• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

Well, when it says whole households were baptized, it’s difficult to reject an infant if there is no biblical proof against it.

Besides that. There is much writing about it through the history of the church in the 1st 2end 3erd centuries
Isn't that a curious point?
I mean just one or two extra words from the Holy Spirit and we would have something EXPLICIT (one way or the other). Instead we have an 'argument from silence', a debate over who was in an undefined 'household', and later writings from people with a 50/50 track record. [We know a lot of people did it, but a lot of people got a lot of other things wrong back then, too.]

The lack of a "smoking gun" verse suggests that we are focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel ... what is the BIG THING that GOD really wanted us focused on? Clearly is was not "paedo-" vs "credo-" baptism. :unsure:
 
Isn't that a curious point?
I mean just one or two extra words from the Holy Spirit and we would have something EXPLICIT (one way or the other). Instead we have an 'argument from silence', a debate over who was in an undefined 'household', and later writings from people with a 50/50 track record. [We know a lot of people did it, but a lot of people got a lot of other things wrong back then, too.]

The lack of a "smoking gun" verse suggests that we are focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel ... what is the BIG THING that GOD really wanted us focused on? Clearly is was not "paedo-" vs "credo-" baptism. :unsure:
Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or a Adult. The Holy Spirit does
 
Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or an Adult. The Holy Spirit does
Do you have an EXPLICIT verse or paragraph teaching on that in mind?
You are placing ideas together in a definitive “cause-effect” relationship that MANY theologians would disagree with. Why is it so “obvious” to you and so equally obviously false to those that embrace “baptismal regeneration”?

(As a Particular Baptist, you are preaching to the choir with me … but we are called to handle the WORD with care, so I invite you to present your case rather than your opinion.) (y)
 
Do you have an EXPLICIT verse or paragraph teaching on that in mind?
You are placing ideas together in a definitive “cause-effect” relationship that MANY theologians would disagree with. Why is it so “obvious” to you and so equally obviously false to those that embrace “baptismal regeneration”?

(As a Particular Baptist, you are preaching to the choir with me … but we are called to handle the WORD with care, so I invite you to present your case rather than your opinion.) (y)

Thanks. Opinions called heresies is all we have .

Heresies different personal commentaries .Called private interpretations. In that way there must be heresies difference of opinion as long as they do not do despite the the fullness of grace the complete cost of salvation. Which some do.

God is not a man. He makes men different from one another as in; what does one have that they have not received freely from the hand as a will of God?

Presenting my opinion. . . I would think in a ceremonial way. . . a gospel sign to the unbelieving world not a sign unto themselves . Not I did it, it proves it.

Like Aaron two sons who volunteered not called, learning how to baptize new priest using H20 to represent the doctrines of Christ that fall like rain the Holy Spirit or water of the living word.

Same believers baptism as a sign to the world today, a new kingdom of priests old ceremonial baptism. Aarons two sons added to the living word . . 15 second of false pride. They were consumed by that strange fire (Adding to the living word)

In a ceremony as sign to the unbelieving world. God uses a Ass to represent natural unconverted mankind and a clean animal a lamb to redeem . . or brake the neck

Exodus 13:13And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Fulfilling that prophecy listed twice in Exodus 13 and again chapter 14 . . . . It . fulfilled . the prophecy in Numbers 22. God using as Ass "sent one" (apostles ) prophesying declaring the will of Christ the husband .

He can use a rock 2 tablets written with his finger on both sides no room for oral traditions. . . to show he is not served by human hands as a will of mankind in any way shape or form .

He has no needs but satisfies all needs (dying mankind) We have his power of faith or labor of love that works in us. But would never assume that treasure of power was of us.

Christ gives us little faith calling believers "You of little faith" . Plenty to please the Holy Father I would think.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
 
... [T]he Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 seems to have been fully immersed.

I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.
 
I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.
I don't disagree. This is one reason I don't "die on the baptism hill". The bible is unclear. If baptism was this super important required to be saved event a person must go through I would think there would be a chapter or two in the bible explaining the process.
 
I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.

There is nothing we can do outwardly as a sign that proves a person has been born again inwardly .No such thing as Charismatic (sign gifts). Those that seek after signs rather than prophecy alone .The cleansing water of the word

I would agree "baptism" meaning "washing" by the water of the word "the gospel" . The doctrines that fall like rain .Not earthly inspired

Deuteronomy 32King James Version Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

Simon wondering why (not believing).Woman in the priesthood? There were no women prophets in the old testament priesthood Men's only club. Pentecost the promise of Joel men and women prophets from all the nations of the world holding out the gospel .Sending them out two by two

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

The washing baptizing. . the daily washing of water by the word,

Ephesians 5:25-27King James Version Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Water and the word used that way throughout the Bible to represent the work of Holy Spirit of Christ the husband

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

H20 baptism. When a new priests volunteered deciding to be used to display the gospel to the unbelieving world ."Show and tell" signs to the world

Aarons two son added to the word of God for 15 seconds of false fame .They were consumed as a waning today of the new Kingdom of Priest not to add or subtract from all things written in the law with the prophets (sola scriptura)
 
Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or a Adult. The Holy Spirit does
How would you read these words of Christ...
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.
 
How would you read these words of Christ...
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.
Hi Thanks .

One of those things a person keeps on the back burner

I would offer to begin without parables the signified undestanding. Christ spoke not . . comparing as a sign the temporal things seen water as metaphors compared to the unseen the things of faith (belief) Spirit. You could say both working as one .

In several parables Christ uses both water and or with blood, or water and wine The blood of grapes ) the things seen to give the unseen Holy Spiritual.

Again Blood /Water interchangeable no differnce .

John 6 parable Eat flesh drink blood and companion parables .

The gospel a picture to the world.

Christ pouring out His Holy Spirit life as a labor of love as if it was blood like water on the flesh of drying mankind in jeapordy of His own Spirit life. .

The parable David in prisoned in doubt like that of John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit sent a famine for hearing the power of the gospel .Christ sending three to represent the end of a matter to the city of bread (Bethlehem) to represent flesh and draw living water by the gate.

Water changing to blood just a water to wine.

1 Chronicles11: 16-19 And David was then in the hold, and the Philistines' garrison was then at Bethlehem.(flesh) And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate! And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem,(flesh) that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord. And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.

David knew the prophetic demonstration of Christ pouring out His Spirit was promised to the Son of man, Jesus .

Beautiful Christmas parable
 
How would you read these words of Christ...
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.
@Hobie
I do not read it as you do.

John 3: 5-8
5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Once again we see that Jesus begins His response to Nicodemus by indicating the solemnity of His words.

Then, He goes on to answer the objection Nicodemus raises: of "How can this be". … 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit., he cannot enter the kingdom of God” .

John 3:5 is an often referred to as how we got the term born again.

Repeat... In that verse, Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This statement is significant not only because it comes from Jesus Himself, but also because it pertains to salvation.

And it is here that so often a stumbling block arises what it truly means to be born of water and the Spirit? Does the water reference here truly mean a baptism? I say no for 2 reasons. First Nick might have thought Jesus was referring to a physical birth when he said ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit . So Nick likely had to be thinking, hearing of the word flesh it had to be a physical birth... and likely was doubly convinced when Jesus said 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Yet Jesus did nothing to
correct him when he asked...“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

And second. Baptism, not for salvation was not unknown in that day for the Jews that were cleansing themselves and those converting. (Not in Baptismal Fonts but Mikvehs)

Nick very likely would not have had that thought with the exchange between them and Jesus would know that Nick would not regard baptism as part of salvation.....and especially not with Jesus' response to him. "10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?"

Now, let’s consider the context of John 3:5 again as part of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, who was remember, a Pharisee!

When Nicodemus acknowledges Jesus’ uniqueness, our Lord promptly responds, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" And when Nick, obviously perplexed, asks How can someone be born again? Would an adult get back to his mother’s womb? Instead of explaining to him , Jesus extends His earlier statement to being born of water and the Spirit .

Advocates of water baptism as a requirement for salvation often cite this verse as proof text. It seems obvious enough, they say, that Jesus is saying we must be baptized to be saved. However, one can only reach this interpretation by disregarding the context of John 3:5 and scriptural teachings on salvation as a whole.... and the avoidance of explaining to Nicodemus when Nick questioned about being born again from a mother. Jesus made no attempt to clarify because it is not water that is needed to be born again.

The Bible is clear: Salvation is by faith alone. As Paul affirms in Rom 3:22, "We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are" . Other passages that emphasize salvation through faith alone include Eph 2:1-10 , Gal. 2:16 , and Titus 3:4-7 .

And the most often ignored proof is that of the conversion of the thief on the cross which refutes the notion that water baptism is required for salvation (Luke 23:40-43).

Granted water baptism holds significance as a physical demonstration of inner transformation, but it does not save us.

The entire conversation between Jesus and Nick further makes the water baptism interpretation an unconvincing one. In the same chapter, Jesus explains, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3: 14-16).

There is no mention of water baptism in this explanation. So, how should we understand John 3:5?

There is little controversy regarding being born of the Spirit. This refers to the transformative work performed by the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer in Jesus. Similar to how new life enters the world through physical birth, a new life—eternal life—is born through the Spirit’s regeneration.

As for the phrase born of water, This pretty much closes out my first reason for saying no to baptism needed for salvation..... As explained in depth above the first interpretation views born of water as a metaphor for physical birth, which takes into account the context. In John 3:3 where Jesus initially states, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus then questions, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:4). According to this perspective, Jesus’ response emphasizes the necessity of being born twice to enter the kingdom of God. This view finds support in the fact that unborn babies reside in a sac of amniotic fluid. We even use the expression "her water broke" when it’s time for birth.

The second interpretation sees being born of water as spiritual cleansing. This aligns with passages in the Old Testament, such as Ezekiel 36:25-27 , which Nicodemus would have been well aware of: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Given that Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand, this second interpretation carries as much weight as the first. According to this view, being born of water and of the Spirit are essentially the same thing: the Holy Spirit cleanses and renews the spirit of a man.
Rella
 
Hi Thanks .

One of those things a person keeps on the back burner

I would offer to begin without parables the signified undestanding. Christ spoke not . . comparing as a sign the temporal things seen water as metaphors compared to the unseen the things of faith (belief) Spirit. You could say both working as one .

In several parables Christ uses both water and or with blood, or water and wine The blood of grapes ) the things seen to give the unseen Holy Spiritual.

Again Blood /Water interchangeable no differnce .

John 6 parable Eat flesh drink blood and companion parables .

The gospel a picture to the world.

Christ pouring out His Holy Spirit life as a labor of love as if it was blood like water on the flesh of drying mankind in jeapordy of His own Spirit life. .

The parable David in prisoned in doubt like that of John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit sent a famine for hearing the power of the gospel .Christ sending three to represent the end of a matter to the city of bread (Bethlehem) to represent flesh and draw living water by the gate.

Water changing to blood just a water to wine.

1 Chronicles11: 16-19 And David was then in the hold, and the Philistines' garrison was then at Bethlehem.(flesh) And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate! And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem,(flesh) that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord. And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.

David knew the prophetic demonstration of Christ pouring out His Spirit was promised to the Son of man, Jesus .

Beautiful Christmas parable
Well, it was not a parable but declared by Christ so we need to be born of water and of the Spirit, one to show your choice and the other what is given as a gift. Just before His went up Christ told the new believers to be baptized "'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'".
Matthew 28:18-19
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And Peter preached that "'the gift of the Holy Spirit'" is to be received at baptism as we see..

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Gods Word is clear..
 
Well, it was not a parable but declared by Christ so we need to be born of water and of the Spirit, one to show your choice and the other what is given as a gift. Just before His went up Christ told the new believers to be baptized "'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'".
Matthew 28:18-19
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And Peter preached that "'the gift of the Holy Spirit'" is to be received at baptism as we see..

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Gods Word is clear..

yes, Gods word very clear.

Without (not some time) parables comparing the things seen the temporal to the unseen eternal Christ spoke not. Beginning with the powerful words "Let there be" and the eternal invisible things of the Father was made visible.

Deuteronomy 32 acts as a commentary on the metaphor water. Used to represent the words of his mouth. Coming down, the proper inspiration from above. All sorts of H20 used to represent the pouring out of Spirit life falling down bringing new born again spirit life

Deuteronomy 3232 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

What does the metaphor water represent ?

Where does the blood go after it is poured out?
 
Well, it was not a parable but declared by Christ so we need to be born of water and of the Spirit, one to show your choice and the other what is given as a gift. Just before His went up Christ told the new believers to be baptized "'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'".
Matthew 28:18-19
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And Peter preached that "'the gift of the Holy Spirit'" is to be received at baptism as we see..

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Gods Word is clear..
Yes, God's Word is clear. Your use of it, not so much. It is fuzzy logic, for example, to say that in Acts 2:38 the conjunction, "and", indicates causation or sequence. Further, it is not clear whether this gift of the Holy Ghost is regenerative at this point, or is a post-regeneration filling. Nor does the word, "for", necessarily mean causation, when it could also mean, 'in keeping with', the remission of sins, such as symbolized in baptism.
 
How would you read these words of Christ...
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.

I would offer water "of" the Spirit.

Not of water and of Spirit. (Spirit water) Like adding two things to make one

A spirit is not water.

Satan who has no spiritual understnding and must use the things seen temporal and call them spiritual gifts that some call Charismatic.

Look I did it. it proves it 😈

Aarons two son on the first day received the washing of the Holy Spirit of the priesthood called Baptism.

Being completely aware nothing can be added to the word of God or taken away they added their own personal Look I did it, it proves it. (Strange fire)

The fire consumed them completely .Not a stench of smoke on the ceremonial attrite.

A sign to the unbelieving word. . not a sign unto oneself. I did it. . . it proves it 😈☠️

Leviticus 10:1-5And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace..And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said
 
How would you read these words of Christ...
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.

VS 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.
VS 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(I read that verse and the one immediately following it to mean the water is the water from the flesh when one is physically born, and continues on with except a man be born of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. VS 6 confirms that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.)
continuing...
VS 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


(I read that verse to confirm that to that point water is mentioned once followed by flesh. VS6 tell us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. And VS8 says every one that is born of the Spirit.)

I absolutely do not see Jesus telling Nick that he needs to have a water baptism to be saved or born again. He has to have a spiritual baptism and I do not see that Jesus ties that to water. He was talking to Nick making the Spirit rebirth a separate thing.
 
In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (verse 4) and with "flesh" (verse 6). In that case, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, "flesh" birth (accompanied by amniotic "water") and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would point out that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14 and connects it with everlasting life and also in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

Now if "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who point out that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
 
VS 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.
VS 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(I read that verse and the one immediately following it to mean the water is the water from the flesh when one is physically born, and continues on with except a man be born of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. VS 6 confirms that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.)
continuing...
VS 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


(I read that verse to confirm that to that point water is mentioned once followed by flesh. VS6 tell us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. And VS8 says every one that is born of the Spirit.)


I absolutely do not see Jesus telling Nick that he needs to have a water baptism to be saved or born again. He has to have a spiritual baptism and I do not see that Jesus ties that to water. He was talking to Nick making the Spirit rebirth a separate thing.

The correct spiritual (unseen with the human eye understanding must be rightfully divided (interpreted) .

Not water and (plus) the Holy Spirit as if two different things. two different works water then comes the Spirit of Christ the husband

Except a man be born of water "that represents the Holy Spirit", he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Look to the things not seen the eternal not the things seen the temporal. The proper tool needed to rightly divide the parables must be used

2 Corinthian 4:181;While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 
Last edited:
The correct spiritual (unseen with the human eye understanding must be rightfully divided (interpreted) .

Not water and (plus) the Holy Spirit as if two different things. two different works water then comes the Spirit of Christ the husband

Except a man be born of water "that represents the Holy Spirit", he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Look to the things not seen the eternal not the things seen the temporal. The proper tool needed to rightly divide the parables must be used

2 Corinthian 4:181;While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Thank you for your insights.

If one had had a different experience of when the Hoyl Spirit convicted them... with out doubt.... one sees things is a different light. Just sayin.
 
Baptism in the Bible is by full immersion and it baptism knowing consent and moral responsibility, which a infant does not posses.
When Acts states everyone in Lydia's household was baptized, do you read that exclude children? Why? When the same condition is repeated in the jailer's household, do you, again, read that to exclude children? Why?

When Abraham was directed by God to circumcise everyone in his household that included the young and the old and the Hebrew and the Gentile. There's no record saying anyone was asked if the wanted their foreskin removed. If there'd been a single male in Abe's household that Abe did not circumcise then Abe would have been excluded from the covenant (not just the male refusing to have his foreskin removed).
 
Last edited:
Part 1 of 2

If I am wrong in posting the following link here, please move it. I think we are not to post videos ? but links to an articl relating to the subject
in a forum?

Well... here goes.

I bolded and color changed areas of note in this presentation.

Infant Baptism in Early Church History by Dennis Kastens

Issues, Etc. Journal - Spring 1997 - Vol. 2 No. 3
Infant Baptism in Early Church History

by Dennis Kastens
From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.
The Early Church
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).
Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.
Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."
Church Councils and Apologists
Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council,
Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."
Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.
Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).
To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."

Augustine
Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."
He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."

Specific directions, with detailed instructions, for the baptizing of infants were given by bishops to pastors and deacons during this era of Christian history. In the year 517, seven bishops met in Gerona, Catelina, and framed 10 rules of discipline for the church in Spain. The fifth rule states that ". . . in case infants were ill . . . if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born . . . " such was to be done (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, [London: Thomas Knott, 1790], p.269.).
The foregoing pattern, practiced in both East and West, remained customary in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modem times. Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, but in cases of illness this took place on the day of birth. An example of this already comes from about 260 in North Africa in an inscription from Hadrumetum (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres II, 4429-A):

Arisus in pace
natus ora sexta

bixit supra scriptas VIIII
This Latin inscription indicates that a child who died nine hours after its birth was baptized. Such practice of Baptism within the first days of life, or on the day of birth in an emergency, remained for both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
The Witness of the Catacombs
The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe. Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism. [editor's note- the two referenced epitaphs are in the original document].
In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter: [editor's note- the referenced epitaph is in the original document].
In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.
From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."

Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:

Dedicated to the departed.
Florentius made this inscription
for his worthy son Apronianus who
lived one year and nine months and five days.
As he was truly loved by his grandmother
and she knew that his death was imminent,
she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.
The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.

Cont in part 2
 
Back
Top