I guess it comes down to how many books you read, written by folks who purport to know what the Bible left out.
Any theological book that does not line up with scripture is an abomination.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I guess it comes down to how many books you read, written by folks who purport to know what the Bible left out.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Jesus is no more talking about baptism in John 3:5 than the man on the moon. He is referring to spiritual cleansing. Those who hold to the baptism explanation are denying salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Why is it we always have to add a "something I got to do" to salvation? Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, so Christ would have told him he needed to be baptized if that is what He meant. If nothing else, the thief on the cross clears the issue up pretty well. Some people say he was saved under the old covenant. But they turn right around and say John 3:5, at the same point in time, people have to be baptized. Matthew 28:20, go, tell, baptize, teach. Baptism is an outward sign of salvation in Jesus Christ by immersion, to a newness of life, and symbolizes the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Regenerational baptism does not exist. Sprinkling infants based on a covenant relationship between parent and child does not save. Jesus Christ saves. Infant sprinkling is wrong on so many levels. Its almost like some of the Protestant denominations felt obligated to hold onto the RCC traditions.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Jesus is no more talking about baptism in John 3:5 than the man on the moon. He is referring to spiritual cleansing. Those who hold to the baptism explanation are denying salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Why is it we always have to add a "something I got to do" to salvation? Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, so Christ would have told him he needed to be baptized if that is what He meant. If nothing else, the thief on the cross clears the issue up pretty well. Some people say he was saved under the old covenant. But they turn right around and say John 3:5, at the same point in time, people have to be baptized. Matthew 28:20, go, tell, baptize, teach. Baptism is an outward sign of salvation in Jesus Christ by immersion, to a newness of life, and symbolizes the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Regenerational baptism does not exist. Sprinkling infants based on a covenant relationship between parent and child does not save. Jesus Christ saves. Infant sprinkling is wrong on so many levels. Its almost like some of the Protestant denominations felt obligated to hold onto the RCC traditions.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.
1. Everyone would agree that being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) is the same thing as being “born again” (John 3:3). Well, almost everyone except those benighted souls who think the water has something to do with childbirth. So what does it mean to be born again? We see what it means in Romans 6:4: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The newness of life is a reference to being born again.
2. The larger context of this passage shows a theme of cleansing, of which baptism is an essential element, whether it is viewed from a symbolic perspective or from a salvific or regenerational perspective. John 1 tells of the works of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. In John 2 we see Jesus cleansing the temple. After the Nicodemus meeting in John 3, we see Jesus baptizing with His disciples. The baptizing continues into Chapter 4, where we also see the woman at the well and living water. So cleansing is one of several themes we see as we read through the Gospel of John and baptism is a cleansing ritual. See. Acts 22:16.
3. It was universally held that John 3:5 refers to water baptism from the 1st Century until Huldrych Zwingli in the16th Century decided otherwise. The church fathers who expressly held to this view include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysotom, Gregory of Nazianz, and Augustine. I have not discovered anyone who held another view during that period of time. There are those who pay little attention to historical development of Christian doctrines but they are missing out on the wisdom of the ages by their failure to do so. I pay attention to these things and show them great deference unless they are manifestly contrary to scripture. The idea that baptism is only symbolic is a new idea in Christian thinking, and a wrong idea.
4. Before Jesus and before John, baptism was a common practice in the Jewish world. Anyone who converted to the Jewish faith had to be baptized. The water of immersion (mikvah) in Rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. His status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born again," "new creation," and "born from above." Therefore, the phrase “born of water” would immediately tell a devout Jew like Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. That is why everyone in the early church knew that being “born of water” was a reference to baptism. There was never any debate about it because it was always understood. Only in modern times did people get confused about the meaning of John 3:5 because its correct meaning interfered with their flawed soteriology.
There's been no uncivil posts in this thread.
DT, one of the Calvinists here once accused me of being semi-Pelagian. Does that mean I'm only half as bad as you?
