How important is knowledge in getting saved?

[DHK]

Darron,

bmerr here. What of those not born naturally? I'm not trying to be silly, but can you see the redundancy involved if Jesus were actually telling Nicodemus, a grown man, that he needed to be born physically? It just doesn't fit Jesus' "style", if you know what I mean.

In Christ,

bmerr

You are being silly. What man in Jesus time had not been born physically?
What man in our time is not born physically?
What man in any generation is not born physically or of the flesh:

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Are you saying that there are people alive today that don't have a physical or fleshly body? Are they aliens from another solar system? Or just lego creations? Just what are you talking about? Yes you are being silly!!

 

[DHK]

[/i]
Well, baptism does not bring these changes about. Repentance does. Repentance is simply a change of mind that results in a change of actions. That is what you have described. But repentance does not wash away sins. You were in a state similar to Saul's before Ananias came to him (Acts 9, 22). Saul believed. Saul had repented. Saul had spent three days fasting and praying. Yet Saul had not yet had his sins washed away. Saul was still lost.

In Christ,

bmerr

Your accusations against me, against the Apostle Paul, against the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God itself, are baseless and meaningless, if not bordering on blasphemy. I say that because you deny the work of the Holy Spirit in a man like the Apostle Paul. You would rather believe that water washes away his sin, when in fact before that time he had already called on the name of the Lord, and had repented. The repentance was obvious, but since you don't know the meaning of repentance you are blind to the repentance of Paul.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The new birth consists of being born again through the Word of God and the Spirit of God. There are no other possibilities. The Word is absolutely necessary and so is the Holy Spirit. There are only two agents involved: water and the Spirit. Thus "water" must of a necessity refer to the Word of God. The Bible interprets itself. There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at.

DHK: Thanks for the response, but all my years as an IFB, I’ve never heard “water” referred to as the “Word of God”, it’s always been thought of as the fluid of birth.

I agree that “water” and the “spirit” are needed, but I gather from scripture is that the “water” is H2O.

Acts 8:36: We see the eunuch who recognizes the necessity of water for baptism.

Acts 10:47: Peter says can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people.

Acts 22:16: Ananias tells Saul arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.

Titus 3:5-6: Paul writes about the washing of regeneration, which is poured out on us in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

I have more if needed. But water (H2O) is always, that I’ve noticed anyway linked to baptism.


-

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. Well, I knew I was in for a scolding. But I didn't accuse you of anything. I just explained how a person can demonstrate drastic changes in lifestyle and speech, and yet not be saved.

I did not deny the work of the Holy Spirit through Paul. Paul was an apostle, and thus received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit worked mightily through Paul. But the changes in Paul's life were his response to the word of God, not a mysterious, miraculous, direct work of the Spirit on Paul's heart.

I do not believe that water washes away sin. The blood of Christ does that. But the blood of Christ does not wash away one's sin until that one does what God commanded him to do in order to have his sins remitted, or washed away, which happens to be that his is to be immersed in water for the remission of sins. In so doing, he calls upon the name of the Lord.

And please stop telling me what I know and what I don't know. That is no way to carry on a conversation.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

DHK: Thanks for the response, but all my years as an IFB, I’ve never heard “water” referred to as the “Word of God”, it’s always been thought of as the fluid of birth.

I agree that “water” and the “spirit” are needed, but I gather from scripture is that the “water” is H2O.

Acts 8:36: We see the eunuch who recognizes the necessity of water for baptism.

Acts 10:47: Peter says can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people.

Acts 22:16: Ananias tells Saul arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.

Titus 3:5-6: Paul writes about the washing of regeneration, which is poured out on us in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

I have more if needed. But water (H2O) is always, that I’ve noticed anyway linked to baptism.
-

Baptism is never linked to salvation. It is the first step of obedience after salvation. Paul said in response to the Philippian's jailor plea: "What must I do to be saved?"
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Baptism was not and is not part of the equation. He was baptized afterward, after he was saved. It is never a part of salvation, but a step of obedience after salvation.

