Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It would appear that you are suggesting that verse 38 applies to being "born of water". But actually it is in verse 37 that this man was born of the Spirit, since no man can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" without the Spirit the subsequent New Birth.

THE MAN IS BORN AGAIN
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

THE BELIEVER BAPTIZED
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

I wonder if the eunuch did not have an unspoken 'but...' after his statement, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God...but.... Just now he appeared to be totally ignorant, now he prescribes to Phillip that he must be baptised in water. Phillip told him nothing about baptism, and baptism is not even implied in the passage from Isaiah. I think that in the eunuch's religious tradition there was some sort of water baptism without which he had his mind made up that if Christianity wants to be the real thing, it must have water baptism like his heathen customs have.

In fact the convert was clearly not satisfied by Phillip’s PROTEST that “if you believe with your whole heart” it is enough, you are saved JUST BY “JESUS PREACHED” to you! But no, note that the servant does the teaching! He is the driver, and he commands the cart to come to a halt, and he coerced Phillip to get down, just like he before had commanded the deacon to get up the cart.

I am convinced the driver knew exactly what he did, because he drove his “way” straight to where he, knew water was. Phillip didn’t tell him, Let’s go find water for sure!

Something else, not at all insignificant!

It says in verse 35 as Phillip “opened his mouth and BEGAN at the Scripture”, the servant rudely drove off; he had his scheme worked out in detail.

As I said the Ethiopian manipulated the deacon all the way, and Phillip eventually began to look rather sheepish, UNTIL, I believe, God decided, so far—enough is enough, and once “they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Phillip away, he could not teach the eunuch further; but the eunuch went his way rejoicing” … he only would have known for what, but it isn’t written that he went rejoicing in salvation or in the Lord Jesus.

 

[Enoch111]

Phillip told him nothing about baptism, and baptism is not even implied in the passage from Isaiah.

That is simply an assumption. Had Philip not mentioned baptism while preaching the Gospel, how could this man have known as to what comes next? Philip must have recalled what Peter said in Acts 2:38.

 

[Joseph77]

That is simply an assumption. Had Philip not mentioned baptism while preaching the Gospel, how could this man have known as to what comes next? Philip must have recalled what Peter said in Acts 2:38.

Yes, good. God Verified / Validated immersion all along, including thru His Inspired Breathed Written Word here. (about Phillip, etc)

The enemy of faith, the destroyer, has worked ever since the first century to prevent anyone from being immersed in Jesus' Name.

 

[brian100]

I had a saving pool drowning experience when I was 9... never knew who pulled me out. I'm starting to think it was my real saving baptism representation!! None of my family knows I drowned before... and they were there that day. Was an incredible experience! I was underwater 3 min.. .maybe I had died.

Or maybe I did almost drown and someone in heaven did save me, and it was a Shall Never Die event.

I wonder if being saved is just like that in heaven and you wake up 10 again. But I want to be 19. Or both!

 

[marksman]

According to me? I never said anything to that effect sir. Please point where in my post you got that.

Regarding Acts 2:38, I don't know any issue between us on that. I don't know what that has to do with what I posted in my response to your post #95.

Tong
R0676

Yes, you did, not in those exact words but in your inference. Perhaps coming from the Philippines you are not conversant with the nuances of the English Language.

Certainly scriptures speaks about baptism with water, but nowhere does scriptures says that baptism with water is how a man is born again or that it is central to being born again. That is what you said so we do have an issue.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, you did, not in those exact words but in your inference. Perhaps coming from the Philippines you are not conversant with the nuances of the English Language.

Certainly scriptures speaks about baptism with water, but nowhere does scriptures says that baptism with water is how a man is born again or that it is central to being born again. That is what you said so we do have an issue.

In John 3:5 it is clear that a man must be born of water and the Spirit; and if this is speaking of baptism then a man is born again by being baptized in water.

Also, in Acts 2:38-39, a promise is given, that is conditional.

The promise: the Holy Ghost.

The condition: baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

The promise of the Holy Ghost is what I would refer to as being born again of the Spirit.

Fulfilling the condition is being born of water.

That there is an alternate interpretation is beside the point. What you have to realize is that it is very possible (even probable) that Jesus meant baptism in water when He spoke the words in John 3:5; and that means that if you take the stance that this is not what He meant, you could be wrong; and you would also be gambling your eternal soul on an interpretation.

 

[Tong2020]

Yes, you did, not in those exact words but in your inference. Perhaps coming from the Philippines you are not conversant with the nuances of the English Language.

Certainly scriptures speaks about baptism with water, but nowhere does scriptures says that baptism with water is how a man is born again or that it is central to being born again. That is what you said so we do have an issue.

Yes I said that. And it clearly does not have any issue with Acts 2:38. It now seems to me that you like to make it appear that Acts 2:38 supports your view that baptism with water is central to being born again. It just clearly does not. You have to read again my post #96, the last 3 paragraphs, wherein you evidently ignored and not a word said about it, for I spoke on the subject of "being born again". If you have any questions or clarifications or objections, I am ready to address them. After all, the subject of this thread is about the necessary event of being born again, not baptism with water, so that one could see and enter the kingdom of God.