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Jesus is no more talking about baptism in John 3:5 than the man on the moon. He is referring to spiritual cleansing. Those who hold to the baptism explanation are denying salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Why is it we always have to add a "something I got to do" to salvation? Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, so Christ would have told him he needed to be baptized if that is what He meant. If nothing else, the thief on the cross clears the issue up pretty well. Some people say he was saved under the old covenant. But they turn right around and say John 3:5, at the same point in time, people have to be baptized. Matthew 28:20, go, tell, baptize, teach. Baptism is an outward sign of salvation in Jesus Christ by immersion, to a newness of life, and symbolizes the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Regenerational baptism does not exist. Sprinkling infants based on a covenant relationship between parent and child does not save. Jesus Christ saves. Infant sprinkling is wrong on so many levels. Its almost like some of the Protestant denominations felt obligated to hold onto the RCC traditions.
It seems that you have a problem with sprinkling or pouring, with baptizing babies and also with the matter of the thief on the cross.Despite our difference on this issue, I will say I do not know why anyone would come to salvation and not be baptized. And I also agree with you about the water not referring to physical birth. To me it refers to spiritual cleansing. So if baptism is required, what about the thief on the cross? Also, since baptism is required for salvation, I assume you reject sprinkling infants because there would be no connection between salvation and baptism. Even the Presbyterians who sprinkle infants do not believe baptism is required for salvation. I know the RCC and CoC does.
Yes the early church fathers held to your view. As I said in the other post, the part that bothers me most about it is saying the thief on the cross came under he old covenant, and then saying someone at the same point in time came under the new covenant.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, but thank you for the civil post.
It seems that you have a problem with sprinkling or pouring, with baptizing babies and also with the matter of the thief on the cross.
The word “baptism” comes from the Greek “baptizo,” which usually means to dip or submerge. But it doesn’t always mean that. For example Luke 11:38 reports that when Jesus went to eat at the house of a Pharisee, the Pharisee was astonished that He had not washed before the meal. For wash, it uses “baptizo.” Likewise in Mark 7:4 it speaks of cleansing before eating and the writer uses “baptizo.” So we see that “baptizo” can mean simply washing. The practice of sprinkling or pouring is also spoken of in the Didache, written about 60-80 A.D. “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These were first generation Christians and they recognized the validity of pouring.
As for infant baptism, it just depends on how you view it. If baptism is meant to be a public statement, you will probably oppose paedobaptism. However, it you believe it has salvific effect, you will baptize your babies for much the same reason that you vaccinate them for measles. Although there is no specific example of a baby being baptized in the N.T., we do see entire households being baptized on four different occasions. We may presume that these households contained infants.
Also when we examine the scriptures on this topic we have to consider the context of the times. All Christian converts in the N.T. were learning of Christ for the first time. There are no examples of children born in a Christian home and maturing into Christian adults. Therefore, we have no N.T. model of how these children are assimilated into the church of their parents. So when we equate believer’s baptism with N.T. baptism, we are correct. Unfortunately however, the N.T. does not cover the matter of children born and raised by Christian parents. There is no guidance from scripture and we have to look to church tradition.
As for the thief on the cross, we must remember that although Jesus gave us the sacraments, He is not subject to them. He had, and still does have, the power to make exceptions. Even today the Church recognizes the doctrine of baptism of desire wherein if a person desires to become a Christian but water baptism is not possible, he is saved because of his desire to be baptized.
I think one of the determining factors is how one sees the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. I think paedobaptists would believe that the New is somehow still connected to the Old or a continuation of it, whereas anti-paedobaptists believe the New is a break from the Old with different membership requirements. Perhaps that is an oversimplification, but I think it is at least partially true.
As long as you presume they repented first.Although there is no specific example of a baby being baptized in the N.T., we do see entire households being baptized on four different occasions. We may presume that these households contained infants.
That is not very biblical at all. His desire had nothing to do with it. And you cannot know his desire, other than his recorded words.As for the thief on the cross, we must remember that although Jesus gave us the sacraments, He is not subject to them. He had, and still does have, the power to make exceptions. Even today the Church recognizes the doctrine of baptism of desire wherein if a person desires to become a Christian but water baptism is not possible, he is saved because of his desire to be baptized.
As long as you presume they repented first.