 

[DHK]

But the blood of Christ does not wash away one's sin until that one does what God commanded him to do in order to have his sins remitted,

What a false statement this is. If that were true then Paul couldn't have been saved until he had said those final words to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
--Then and only then did he admit that he had done all that the Lord commanded him to do. He said that he "had finished his course." He completed what the Lord had wanted him to do. The time of his departure from this earth was now at hand. He was ready to die. Now, according to you he would be saved. You believe in a works-based salvation, as you say, "the blood of Christ does not wash away one's sin until one does what God commanded him to do..."

We receive remission of sins when we believe. That is very clear.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

But because you twist certain Scriptures and make them say what they don't teach, you fail to understand what the Bible teaches.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK,

bmerr here. Well, I knew I was in for a scolding. But I didn't accuse you of anything. I just explained how a person can demonstrate drastic changes in lifestyle and speech, and yet not be saved.

I did not deny the work of the Holy Spirit through Paul. Paul was an apostle, and thus received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit worked mightily through Paul. But the changes in Paul's life were his response to the word of God, not a mysterious, miraculous, direct work of the Spirit on Paul's heart.

I do not believe that water washes away sin. The blood of Christ does that. But the blood of Christ does not wash away one's sin until that one does what God commanded him to do in order to have his sins remitted, or washed away, which happens to be that his is to be immersed in water for the remission of sins. In so doing, he calls upon the name of the Lord.

And please stop telling me what I know and what I don't know. That is no way to carry on a conversation.

In Christ,

bmerr

GE:

You have not the slightest idea of what you're talking! Therefore you won't understand DHK - who in this case perfectly knows what he's talking.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What a false statement this is. If that were true then Paul couldn't have been saved until he had said those final words to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
--Then and only then did he admit that he had done all that the Lord commanded him to do. He said that he "had finished his course." He completed what the Lord had wanted him to do. The time of his departure from this earth was now at hand. He was ready to die. Now, according to you he would be saved. You believe in a works-based salvation, as you say, "the blood of Christ does not wash away one's sin until one does what God commanded him to do..."

We receive remission of sins when we believe. That is very clear.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

But because you twist certain Scriptures and make them say what they don't teach, you fail to understand what the Bible teaches.

GE:

Yes in fact! And isn't there a Scripture that also says, one is justified (saved!) without works! Faith without works! Not even the work of faith as man's believing, is what saves him.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is what the Reformation was all about! If you're a Catholic, then it's faith plus works, justification plus sanctification. If you're a Protestant then it's by grace only through faith only: justified, saved (irrevocably)!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Forgiveness is salvation; is redemption, fully and finally and forever more. Forgiveness is justification; justification is salvation; is redemption; fully and finally and forever more. A man justified is a man in heaven, as we say for being saved. He has everlasting life, the gift God never repents of.

 

[Tazman]

If baptism is not faith, and it is something we DO, then it is a work.

As for me, I do not care one iota about the post-apostolic men who began the post-apostolic corruption that eventually necessitated the Reformation and the Restoration.

Also, Irenaeus lived during late Apostolic to very early Anti-Nicene.

So, again, he should be a reliable source for you, right?

Even your Reformation and Restoration folks read these writings, but of course like the bible they reject/ignore the parts that does not support there theology and hold on the parts that seemingly does.

Do you realized that your heavy rejection of baptism is nothing more than heresy birthed from bitterness against the Roman Catholic Church?

Throughout the history of christianity till that split, baptism for the forgiveness of sins was never considered heresy.

But some how you folks came up with the "Alter Call" as a replacement and even now its something different. Make up your minds.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. I simply cannot devote the time necessary to defend myself every time you misrepresent my words. If it seems as if I'm ignoring you from now on, I am.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Darron Steele]

If baptism is not faith, and it is something we DO, then it is a work.

As for me, I do not care one iota about the post-apostolic men who began the post-apostolic corruption that eventually necessitated the Reformation and the Restoration.

Also, Irenaeus lived during late Apostolic to very early Anti-Nicene.

So, again, he should be a reliable source for you, right?

