Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[Adonia]

Take your choice. Either he died for you, so that by faith your sins might be forgiven,
or, as I quoted to you earlier:
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;

So what do you believe?

I see no problem with believing both and I don't see where one negates the other. Don't you believe in both? Yes, Jesus died for us, He is the Savior - my Savior and once someone is baptized into the Christian faith, one then starts to live out that faith and believing all that it entails. It's not just one thing, but everything combined.

 

[steaver]

No. Any objective person could rightly discern when Jesus is using something as a metaphor and when He is speaking truthfully and forthrightly. We can then go to other passages such as in 1 Cor where we can find these words of Jesus corroborated. "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves".

Not to mention the fact that this is what the early Christians of the newly emerging One Universal Christian Church believed and 99% all of Christendom believed for over 1500 years. As you say, Scripture can indeed sometimes interpret Scripture.

When you eat of the bread and drink of the wine do you see and taste flesh and blood?

 

[steaver]

You are mistaken, such a thing has not happened. I assure you, having faith that Jesus Christ was indeed God Incarnated here on earth and that He died for us is still what is taught by the Latin Rite of Christianity.

As you can clearly see by the responses from a couple of Catholics here on this board, faith in Jesus Christ and confessing He is Lord is not necessary for salvation.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

And now we see yet another Scriptural passage that you deny: 1st Peter 3:21

"And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

There is not a single passage that teaches baptismal regeneration. When those people think that they do, it simply betrays their misunderstanding of Scripture. Remember, Scripture never contradicts itself. Start with the very simple premise.
The jailer asked Paul: "What must I do to be saved?
Paul answered "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
--That answer has been given hundreds of times throughout Scripture. A few isolated scriptures which seem to teach otherwise, will not contradict the totality of scripture. One cannot pit scripture against the teaching of the rest of the Bible. That is what you are trying to do here, just as you tried to do with James 2:24. It doesn't work. It just shows a misunderstanding of Scripture.

What does the above scripture speak about?
First, the word baptism, baptidzo, should be translated immerse. That is what the word means. And that is why Baptists always practice baptism by immersion. The very word means "immersion."
Second, look at the context:

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--In verse 20, Peter refers to the episode of Noah. What did the water do in the time of the flood?
For most it was the agent of destruction. All the world perished in the water. The same is true today. If you are trusting in your baptism you will perish.
But the real comparison is this: Noah was surrounded by water. It was below with the flood and coming down in the form of rain. That was the picture of immersion. But where was Noah? He was not in the water. It was not the water that saved. The water destroyed. Noah was in the ark, which represented Jesus. Only Jesus can save.
Peter is not referring to water baptism here, but rather a figurative immersion, a union with Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who is the ark and saves us from the judgment to come. Only Christ can save.
At the cross judgment waters fell on Christ, just as judgment waters fell on the ark.
The ark saved the 8 who believed the word of the Lord. Christ will save all who will believe in Him. This is something that water baptism cannot do. Belief in water baptism as a means of salvation can only destroy a person just like the waters of the Flood destroyed all those that perished in it.
To further clarify it Peter adds:
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
--He is not speaking of water baptism. He is not speaking of the flesh.
The word for answer has the idea of a pledge. It is a pledge of a good conscience like a covenant with God made sure by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what happens when a person is saved or puts their faith and trust in Christ. It has nothing to do with baptism by water.

Combine that with Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Weymouth translates the verse this way:
(WNT) "Repent," replied Peter, "and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, with a view to the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The Greek word translated "by" or "for" or "with a view to" is "eis" in the Greek and has many different meanings as a preposition.
The same word is used here by John: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
What did John mean? Did he baptize them and then they would receive repentance?
Or did he baptize the because of their repentance. The word "unto" means that they already had repented not that he was giving them repented.
He demanded that they would bring forth evidence of repentance.
Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Thus in Acts 2:38, they were baptized because they had received the forgiveness of sins, not in order to receive the remission of sins.
"He went to the store, for his mother was sick." "He went to the store because his mother was sick.