The desires of the good thief had everything to do with it, unless of course, you are one of those people who believe in irresistible grace. He may not have specifically desired baptism but we know by his words he desired to be saved. We also know that baptism before he died would have been impossible. (Well, we don't really know that. John was at the foot of the cross and for all we know John put a flask of water on a pole and poured it on his head. Far fetched? Yes, but not as far fetched as believing that no infants were baptized in four entire households.) Anyway, that is all that is required for baptism of desire: to have faith in Christ and to be so situated that baptism is impossible.That is not very biblical at all. His desire had nothing to do
He was saved because Jesus saved him. His desires have nothing to do with it.
with it. And you cannot know his desire, other than his recorded words.
"If you consider me a believer in the Lord". First, were they immersed or sprinkled ? I don't buy your argument that babies were baptized. Hoseholds back then probably had several families, brothers, sisters, uncles, whatever.Well, it would be difficult for a 1-year old to repent of anything. I'm just saying that the New Testament has four (4) examples of entire households being baptized. Acts 10:48---household of Cornelius baptized by Peter; Acts 16:15--household of Lydia baptized by Paul; Acts 16:33--household of the Philippian jailer baptized by Paul; 1 Corinthians 1:16--household of Stephanas baptized by Paul. Not a single time did the writer say "entire household except children" or words to that effect. Of course it's possible that none of these houses had young children. It's also possible that there will not be a single highway fatality in Kentucky this year, but not very likely.
I know several children who have professed a knowledge of salvation and have been baptized. I'm not arguing children. I'm arguing infants.Really what it boils down to is that if you think nothing happens during baptism but getting wet, than you see no point in baptizing infants. However, if you see that baptism is a modality of receiving grace like the Bible teaches, then you will baptize your babies. Since scripture teaches the latter, I think it is fair to say that young children in these households were indeed baptized.
I believe his sheep know his voice. Attach any tag you want to that.The desires of the good thief had everything to do with it, unless of course, you are one of those people who believe in irresistible grace.
Again we have no idea what he desired, save to be remembered.He may not have specifically desired baptism but we know by his words he desired to be saved.
No. The process is spelled out. Repentance, then baptism. We have no reason to believe Paul, Peter, Silas, Linus, or anyone ever violated that.We also know that baptism before he died would have been impossible. (Well, we don't really know that. John was at the foot of the cross and for all we know John put a flask of water on a pole and poured it on his head. Far fetched? Yes, but not as far fetched as believing that no infants were baptized in four entire households.)
Well, it would be difficult for a 1-year old to repent of anything. I'm just saying that the New Testament has four (4) examples of entire households being baptized. Acts 10:48---household of Cornelius baptized by Peter; Acts 16:15--household of Lydia baptized by Paul; Acts 16:33--household of the Philippian jailer baptized by Paul; 1 Corinthians 1:16--household of Stephanas baptized by Paul. Not a single time did the writer say "entire household except children" or words to that effect. Of course it's possible that none of these houses had young children. It's also possible that there will not be a single highway fatality in Kentucky this year, but not very likely.
Really what it boils down to is that if you think nothing happens during baptism but getting wet, than you see no point in baptizing infants. However, if you see that baptism is a modality of receiving grace like the Bible teaches, then you will baptize your babies. Since scripture teaches the latter, I think it is fair to say that young children in these households were indeed baptized.
The desires of the good thief had everything to do with it, unless of course, you are one of those people who believe in irresistible grace. He may not have specifically desired baptism but we know by his words he desired to be saved. We also know that baptism before he died would have been impossible. (Well, we don't really know that. John was at the foot of the cross and for all we know John put a flask of water on a pole and poured it on his head. Far fetched? Yes, but not as far fetched as believing that no infants were baptized in four entire households.) Anyway, that is all that is required for baptism of desire: to have faith in Christ and to be so situated that baptism is impossible.
You may not have noticed them, but there are verses that, at the very least, seem to somehow connect receiving the gift of the Spirit, having one's sins washed away, being buried and risen with Christ, and putting on Christ with baptism... and, yes, even being in some sense "saved" by baptism.
One certainly can try to argue and explain these in alternate ways than what seems to be the straightforward reading (stating perhaps these refer to some other baptism than WATER baptism), but the fact that the earliest Christians were basically unanimous in interpreting these passages at face value (as far as we can tell based on the written evidence that we have) should give one pause before stating "there are no verses in the entire NT that supports" this idea. I think that was the point of the initial post on this thread.