Even your Reformation and Restoration folks read these writings, but of course like the bible they reject/ignore the parts that does not support there theology and hold on the parts that seemingly does.

Do you realized that your heavy rejection of baptism is nothing more than heresy birthed from bitterness against the Roman Catholic Church?

Throughout the history of christianity till that split, baptism for the forgiveness of sins was never considered heresy.

But some how you folks came up with the "Alter Call" as a replacement and even now its something different. Make up your minds.

Was Irenaeus in ministry when the last apostle died? No, he was not. The last apostles died in the late first century, and Irenaeus ministered in the late second century. Irenaeus is post-apostolic by nearly a century.

"Throughout the history of the church" is actually what is being discussed here. I believe that Scripture shows that the New Testament-era churches did NOT require completed baptism for salvation.

"Heavy rejection of baptism" What? I have been unmistakably clear on a thread you are very active on that baptism is an obligation of ANY believer of Jesus Christ.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=965515&postcount=10
Same for this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=967008#post967008

I am disappointed that you would resort to this rather than withdraw yourself.

I am glad Catholicism has better polemicists. Otherwise, no one would respect it.

 

[Darron Steele]

John 3:22 is opened with "After these things" (ASV). This is a change of subject. All discussions of baptisms in John 3 and 4:1-2 are after this. Before this, Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus.

At John 3:3-6 behold the sequence:

John 3:3b "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).​

Jesus taught a necessity of two births at John 3:5. The Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth.* Jesus and Nicodemus were Hebrews. Jesus meant 'unless one is born naturally and then spiritually, s/he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'


___________
*In Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Bible, page 1577.

Darron,

bmerr here. What of those not born naturally? I'm not trying to be silly, but can you see the redundancy involved if Jesus were actually telling Nicodemus, a grown man, that he needed to be born physically? It just doesn't fit Jesus' "style", if you know what I mean.

In Christ,

bmerr

There is no one alive who was not born naturally. We have all had a physical birth.

Jesus was not telling Nicodemus to be born physically, as you claim I was asserting.

Jesus statement was to answer Nicodemus's query about the meaning of "born again."

We have all had a natural = physical birth. However, not everyone has been born spiritually.

Jesus was telling already physically-born Nicodemus of the need to be spiritually born.

 

[Darron Steele]

John 3:22 is opened with "After these things" (ASV). This is a change of subject. All discussions of baptisms in John 3 and 4:1-2 are after this. Before this, Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus.

At John 3:3-6 behold the sequence:

John 3:3b "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).​

Jesus taught a necessity of two births at John 3:5. The Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth.* Jesus and Nicodemus were Hebrews. Jesus meant 'unless one is born naturally and then spiritually, s/he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'


___________
*In Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Bible, page 1577.

Exactly, why would Jesus tell a grown man that he needed to be physically born. Obviously Nicodemus already past that test...

Furthermore, Darron's study bible authors should keep in mind that Jesus was a first century Jew speaking to first century Jews and therefore, we need to interpret these passages in a first century Jewish context. With that said, Jesus and the Jews didn't call 'amniotic fluid' "water", the Jews had no colloquial expression for amniotic fluid, that we have calling it "water". Be careful not to read some kind of Americanism into a first century context!


-

Neither myself nor the historical references I cite say that "water" referred to amniotic fluid.

I relayed the information that ancient Hebrews used such terms as "water" to describe physical birth.

Your advice about not reading modern things into ancient texts is very wise. That is why I do not see `baptism' where John 3:3-6 is translated "water." I see how ancient Hebrews, such as Jesus and Nicodemus, would have understood "born of water" -- physical birth.

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that there needed to be a second birth, a spiritual birth, for one to enter God's kingdom.

 

[DHK]

Why mention a physical birth? Because of its importance.
If you are born once, you will die twice.
If you are born twice, you will die once.
You must be born again.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Neither myself nor the historical references I cite say that "water" referred to amniotic fluid.

I relayed the information that ancient Hebrews used such terms as "water" to describe physical birth.

Your advice about not reading modern things into ancient texts is very wise. That is why I do not see `baptism' where John 3:3-6 is translated "water."