Combine that with Matthew 28:19

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"

Let's divide this up and see what it says.
1. "Go" or having gone.
2. Make disciples of all nations. What is involved in the making of a disciple?
First he must be brought to Christ. He must believe by faith and faith alone that Christ died for his sins, and receive him as his savior. Then he must learn much more about Christ. He must become a follower of Christ.
3. Then baptize him. This comes well after salvation. It is not a part of salvation.
4. Teaching them all things whatsoever I have taught you (you missed this). They are to keep on teaching, keep on discipling them. Thus church membership is important. Don't let them fall away.
5. "And lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Christ promised to be with us as we keep proclaiming this wonderful message.
Baptism is not part of the message of salvation. That is very clear.

Here we have three Scriptural passages, inspired by God,which present Baptism as a central element to evangelization. But after you have gone through the Bible and wrongly systemetized things according to the placing of a number of "alones" where they don't belong, you can't "harmonize" these passages with the rest of Scripture. What you must do in order to maintain your chosen doctrines is not harmony, it's denial for the sake of "(philosophic and interpretive) traditions of men" which "nullify the word of God" to which you cling. And just as you make James 2:24 out to say exactly the opposite of what it says, so you, while appealing to Sola Scriptura judge the Catholic Church's teachings not according to Scripture Alone, but according to the way your fallible mind (with its adopted traditions) attempts to make sense of Baptism.

But we don't have three passages that teach baptismal regeneration. We don't have any. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Christians have always understood Baptism as part of God's saving plan.

Not true.

This was one of the first doctrines I began researching in my 20s because as a Baptist I strongly opposed paedobaptism as well as the idea of Baptismal Regeneration. It took time. But I came to realize that what I'd condemned according to the "authority" of my inherited traditions (which I simply regarded as the clear teaching of the Bible), was actually the right, true, and Biblical teaching.

Then you were led astray, perhaps by revised RCC history books and propaganda, but not by the Bible. That is why sola scriptura is so important. We can all make up tradition. What happens when tradition contradicts the Word of God.
The Apostle Paul didn't use the KJV, as many today have the tradition of using.

 

[DHK]

Look a little more closely at the context of 1st Peter 3 in which we find the statement above:

"God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."

So we have an Old Testament type. We see that Noah, et al. were "saved through water." In the new economy, Christians are like those aboard the Ark who are "saved through water." But notice, not literally by the washing away of dirt, but by the clear conscience which comes about through now being "in Christ." All of this process, I repeat all of this process is done through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that's how we test the doctrine:
1) Does it conform with Scripture?
2) Has it always been taught as something handed on as a matter of faith?
3) Is it done through Christ and according to His saving work?
4) Did the Apostles teach this doctrine?
5) Did the early Church regard this as a doctrine central to the Gospel?

--I explained this passage thoroughly to you.
--I have showed how this passage conforms with passage; you have it contradicting scripture.
--If you believe it as handed down as a matter of faith, it is not biblical faith, it is the faith of those that spread heresy.
--The Apostles NEVER taught this doctrine. They taught against it (Rom.5:1; Eph.2:8,9; Acts 10:43; 16:30,31; 8:36-38; Rom.10:9,0, 13, etc.)
--The early church did not practice it. The corrupt churches practiced it. They strayed from the truth. It was not introduced until after the Montanists arose on the scene.

That's not an exhaustive list. But what questions, in contrast, do you ask? Maybe your list would look something like this:
1) Does it violate the principle of Sola Scriptura?
2) Does it violate the principle of Sola Fide?

It violates both. It violates God's sacred word which is most important of all.

It is very important, as the Church does, to recognize always that though we humans are bound to the Sacrament of Baptism according to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, God is not bound to any one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ.

The sacraments are man-made. They are not important in God's eyes nor ours.
What is important are the truths that God has given us in His Word, and that is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Once one starts adding to that message he strays from the truth and poisons the gospel. Paul calls that "accursed." (Gal.1:8).

Once again, God is the supreme, ultimate, and final Judge. So we preach repentance and baptism just like St. Peter preached repentance and baptism in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins, while acknowledging that God is the final Judge.

Peter preached salvation was by faith alone, not by baptism. Your misunderstanding of that passage does not change the truth of God's Word.
This is what Peter preached:
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--This is far different than what you are telling us.