The idea that baptism was not somehow instrumental in salvation really didn't seem to get any traction until after Zwingli. As Rebel alluded to, Luther (among other early moderate reformers) did not see any necessary conflict between Salvation by Grace through faith and "baptismal regeneration" (properly understood)--and neither did the early Church Fathers.
Now, here's the point where folks jump in and basically say one or two things: (1) "I don't care what the ECFs stated, I'm just going by the Bible!"; and/or (2) "The Bible does NOT teach that those things you mentioned are connected to (or effected by) water baptism, regardless of what you think is the plain reading of the text, since baptism is a WORK and WORKS don't save". As I've seen this same scenario play out over and over again during my 12 plus years on the Baptistboard, I don't see the point in becoming further involved in yet another potential 30 page thread on the topic. Those who are adamant (as I once was) that "baptismal regeneration" is a heresy probably won't be swayed and will continue to restate variations of (1) and (2) mentioned above. I don't have the time and energy (now that I have four kids) to invest in a most likely fruitless endeavor, trying to debate with multiple fonts at once (half of which won't meaningfully engage in my arguments, if past experience is any indication of what I can expect).
I do have a passion for this kind of discussion, but don't feel this board is necessarily the best venue to adequately debate these issues (despite the fact that I can't seem to stop myself from popping in from time to time to see how things are going!). For those who ARE open to considering the other side, I would encourage them to read these passages and then see for yourself how these were interpreted by the earliest Christians and then decide whether the alternative explanations really make the most sense.
At any rate, have a Blessed Lent. :wavey:
Would be helpful if you would at least reference those Scripture!
************************************************************************************************
So are you going to have a blessed Lent? Only place I know to find lent is the dryer filter and belly button.
I will tell you why there is no Scriptural reference, because there is no Scripture. There is nothing there to justify sprinkling, sprinkling infants, a mystical covenant relationship between parent and child, or the power of baptism to save. To me this issue is crystal clear. I can understand differences over end times and other things but not this. The Bible is very clear.
Would be helpful if you would at least reference those Scripture!
************************************************************************************************
You may not have noticed them, but there are verses that, at the very least, seem to somehow connect receiving the gift of the Spirit, having one's sins washed away, being buried and risen with Christ, and putting on Christ with baptism... and, yes, even being in some sense "saved" by baptism.
One certainly can try to argue and explain these in alternate ways than what seems to be the straightforward reading (stating perhaps these refer to some other baptism than WATER baptism), but the fact that the earliest Christians were basically unanimous in interpreting these passages at face value (as far as we can tell based on the written evidence that we have) should give one pause before stating "there are no verses in the entire NT that supports" this idea. I think that was the point of the initial post on this thread.
The idea that baptism was not somehow instrumental in salvation really didn't seem to get any traction until after Zwingli. As Rebel alluded to, Luther (among other early moderate reformers) did not see any necessary conflict between Salvation by Grace through faith and "baptismal regeneration" (properly understood)--and neither did the early Church Fathers.
Now, here's the point where folks jump in and basically say one or two things: (1) "I don't care what the ECFs stated, I'm just going by the Bible!"; and/or (2) "The Bible does NOT teach that those things you mentioned are connected to (or effected by) water baptism, regardless of what you think is the plain reading of the text, since baptism is a WORK and WORKS don't save". As I've seen this same scenario play out over and over again during my 12 plus years on the Baptistboard, I don't see the point in becoming further involved in yet another potential 30 page thread on the topic. Those who are adamant (as I once was) that "baptismal regeneration" is a heresy probably won't be swayed and will continue to restate variations of (1) and (2) mentioned above. I don't have the time and energy (now that I have four kids) to invest in a most likely fruitless endeavor, trying to debate with multiple fonts at once (half of which won't meaningfully engage in my arguments, if past experience is any indication of what I can expect).
I do have a passion for this kind of discussion, but don't feel this board is necessarily the best venue to adequately debate these issues (despite the fact that I can't seem to stop myself from popping in from time to time to see how things are going!). For those who ARE open to considering the other side, I would encourage them to read these passages and then see for yourself how these were interpreted by the earliest Christians and then decide whether the alternative explanations really make the most sense.
At any rate, have a Blessed Lent. :wavey: