The "Sinner's Prayer"

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:


For example, if we continue in Rom 10, we find this statement from Paul in 10:16, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"

I'd like your thoughts as to what it means to "obey the gospel". In 10:16, Paul seems to use this phrase in conjunction with the idea of believing the report.

To obey the gospel is to believe the gospel. It has nothing to do with baptism, but rather with faith. We are justified by faith and by faith alone. That is clearly taught in Eph.2:8,9. It is also taught in Rom.5:1 and also in Rom.4:1-5, as well as a plethora of other Scriptures. It is the theme that runs through almost every book of the Bible--justification by faith, and by faith alone. You find this theme in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. In fact Paul quotes from the Old Testament to tell us that we are justified by faith, and thus works, including baptism are not needed. Faith and faith alone is what is required for one to be saved. Any other work (including baptism) is akin to spitting in the face of Jesus and telling him that his work was not sufficient enough to atone for our sins. But instead we had to help Jesus along with our baptism. What an insult to the King of Kings who sacrificed his life to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins; not just the sins that baptism could not remit. What heresy is this!!
DHK

 

[StefanM]

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?


Obey = submit under, hear under, conform, heed

Interpretation? Belief. This passage definitely has nothing to do with baptism. Paul cited the OT (written in a time in which there was no Christian baptism), so to imply that obedience involves baptism in this passage is a stretch. I think that we should use the words Paul used. He said they have not obeyed, and he quoted Isaiah's questioning, "Who has believed?" Paul is setting them up together because he sees them as meaning the same thing. Obedience = belief.

 

[D28guy]

bmerr,

Mike here

In the book of Acts...(10:34-48)...we have of course the very well known passage of scripture where the gospel is being proclaimed to Cornelius and his family, and they enter into saving faith.

In that passage of scripture it is revealed the precise moment where they recieved the Holy Spirit and we born again.

Also, the precise time..(in relation to when they were born again)..when they were water baptised is given.

And thirdly, it is also specifically articulated the precise reason why they were water baptised.

Could you answer these 3 questions please?...

1) Precisely when were they indwelt by the Holy Spirit and saved?

2) Precisely when were they water baptised?

3) What was the specific reason why they were water baptised?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by StefanM:
Ephesians 2

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

---
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this passage.

bmerr here. I guess one thought deserves another. For starters, we should define grace. Some might say "God's riches at Christ's expense". I can go along with that, but how is the grace of God manifested to man? How do we know of it, and how to respond to it?

At least one aspect of God's grace is the fact that He has provided the sacrifice for sins, and the record of the events leading up to and following that sacrifice. In short, He has given us the Bible.

In addition to Jesus as the sacrifice for sins, God has given man direction as to how we should respond to the message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Titus 2:11, 12 tells us that the grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men, and that it teaches us how we ought to live. So at least in part, the grace of God is manifested to Man in that we are taught, or instructed in what to do.

In Gen 6:8, we read that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." But how would Noah ever know of the grace he had found unless God manifested it to him? Just a few verses later, in 6:13, God warns Noah of the coming judgement, and gives him instruction on how to escape it. The grace of God toward Noah was manifested by God teaching Noah what to do to escape judgement.

In Heb 11:7, we read "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, (there's the grace) moved with fear, prepared and ark to the saving of his house: by the which he condemned the world, and became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

So Noah had both grace and faith, and was saved from judgement. But was he saved from judgement by grace alone? Was it by faith alone? Did God build the ark for Noah? Did Noah not have to do what was commanded by God? Obviously he did. Would Noah have escaped judgement if he had not done what was commanded by God? No he would have perished along with everyone else.

Now the Bible tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5). The Bible also difines righteousness as the commands of God (Ps 119:172).

So Noah, during the building of the ark, extended the grace of God, in the form of God's instructions, to the people around him. Unfortunately, they received the grace of God in vain, or to no effect (2 Cor 6:1).

Okay, grace and faith. We see that Noah had both, and that there were still things that he had to do to be saved.

This could be demonstrated from many OT examples which are given to us for our instruction (1 Cor 10:11). So how does this apply to grace and faith in the NT?

God, in grace, has given Man instruction on what to do to be spared from the coming judgement. What has He commanded?

The requirement for faith is unquestioned, so we need not prove what we all know to be true. Suffice it to say that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17).

How about repentance? Certainly faith must come before repentance, or else why would one repent? Jesus said in Luke 13:3, 5,

"I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

In Acts 17:30, Paul tells us that God "...now commandeth all men everywhere to repent."

Very few have a problem with repentance, so let's move on.

To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is required. Again, few object to this condition of salvation. Rom 10:9, 10 are familiar enough that I don't think I need to type them out. If someone insists, I can do so later.

Also in Matt 10:32, 33, Jesus said,

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Gather which is in heaven.

In addition, we have the example of the eunuch in Acts 8:36-37.

Now we get down to the point of contention, namely, baptism. I honestly don't understand why so many "disconnect" here, but many do. Anyway, we should determine if a baptism of any kind is commanded as a condition of salvation. We can look at whether it's immersion in water or H.S. baptism later.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

John 3:5 "...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:38 "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 8:35-36 Then Phillip...preached unto him Jesus...and the eunuch said...what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Command implied by request).

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (see Acts 2:38)

Acts 16:32-33 "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord...And he took them...and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16 "...arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

In conclusion, Eph 2:8,9 teaches that by God's grace, manifested in His commands, we are saved when we obey (like Noah did) through faith.

It's break time for now. Talk with you all tomorrow,

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:


Now we get down to the point of contention, namely, baptism. I honestly don't understand why so many "disconnect" here, but many do. Anyway, we should determine if a baptism of any kind is commanded as a condition of salvation. We can look at whether it's immersion in water or H.S. baptism later.

John 3:5 "...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Does the water in verse 5 mean "the Ganges River?" Why or why not? Or does it just refer to Church of Christ baptism only? How do you know it even refers to baptism? The word is water (H2O). It doesn't say baptism. It refers to Hurricane Dennis as much as it refers to baptism. Water is water. You can read anything you want into that passage. But you have to be able to demonstrate it with Biblical truth. The fact is that baptism is not found once in the entire chapter of John 3. Baptism is entirely out of context. The last thing in that conversation that Nicodemus would have been thinking of is baptism. He was a Jew.
The word "water" does not refer to baptism, any more than it refers to the Ganges River.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"We are justified by faith and by faith alone. That is clearly taught in Eph.2:8,9. It is also taught in Rom.5:1 and also in Rom.4:1-5, as well as a plethora of other Scriptures. It is the theme that runs through almost every book of the Bible--justification by faith, and by faith alone."

The truth of justification through faith alone is absolutly thundered from the scriptures.

To miss justification through faith alone is to betray a spiritual blindness that is beyond comprehension.

God bless,

Mike

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. What would you say that "born of water" in John 3:5 is a reference to? What does it mean to be "born of water" in order to enter the kingdom of God? Awaiting your thoughts.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[dianetavegia]

except a man be born of water and of the Spirit:
these are, (twnv) (twlm) , "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see:

Ezekiel 36:25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

John 4:14 John 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament says:
The Lord explains Himself. Two things were necessary-to be born of water, and of the Spirit. Water cleanses. And, spiritually, in his affections, heart, conscience, thoughts, actions, etc., man lives, and in practice is morally purified, through the application, by the power of the Spirit, of the word of God, which judges all things, and works in us livingly new thoughts and affections. This is the water; it is withal the death of the flesh. The true water which cleanses in a christian way came forth from the side of a dead Christ. He came by water and blood, in the power of cleansing and of expiation. He sanctifies the assembly by cleansing it through the washing of water by the word. "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." It is therefore the mighty word of God which, since man must be born again in the principle and source of his moral being, judges, as being death, all that is of the flesh.

 

[D28guy]

Dianetavega,

"The Lord explains Himself. Two things were necessary-to be born of water, and of the Spirit. Water cleanses. And, spiritually, in his affections, heart, conscience, thoughts, actions, etc., man lives, and in practice is morally purified, through the application, by the power of the Spirit, of the word of God, which judges all things, and works in us livingly new thoughts and affections. This is the water; it is withal the death of the flesh. The true water which cleanses in a christian way came forth from the side of a dead Christ. He came by water and blood, in the power of cleansing and of expiation. He sanctifies the assembly by cleansing it through the washing of water by the word. "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." It is therefore the mighty word of God which, since man must be born again in the principle and source of his moral being, judges, as being death, all that is of the flesh.

Thats very good of course. But an alternate view...and in my opinion a valid one...is that the "water" could also be speaking of the "literalness" of the new birth through the Holy Spirit, by comparing it to our physical birth.

Our 1st birth being of course by means of the physical water of childbirth, and our second birth...just as literal...through the Holy Spirit.

Another example of the scriptures sometimes having more than one application, with both being excellent.

God bless,

Mike

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by D28guy:
DHK,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"We are justified by faith and by faith alone. That is clearly taught in Eph.2:8,9. It is also taught in Rom.5:1 and also in Rom.4:1-5, as well as a plethora of other Scriptures. It is the theme that runs through almost every book of the Bible--justification by faith, and by faith alone."

The truth of justification through faith alone is absolutly thundered from the scriptures.

To miss justification through faith alone is to betray a spiritual blindness that is beyond comprehension.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

bmerr here. I wouldn't say that the theme of justification by "faith only" is exactly "thundered" throughout the Scriptures. It would have to at least say it once, don't you think?

But the Bible only uses the phrase "faith only" one time, and it happens to be in the context of justification. James 2:24 reads,

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Justification by faith? Absolutely.

Justification by faith alone? Absolutely not.

As have been given in the past, there are many verses which teach salvation, or justification by faith, apart from works of the law. On the other hand, the verse from James is quite clear that we are not justified by faith apart from works.

We have to find how these two, seemingly opposing ideas work together, for they are both contained in the Bible. Unfortunately, in the quest to discern truth, many of us get quite opinionated, often to the point of pitting verse against verse, or choosing one text to the exclusion of another.

Sometimes we even get a little hostile with each other.

For my part in this misbehavior, I am sorry. The bulk of my offense has probably been against DHK, and it was wrong of me to take the tone I have in recent posts. Forgive me, sir. I'm not aware of any others, but if I've forgotten any, please accept my apology.

That said, let's get back to the text at hand, Eph 2:8, 9.

We should remember that Paul spent alot of time combating the Judaizers, those who would have brought the early church back under the bondage of the Mosaic Law. In some cases, these were actually Christians, but they were in error, and were attempting to lead others into it.

When we read Paul's epistles and he speaks of "works", in most every case I can think of, he is speaking of keeping the Mosaic Law.

Both Paul and James use the example of Abraham to prove their different points. Paul shows that Abraham was justified without the works of the law, since there was no Mosaic Law for Abraham to be under. James shows that Abraham was justified when he did what God told him to do.

In the NT, the Mosaic Law, with it's peculiarities is done away with. However, there are still things which God commands us to do, and unless we do them, we will not be justified.

When Paul says "not of works, lest any man should boast", he is speaking of works of the law, by which the Judaizers attempted to make themselves acceptable in God's sight.

When James says "by works a man is justified", he speaks of doing those things which God has commanded, apart from the law of Moses.

Under the NT, there are things to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be received. Therefore, believing the gospel, let us obey what God has commanded us, and hope for the promised blessing for the faithful.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[dianetavegia]

Context Bmerr.....

bmerr said: But the Bible only uses the phrase "faith only" one time, and it happens to be in the context of justification. James 2:24 reads,

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Justification by faith? Absolutely.

Justification by faith alone? Absolutely not.

James 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[dianetavegia]

bmerr, I noticed you skipped this....

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />except a man be born of water and of the Spirit:
these are, (twnv) (twlm) , "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see:

Ezekiel 36:25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

John 4:14 John 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament says:
The Lord explains Himself. Two things were necessary-to be born of water, and of the Spirit. Water cleanses. And, spiritually, in his affections, heart, conscience, thoughts, actions, etc., man lives, and in practice is morally purified, through the application, by the power of the Spirit, of the word of God, which judges all things, and works in us livingly new thoughts and affections. This is the water; it is withal the death of the flesh. The true water which cleanses in a christian way came forth from the side of a dead Christ. He came by water and blood, in the power of cleansing and of expiation. He sanctifies the assembly by cleansing it through the washing of water by the word. "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." It is therefore the mighty word of God which, since man must be born again in the principle and source of his moral being, judges, as being death, all that is of the flesh. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[bmerr]

Mike,

bmerr here. A few posts ago you asked about Cornelius in Acts 10. I didn't mean to pass it by. I think there were a couple others I haven't responded to yet. I'm finally popular!

Okay, Cornelius. We know the background, and we both have Bibles, so there's no need for me to type the whole thing out. Whew!

Your question centered around the Holy Spirit (HS) falling on Cornelius and household (C+H).

Let's pick up the text in 10:34, where Peter begins preaching. He's already been introduced to C+H, and C has recalled the events that led him to send for Peter. Peter preaches the risen Christ, and in 10:44 the HS falls on C+H.

Now look at the reaction of the Jewish brethren that had come with Peter in 10:45, 46.

"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

Now the only other time the HS fell on anyone like this was in Acts 2 with the apostles. They spoke in tongues then, too. The result in Acts 2 was that the assembled Jews took notice that what was happening was from God.

Same thing happening here. Peter had had the vision of the sheet. The six (11:12) brethren had not.

At this point, it looks as if Peter preached to C+H, thus making faith possible, and then the HS fell on them. But if we look to Acts 11:4, we find two small, yet important words.

"But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them..."

Acts 10 gives an account of the things that happened at C's house. Acts 11 gives the order in which those things happened.

In Acts 11:5-13, Peter gives the narrative of his vision, the trip to C's house, and a summary of C's retelling of what he had seen.

In 11:14, we see that there were words whereby C and all his house would be saved.

Those words would include the gospel message, and how to respond to it.

We know that "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17). So until C+H heard the word, they couldn't be saved, not by faith only, or faithful obedience either one.

In 11:15, Peter tells us exactly when the HS fell on C+H. He said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

What did Peter say as he began to speak? Acts 10:34, 35 says, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of him."

Those are the words that Peter uttered as he began to speak, when the HS fell on C+H. Were they saved? Had they heard the gospel from Peter? They had not. They didn't hear the gospel which contained the words whereby they could have faith to be saved by until after the HS fell on them.

Mike, it is my conclusion that the HS did not fall on C+H to demonstrate that they were saved, but to convince them of the circumcision that Gentiles could be saved, and should have the gospel preached to them.

So we have the HS falling on C+H, then the gospel being preached, and then Peter commanding them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Their baptism was for the remission of sins, just as was preached by Peter in Acts 2:38.

There is a pattern repeated in nearly every conversion account in the book of Acts. It is the pattern of faith, repentance, and baptism.

I know this runs contrary to what you have heard in the past. The reason I have an answer to many of the questions that have been posed to me is that they are questions I have asked myself.

Please accept my exposition of the conversion of Cornelius in the spirit in which it is offered. I hope it is helpful.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

dianetavegia,

bmerr here. I'm playing catch-up, Ma'am. You apparently have a larger library than I do. I have a commentary on John by Guy N. Woods. If I may, I'll borrow the late brother's words. I don't think he'd mind. This is a bit lengthy, so please bear with me.

"The fact of the new birth is stated in verse 3; here, the details of it are given. There is one birth; there are two elements, "water", and "the Spirit". Thus, both are essential to the new birth; and the new birth is essential to entering the kingdom. What, then, is meant by being born of water and the Spirit? To enter the kingdom is to be saved (Col 1:13, 14). To be saved one must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized for (unto) the remission of sins (Heb 11:6; Luke 13:3; Rom 10:10; Acts 2:38). To enter the kingdom one must be born of water and the Spirit. Since things equal to the same thing are eaqual to each other, it follows that to be born of water and of the Spirit is to believe the gospel, repent of one's sins, confess one's faith in Christ, and be baptized for the remission of sins. John 3:5 figuratively states what is literally affirmed in Acts 2:38. To be born "anew" is simply to obey the gospel. It is not surprising that those who deny to baptism its proper place among the conditions of pardon would interpret "water" in John 3:5 to mean something other than baptism; in so doing, they are in conflict with the scholarship of the world, both ancient and modern. Henry Alford, one of the translators of the American Standard Version, wrote that "all attempts to get rid of" baptism in this passage "have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped," and Hooker, himself a writer of more than a hundred years ago, said that "of all ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded this text otherwise than as implying external baptism." One is begotten of the Spirit by believing the Word which the Spirit gave, and born of water by coming forth from the waters of baptism."

Can you say, HAND-CRAMP!!! Man, that Guy could talk!

I guess the problem with the explanation you offered is that though the claim is that the water Jesus spoke of is not really water, as we go through Acts, which is in large part a book of conversions, we see a number of baptisms in water. If these immersions in water were not for the purpose given in Acts 2:38 and other passages, what were they for, and what Scripture would tell us? See what I mean?

Anyway, I'm sorry I skipped you. It wasn't intentional. I can only do what I can do.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[dianetavegia]

Bmerr, the same word for water is not used every time. In the Nicodemus incident:

except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, (twnv) (twlm) , "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere... for water baptism is never expressed by water only

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:

As far as my trying to divide the Old and New Testaments, it's already been done. Faith has certainly always been essential for salvation, though God's commands concerning such have differed in the different dispensations.

bmerr

Where does the division lie bmerr? </font>[/QUOTE]hillclimber,

bmerr here. Didn't mean to skip over you, sir. Do you mean the division between the Old and New Testaments?

If that's what you meant, I'd say the OT ended with the death of Christ, when He "Blott[ed] out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col 2"14).

The New would begin in Acts 2, where the gospel was first preached, and the conditions of pardon were first given by Peter.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. What would you say that "born of water" in John 3:5 is a reference to? What does it mean to be "born of water" in order to enter the kingdom of God? Awaiting your thoughts.

In Christ,

bmerr

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
--The New Birth is absolutely essential to eternal life. You must be born again.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
--There are two types of birth: one physical, the other spiritual; two types of life: one of the flesh, the other of the spirit

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--You must be born again. It is essential.
There are two and only two agents by which a man is born again. This is important to remeber. One is said to be water. The other is said to be the Spirit, which is the Holy Spirit of God.
The question is then, what does the "water" refer to, or symbolize. It does symbolize something. Catholics say baptism (definitely wrong). Others say the the waters surrounding the infant in the womb--a plausible explanation, but not necessarily the best one.
What is water? Water is a cleansing agent. We use water to clean--both ourselves and many other things. In this respect water symbolizes the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--Water is a cleansing agent. It is the Word of God that cleanses us. It cleanses us on a daily basis, as we read it. Jesus said we are made clean through the Word of God. Remeber there are two and only two agents by which one is born again: water (the Word of God), and the Spirit of God.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--The word "begat" means "born" as in born again. James says here that we are born again through the Word of truth or the Word of God.
Remember there are only two agents by which a person is born again: water (the Word of God) and the Spirit of God.

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.
--Being born again of the Word of God. This is the most forceful statement yet. One is born again by the Word of God. Remember there are only two agents by which one is born again: water (the Word of God--as it says here), and the Spirit of God.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. A man cannot be saved without the Word of God. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God. When the Great Commission was given, it was given so that the disciples could go with the Word of God, with the gospel message which comes from the Word of God, and give it to all creatures throughout the whole world. The Word of God is needed in order for one to be born of God. The Holy Spirit is needed for one to be born again. Without the Holy Spirit there can be no conviction of sin; no regeneration, no new birth.

Thus one is born again through the Word of God and the Holy Spirit of God. This is what this passage means. It has absolutely nothing to do with baptism.
DHK

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
Others say the the waters surrounding the infant in the womb--a plausible explanation, but not necessarily the best one.

DHK, bmerr here. Honestly, sir, I wouldn't even hold this idea as being plausible, since this is what Nicodemus had in mind, and this is what Jesus was correcting him about.

The phrase "born again" in verse 3 is simply re-worded in verse 5 as "born of water and of the Spirit".

So there are two elements involved in the new birth, namely, water, and the Spirit.

Your contention that the water is representative of the word of God as a cleansing agent, combined with the Spirit seems to require an operation of the Holy Spirit separate and apart from that which He does through the word itself. This idea is also essential to Calvinism.

The Spirit of God works through the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph 6:17). In every recorded case of conversion, the hearts of men were either pricked, resulting in obedience (as in Acts 2:27), or cut, resulting in the persecution of the speaker (as in Acts 7:54), as a result of the Spirit of God speaking the word of God through human lips.

Those who gladly received the word of the Spirit of God responded by being immersed in water. Thus, they were "born of water and of the Spirit".

It is the word of God, (delivered by the Spirit) which instructs men to be immersed in water for the remission of sins. In this case, the elements described by Christ can be just what He said they were, and are not forced into redundancy.

What is water? Water is a cleansing agent. We use water to clean--both ourselves and many other things.

Right. And it is exactly this kind of washing that Peter said is not accomplished in baptism (1 Pet 3:21). Dirt is the filth of the flesh, the removal of which is not the purpose of baptism. The filth of the soul, which is removed by one's submission to baptism, is sin.

respect water symbolizes the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--Water is a cleansing agent. It is the Word of God that cleanses us. It cleanses us on a daily basis, as we read it. Jesus said we are made clean through the Word of God.

Actually, Jesus told the apostles that they were clean through the word He had spoken unto them. At this point, the New Testament was not in effect. The kingdom had not yet been established, and the terms of entrance into the kingdom were not yet required of men.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--The word "begat" means "born" as in born again. James says here that we are born again through the Word of truth or the Word of God.

Exactly. And it is the word of truth (brought by the Spirit)that instructs men under the New Testament to be immersed in water for the remission of sins.

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.
--Being born again of the Word of God. This is the most forceful statement yet. One is born again by the Word of God.

Right. When that one does what is commanded by the word of God in order to obtain the remission of sins, namely, be baptized in water for the remission of sins. In the same book we find that "...even baptism doth also now save us..." If not from sin, then from what?

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. A man cannot be saved without the Word of God. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God. When the Great Commission was given, it was given so that the disciples could go with the Word of God, with the gospel message which comes from the Word of God, and give it to all creatures throughout the whole world.

I'll have to finish this up later. something came up.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[I hate sin]

If the water spoken of in John 3:5 is water baptism. The thief on the cross would not be able to enter into the kingdom of God. Because he was not baptised; Jesus did not lie in the following scripture;
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--The word "begat" means "born" as in born again. James says here that we are born again through the Word of truth or the Word of God.

Exactly. And it is the word of truth (brought by the Spirit)that instructs men under the New Testament to be immersed in water for the remission of sins.

bmerr </font>[/QUOTE]It is such Scriptures as these that entirely defeat your argument. The the theme of the Book of James is living a practical Christian life. It has nothing to do with salvation. This one verse is in the past tense looking back on one's salvation. No where in the entire chapter is baptism mentioned. No where! To read baptism into this passage is deliberately distorting and twisting the Word of God which you have done throughout your entire rebuttal of my exposition of John 3. Here is what Peter says about those who do such things:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You fail to rightly divide the Word of truth.
Nowhere in these verses is baptism mentioned.
DHK