Granted ‘baptism’ the word isn’t proclaimed in 3:3-6, but ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ are and what happened at the beginning of John’s Gospel? Christ was baptized in ‘water’ and as he came up, the ‘spirit’ descended upon Him.

I see how ancient Hebrews, such as Jesus and Nicodemus, would have understood "born of water" -- physical birth.

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that there needed to be a second birth, a spiritual birth, for one to enter God's kingdom.

Not necessarily, there’s an OT context here, remember who Nicodemus was; he was a teacher of the Jews and in verse 1, says he was a ‘ruler’ of the Jews in terms of religious authority. He knew the OT and once Christ started speaking he would have understood it from the perspective of Ezekiel, where there was a promise of a new covenant…see Ezekiel 36:25. God made a promise to Israel about a new covenant. God said that He will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; God will cleanse from you all your filthiness and from you idols. Moreover God will give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them…Here we see ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ used together.

So Nicodemus being a teacher, should’ve understood Ezekiel as to that there will be a day when the Lord will wash your heart, your life and the inner man. The Lord will put a new heart in you and His Spirit in you.

So now in John 3, when Jesus tells Nicodemus that you must be born of water and the spirit, Nicodemus would have known that Jesus was coming to fulfill the promise of the new covenant.


-

 

[DHK]

see Ezekiel 36:25. God made a promise to Israel about a new covenant. God said that He will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; God will cleanse from you all your filthiness and from you idols. Moreover God will give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them…Here we see ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ used together.

So Nicodemus being a teacher, should’ve understood Ezekiel as to that there will be a day when the Lord will wash your heart, your life and the inner man. The Lord will put a new heart in you and His Spirit in you.
-

Again the cleansing spoken of refers to the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

It also refers to the Spirit of God. God will put a new Spirit in them. We are cleansed through both agencies: the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, by which we are born again. One cannot do without either. The passage does not refer to baptism, and makes no reference to it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Again the cleansing spoken of refers to the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

It also refers to the Spirit of God. God will put a new Spirit in them. We are cleansed through both agencies: the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, by which we are born again. One cannot do without either. The passage does not refer to baptism, and makes no reference to it.

Exactly how again did Jesus tell Nicodemus he was supposed to be ‘born of the word?’ Keep in mind here DHK, all the references to Word of God in the NT that you refer too, hadn’t yet been penned. You think that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he was already half way there b/c he knew only the OT?

Back to John 3, I believe that Jesus was quite surprised that Nicodemus, a teacher, didn’t understand what He was saying to him. These religious leaders were never accused of not knowing God’s word. As I said earlier, OT context, Nicodemus should’ve picked up on Jesus’ reference to ‘water’ in OT context, Jesus isn’t even discussing NT, again no NT existed…

About 200 years earlier, the Jews had slipped from understanding the holiness, love, and spiritual relationship with God to a religious legalism. Nicodemus should have known more about the repentance and purification associated with ‘ritual washing’ and the important role the Holy Spirit would have.


-

 

[DHK]

Exactly how again did Jesus tell Nicodemus he was supposed to be ‘born of the word?’ Keep in mind here DHK, all the references to Word of God in the NT that you refer too, hadn’t yet been penned. You think that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he was already half way there b/c he knew only the OT?
-

Psalms 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

There are many references in the Bible that connect the Word to cleansing. Nicodemus knew that from his thorough understanding of the OT. Jesus rebuked him for that. Baptism is not a Jewish institution. It is strictly NT. It had nothing to do with the discourse between Nicodemus and Jesus. To force it in there just to justify your preconceived ideas is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Jeremiah makes fun of those people who connect water with the washing away of sin, and Nicodemus knew that:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

To him, a Rabbi, a teacher of the OT, baptism was ridiculous. It had nothing to do with salavation. It never did. The way to enter into the covenant in the OT was circumcision, not baptism. Jesus, in no way refers to baptism. Water refers to the Word throughout the Scriptures. I have given you plenty of Scriptures to indicate that. One of them in particular is very clear.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Either you believe the Scriptures or you don't! Which is it? The Bible interprets itself.