement upon those who refuse to repent. Those of the nation of Israel that refuse to repent God will judge, as a tree that brings forth no fruit, and cast it into fire. But for those who do repent (verse 11), John baptizes unto repentance. For them there is one coming that is mightier even then John who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost and with fire. You do not give the fires of Hell to a saved person!! Look at the context of the verse.
Then in verse 12, he goes back to the theme of judgement on those of the nation of Israel who will not repent.
In Acts 1:5 Jesus refers to the baptism of John, and the same baptism that John referred to: that of the Holy Ghost, that they would receive shortly.
In Acts 2:1 they were filled with the Holy Ghost; cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and the Lord gave them power to speak forth His Word. Thus the fire of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled in this verse. How? First, take note that when referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas others may be referring to some kind of "Second Blessing," I am not. There is one baptizer. That is Jesus. Jesus, at the point of salvation "baptizes" us into the Spirit. There is no other baptism, other than water baptism. But we cannot neglect the promise of Jesus to baptize with the Holy Spirit either. Thus there are two baptisms. One happens at salvation. The other (water) is symbolic of salvation.
DHK

 

I know there are many scriptures that say we should be Baptised by submersion in water to pubically show our acceptance of Jesus. This I believe but I still do not think it is an absolute MUST. The thief on the cross was not baptised by water as well as many who accept Christ on their death beds and cannot be baptised due to their health status. I also believe that young children who are baptised by the request of their parents bears no fruit in many cases as later on, these children, take a different road......many into cults. So again, baptism, does not "seal the deal". As many have stated, there are two batisms, one by the spirit and the other by water.

It is no wonder why many choose not to become a Christian when we Christians have so many different concepts of what the scriptures mean and thus the many denominations.

What about the "woman at the well". Did Jesus tell her to be baptised by water? If I am correct, He said, " Go away and sin no more". She was baptised in the spirit.

God Bless................Alex