So, for example, Salvationists don't baptize at all. Yet, though we continue to preach Baptism, we don't say "They are all going to Hell."

I never heard the word "salvationists" before. But, yes, those that preach salvation is through baptism will lead one to hell for baptism is by Christ alone. Only Christ can save; not the work of baptism.

It is "the highest mind of man guided by God" which has said all along, with Christ, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Herbert

And that verse also has nothing to do with baptism.
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.
--There is no water here; no baptism here. One is born again by the Word of God.

 

[DHK]

Yes there were "churchs", but all were bound together to believe the same. I mean really, that is what the letters of St. Paul were all about - a man who had authority who was writing to the various outlining "churchs" explaining to them where they were messing up and that they should get with the program. No outlying church was allowed to go it's own way or to decide things for itself. There had to be a unanimity of thought and doctrine and there was and it lasted quite a long time (until some men thought they knew better of course).

Paul was a missionary and an Apostle. He traveled extensively. On three missionary journeys he established over 100 independent churches. They were not tied together by any organization. Remember they didn't have the internet, cell phones, or any kind of phone. They didn't even have a telegraph, like the one I had to use when I was permanently on the field and didn't have the use of a phone. Travel was slow--walking, perhaps rich enough to have a donkey, or by ship. (Jonah was swallowed by a whale)
For the most part they were independent unless they heard from Paul or someone lie him who traveled extensively.

 

[DHK]

I see no problem with believing both and I don't see where one negates the other. Don't you believe in both? Yes, Jesus died for us, He is the Savior - my Savior and once someone is baptized into the Christian faith, one then starts to live out that faith and believing all that it entails. It's not just one thing, but everything combined.

They contradict each other. Look at it this way:

Which statement is correct:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
or
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by baptism, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Only one statement is true. The RCC has perverted the Scriptures to make the second on their basis of belief.

 

[Adonia]

When you eat of the bread and drink of the wine do you see and taste flesh and blood?

Of course not. While the outward signs remain the same as ordinary bread and wine, upon consecration they become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

St. Ambrose from the 4th century put it this way: "Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself was changed".

In your heart of hearts do you doubt that the man who was born of a virgin, a man who defied death itself, could not make such a thing happen?

 

[Adonia]

They contradict each other. Look at it this way:

Which statement is correct:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
or
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by baptism, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Only one statement is true. The RCC has perverted the Scriptures to make the second on their basis of belief.

Oh come on, how many times is the requirement for baptism mentioned in the Scriptures - 10? 15? 20? There is no perversion on the part of the Catholic Church, only a faithful teaching of everything that exists in the Holy Scriptures. I have faith and a baptism, so I guess that means I'm covered, right?

 

[Adonia]

Paul was a missionary and an Apostle. He traveled extensively. On three missionary journeys he established over 100 independent churches. They were not tied together by any organization. Remember they didn't have the internet, cell phones, or any kind of phone. They didn't even have a telegraph, like the one I had to use when I was permanently on the field and didn't have the use of a phone. Travel was slow--walking, perhaps rich enough to have a donkey, or by ship. (Jonah was swallowed by a whale)
For the most part they were independent unless they heard from Paul or someone lie him who traveled extensively.

Like I said, Paul had authority and his letters prove it and cannot be denied. Those churches were independent as far as them being far away from each other, but they all listened to the men who had authority and when they died out other men (Bishops) gained that same authority. No?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Yes there were "churchs", but all were bound together to believe the same.

Yes, they believed they were justified by faith alone.

I mean really, that is what the letters of St. Paul were all about - a man who had authority who was writing to the various outlining "churchs" explaining to them where they were messing up and that they should get with the program.

Kind of part of being an apostle.

No outlying church was allowed to go it's own way or to decide things for itself.

Such as what? Heresy? Corruption within the churches? False doctrine? These couldn't make a move unless some Nicolaitane told them it was OK? No, the churches were not to be Lorded over nor were they not able to make autonomous decisions. But you think your beliefs here make certain that these churches, individual local churches were all Roman Catholic in faith and practice.

Not even close.

That corrupt system hadn't come into existence as of that time.

There had to be a unanimity of thought and doctrine and there was and it lasted quite a long time (until some men thought they knew better of course).

Um, no, there wasn't this magical unanimity of thought and practice that existed for a long time. You don't know much about the troubles of the NT churches, that they were rampant with false teachings, false apostles, schisms and much more. Your error here just shows that you've been bamboozled and indoctrinated by RC into this false narrative of the early church.

And, of course some men knew better, and then they broke off the fetters of apostate Rome. Thank God for that!

 

[DHK]

Oh come on, how many times is the requirement for baptism mentioned in the Scriptures - 10? 15? 20? There is no perversion on the part of the Catholic Church, only a faithful teaching of everything that exists in the Holy Scriptures. I have faith and a baptism, so I guess that means I'm covered, right?

You are wrong. There is never one time baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation. It is a step of obedience after salvation. Yes, the RCC have perverted this doctrine. Salvation is by faith alone, not by works. Baptism is a work.

Let's look at it this way. In John 19:30 Jesus is hanging on the cross paying for the sins of all mankind. With his last and dying breath he exclaims "It is finished," meaning, the work of salvation is finished. It is done. He paid for it with his own blood. He atoned for our sin. It is His work; the work of salvation is all His. He did it all.
But you want to meet Jesus in heaven sometime and say: "Look Jesus how I helped you on the cross. I was baptized and that helped you to pay for my salvation. Wasn't I big help in paying for part of my salvation in being baptized and keeping the sacraments. See you didn't pay it all; I helped you."

If that is your attitude to the King of kings and Lord of lords, I believe he would say:
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation is based on a relationship, not a religion. There is nothing you can "do."

 

[DHK]

Like I said, Paul had authority and his letters prove it and cannot be denied. Those churches were independent as far as them being far away from each other, but they all listened to the men who had authority and when they died out other men (Bishops) gained that same authority. No?

NO!
For sake of time and work let me quote what Herschel Hobbs says in the Baptist Faith and Message:

The officers in a local New Testament church are pastors and deacons (Phil.1:1). The same office is variously called bishop, elder, or pastor. The qualification for pastors and deacons are set forth in 1Timothy 3 (on deacons see also Acts 6:3).

“Bishop” comes from the Greek word for overseer, one who oversaw the work of others that it might be done correctly. “Elder” translates the Greek word which connotes age. Among the Jews it was used of one who because of age possessed dignity and wisdom. But in the Christian sense it was used of those who presided over assemblies of the church. This suggests the leaders in church. The very name connotes the office of counselor. “Pastor” renders the word for shepherd or one who feds and tends the flock.

That these three words refer to the same office is seen in Acts 20:28. These words were spoken to the elders of the church in Ephesus (v.17). Note “overseers” and “to feed [as a shepherd] the church of God.” Tit.1:5-6 uses “elder” and “bishop” interchangeably. And in Acts 20:28 “to feed as a shepherd” completes the picture of these words for the same office. In the New Testament, “bishop” never refers to one over a group of churches. And “elder” in the Christian sense always refers to the same office of bishop or pastor.

There are only two offices in the local church: pastor and deacon. The pastor is the bishop, bishop being another word for overseer in our modern English.
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ; To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons : (WEB)

 

[Adonia]

You are wrong. There is never one time baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation. It is a step of obedience after salvation. Yes, the RCC have perverted this doctrine. Salvation is by faith alone, not by works. Baptism is a work.

Let's look at it this way. In John 19:30 Jesus is hanging on the cross paying for the sins of all mankind. With his last and dying breath he exclaims "It is finished," meaning, the work of salvation is finished. It is done. He paid for it with his own blood. He atoned for our sin. It is His work; the work of salvation is all His. He did it all.
But you want to meet Jesus in heaven sometime and say: "Look Jesus how I helped you on the cross. I was baptized and that helped you to pay for my salvation. Wasn't I big help in paying for part of my salvation in being baptized and keeping the sacraments. See you didn't pay it all; I helped you."

If that is your attitude to the King of kings and Lord of lords, I believe he would say:
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Salvation is based on a relationship, not a religion. There is nothing you can "do."

Well then, we disagree about the necessity of baptism. In John 3 it says: "Unless a man be born again of water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God". (Jesus's words) I can find no exception to this law and that Scripture seems pretty cut and dried to me. There is also the command from Christ to His Apostles to: " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them..." Now why would Jesus bring baptism into the mix if it wasn't necessary? Also, as regards Catholic teaching, it does not include the idea that we helped Jesus do anything - it was Him and Him alone who paid the price in full - got that?

 

[Adonia]

NO!
For sake of time and work let me quote what Herschel Hobbs says in the Baptist Faith and Message:

The officers in a local New Testament church are pastors and deacons (Phil.1:1). The same office is variously called bishop, elder, or pastor. The qualification for pastors and deacons are set forth in 1Timothy 3 (on deacons see also Acts 6:3).

“Bishop” comes from the Greek word for overseer, one who oversaw the work of others that it might be done correctly. “Elder” translates the Greek word which connotes age. Among the Jews it was used of one who because of age possessed dignity and wisdom. But in the Christian sense it was used of those who presided over assemblies of the church. This suggests the leaders in church. The very name connotes the office of counselor. “Pastor” renders the word for shepherd or one who feds and tends the flock.

That these three words refer to the same office is seen in Acts 20:28. These words were spoken to the elders of the church in Ephesus (v.17). Note “overseers” and “to feed [as a shepherd] the church of God.” Tit.1:5-6 uses “elder” and “bishop” interchangeably. And in Acts 20:28 “to feed as a shepherd” completes the picture of these words for the same office. In the New Testament, “bishop” never refers to one over a group of churches. And “elder” in the Christian sense always refers to the same office of bishop or pastor.

There are only two offices in the local church: pastor and deacon. The pastor is the bishop, bishop being another word for overseer in our modern English.
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ; To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons : (WEB)

Oh good, the "Baptist Faith and Message" book, tract, or whatever it is so guess what, I do not subscribe to it so your quoting it means nothing to me. I'll stick with the Christian orthodox teaching of what consists of a Priest, Pastor, or Deacon. It has worked well these last two thousand years for billions of Christians be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestants.

 

[Adonia]

Yes, they believed they were justified by faith alone.



Kind of part of being an apostle.



Such as what? Heresy? Corruption within the churches? False doctrine? These couldn't make a move unless some Nicolaitane told them it was OK? No, the churches were not to be Lorded over nor were they not able to make autonomous decisions. But you think your beliefs here make certain that these churches, individual local churches were all Roman Catholic in faith and practice.

Not even close.

That corrupt system hadn't come into existence as of that time.



Um, no, there wasn't this magical unanimity of thought and practice that existed for a long time. You don't know much about the troubles of the NT churches, that they were rampant with false teachings, false apostles, schisms and much more. Your error here just shows that you've been bamboozled and indoctrinated by RC into this false narrative of the early church.

And, of course some men knew better, and then they broke off the fetters of apostate Rome. Thank God for that!

And what pray tell do you think what happened in the future to the newly evolving Christian Church? Do you mean to say that the historical record is a lie? That there was not but one Universal Christian Church that led all Christians until the great schism in the 11th century? That there was not a group of Bishops of that one Universal Christian Church that held Synods and Councils that formulated the basic doctrines that all Christians believe, even today? Boy have I been misinformed. Let me guess, the Baptists were in charge then, right?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's precisely because it's not a "solid and unchanging" body that it gains some of its credibility.

My friend,
You cannot have it both ways. You have criticized Protestantism for being fragmented, but when I point out to you that your church has also been rent with divisions, you tell me that's part of its glory.

It is the Church of Rome that (falsely) claims to be semper eadem. The Reformed churches acknowledge that ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And what pray tell do you think what happened in the future to the newly evolving Christian Church? Do you mean to say that the historical record is a lie? That there was not but one Universal Christian Church that led all Christians until the great schism in the 11th century? That there was not a group of Bishops of that one Universal Christian Church that held Synods and Councils that formulated the basic doctrines that all Christians believe, even today? Boy have I been misinformed. Let me guess, the Baptists were in charge then, right?

You are quite correct. You have been misinformed.

 

[DHK]

Well then, we disagree about the necessity of baptism. In John 3 it says: "Unless a man be born again of water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God". (Jesus's words) I can find no exception to this law and that Scripture seems pretty cut and dried to me. There is also the command from Christ to His Apostles to: " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them..." Now why would Jesus bring baptism into the mix if it wasn't necessary? Also, as regards Catholic teaching, it does not include the idea that we helped Jesus do anything - it was Him and Him alone who paid the price in full - got that?

Where does it say baptism in John 3:5. It doesn't. Baptism doesn't save.
In Matthew 28, one had to be made a disciple first.
1. Teach him.
2. Then he needed to be saved. Saved by faith and faith alone in Christ.
3. Then he would become a follower of Christ (taught some more), thus be a disciple.
4. Then he would be baptized.
5. Then he would be taught more ("teach him all things whatsoever I have commanded you")
Read the entire passage, not just what you want to read.

Here is the entire passage:
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
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.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Three times Jesus says to Nicodemus "You must be born again." It is important that one be born again, or he will never see the kingdom of God. He won't make it to heaven. So what does it mean?
When Jesus first said this to Nicodemus, he was entirely confused.
Nick said: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
--It sounds like some sort of idea similar to reincarnation. Who knows what he was thinking.

Then Jesus replies:
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.

Since this is confusing, he goes on to explain:
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 kinds of birth: one of the flesh (your natural birth into this world), and a spiritual birth. Nicodemus had been born once, physically. Now he needed to be born a second time, spiritually. Two births are necessary: one physical, the other spiritual.
How is that possible? We know how the first is possible. What about the second?

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.
--This verse then holds the key. There are two elements that are necessary in the new birth. We all know that one of them is the Holy Spirit of God. Without the Holy Spirit one cannot be born again. But what does the water refer to?
--It does not refer to baptism. There is nothing in the passage to suggest that, and it runs contrary to the rest of scripture.
--Some say that it refers to the amniotic fluid of a woman to harmonize with the natural or physical birth. Possible, but I don 't think Nicodemus would have been thinking of amniotic fluid.
--Some put forth other theories that I can't remember off hand.
--But here is what I believe "water" refers to.

What is water used for most often? It is used for cleansing. It is used for washing.
They were not very far from the Temple, and Nicodemus could see the Jews go through the many ceremonial washings that they had to perform before entering.
But washing of water specifically refers to the Word of God.
Nicodemus was well acquainted with the OT.

Psalm 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
--How does a man keep spiritually clean? He obeys the Word of God. It is the Word of God that cleanses.

What did Jesus say:
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--They were kept clean by His Word.

And James?
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" is directly related to being "born again." We are born again with the Word of truth.
Remember there are two and only two elements by which a person is born again: water (Word) and the Holy Spirit).

And Peter?
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.
--Here Peter makes it very clear. We are born again by the Word of God.
There are two and only two elements whereby a person is born again. One is the Holy Spirit. The other, Peter says, is the Word of God. Thus the "water" mentioned refers to the Word of God.

A person is born again when the Spirit of God works through the Word of God in order to bring that person to faith in Christ thus making him a new person in Christ. It is called regeneration, and has nothing to do with baptism.
To believe that baptism saves or washes away sin is a superstitious believe.
It is what the Hindus believe. Every year they baptize themselves into the dirty polluted waters of the Ganges River in India thinking that that "holy water" will wash away their sins. Your belief is just as superstitious as theirs.

 

[DHK]

Oh good, the "Baptist Faith and Message" book, tract, or whatever it is so guess what, I do not subscribe to it so your quoting it means nothing to me. I'll stick with the Christian orthodox teaching of what consists of a Priest, Pastor, or Deacon. It has worked well these last two thousand years for billions of Christians be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestants.

It is a book explaining the SBC's statement of faith. I didn't actually quote from the Statement of Faith. The statements at the end, not italicized, were my own. Deal with them. I could have explained the same thing to you. I was just saving time. I won't do it again. It will be in my own words just like my previous post to this one.