Tong
R677

 

[Tong2020]

In John 3:5 it is clear that a man must be born of water and the Spirit; and if this is speaking of baptism then a man is born again by being baptized in water.

If it is speaking of baptism, but it does not. I will refer you to my posts #92, and post #96. It would be nice to hear a response on each of the respective posts from you.

Also, in Acts 2:38-39, a promise is given, that is conditional.

The promise: the Holy Ghost.

The condition: baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

The promise of the Holy Ghost is what I would refer to as being born again of the Spirit.

Fulfilling the condition is being born of water.

Any Christian reader would not see that which is written "born of water and the spirit" in John 3:5 as to mean and refer to the baptism spoken of in Acts 2:38. What you have there is clearly a conclusion that you want those two passages to appear to lead to. I would argue that, being born or birth, is very much different from being baptized or baptism. Birth or being born is about being created, while baptism with water is not.

That there is an alternate interpretation is beside the point. What you have to realize is that it is very possible (even probable) that Jesus meant baptism in water when He spoke the words in John 3:5; and that means that if you take the stance that this is not what He meant, you could be wrong; and you would also be gambling your eternal soul on an interpretation.

If you believe in something based on your own understanding, take, and conclusion, such as here, that Jesus meant baptism in water when He spoke the words in John 3:5, that is not a gamble but is a misuse of scriptures.

In John 3:3-8, there can be no mistake that Jesus was talking about birth, an individual rebirth for that matter, and not anything else, even baptism. And that this rebirth clearly is not anything but one of the spirit. Here's what Jesus said concerning everyone born of the spirit in verse 8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Does that even alludes to baptism with water or to Acts 2:38 concerning the promise of the giving of the Holy Ghost? Clearly not.

Tong
R0678

 

[Joseph77]

How many different things are men saved from on earth ? (obviously few men are saved, but those who are saved, how many different things are we/they/ saved from ? )

 

[Tong2020]

How many different things are men saved from on earth? (obviously few men are saved, but those who are saved, how many different things are we/they/ saved from ? )

I really had not made a determination of that. But in general, I'd say that in scriptures, salvation could either be that from sin, from the second death (hell), from the first death (grave), from sickness, from works of demons and evil spirits, from evil acts of men, and from all and any other evil things, and from calamities.

Tong
R0680

 

[Candidus]

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse is very clear. if you want your sins remitted you have to repent and be baptized.

I will say that again. If you want your sins remitted you need to repent and be baptized.

According to you Peter never said that.

If you baptize a sinner, all you get is a wet sinner; if you baptize a saved Christian, you have a testimony. Acts 2:38 speaks of being baptized "for" "because" "in reference to" the remission of sins.

 

[Joseph77]

I really had not made a determination of that. But in general, I'd say that in scriptures, salvation could either be that from sin, from the second death (hell), from the first death (grave), from sickness, from works of demons and evil spirits, from evil acts of men, and from all and any other evil things, and from calamities.

Tong
R0680

Good seeking what we are saved from .

We are promised calamities though - or rather, everyone saved in Jesus' Name and immersed in His Name, will suffer painful persecution.
(REJOICE! AND COUNT IT ALL JOY! when we encounter fiery trials ). even in death/martyrdom, our joy is overflowing and completely undisturbed in Christ Jesus.

re sickness: most Christians (in name), suffer sickness because of disobedience, or as written "perish for lack of knowledge" -
when the truth is known and practiced, lived daily (from young to old) , there is potentially no cancer, depression, anxiety, diabetes, arthritis, gall stones, psoriasis, excema, headaches, or any such curse.

 

[Candidus]

he appeared to be totally ignorant, now he prescribes to Phillip that he must be baptised in water. Phillip told him nothing about baptism, and baptism is not even implied in the passage from Isaiah.

We do not know the extant of the eunuch's reading in Isaiah, nor are we privy to everything that may have been said between Phillip and the eunuch. The Bible was not divided into chapters and verses as we have today. In Isaiah 52:15, we find these words, “So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him;” Purification with water was common in Judaism, and while we do not know the full "explanation" that Phillip gave the eunuch, or the understanding that the eunuch had of Christianity or Judaism that he already may have been exposed to, is not known. Copies of Scripture were expensive and rare. How the eunuch acquired the book of Isaiah is not known. One could ask, how did he become aware of and interested in this Jewish book? Why would he go through the expense and time to read it if God was not already speaking to and revealing the spiritual truth to him that he was obviously hungry for?

 

[Joseph77]

The "full explanation" Phillip lived and spoke, was perfectly in total harmony with all the other messengers of God in the NT at that time (and since then for true messengers abiding in Jesus and His Word abiding in them/us) ....

Knowing that someone repenting must be immersed in Jesus' Name in water, is perfectly in truth in harmony with all of God's Word and Revelation in Christ Jesus - though it has been often refused and denied by those who oppose Jesus.

 

[Candidus]

The "full explanation" Phillip lived and spoke, was perfectly in total harmony with all the other messengers of God in the NT at that time (and since then for true messengers abiding in Jesus and His Word abiding in them/us) ....

Knowing that someone repenting must be immersed in Jesus' Name in water, is perfectly in truth in harmony with all of God's Word and Revelation in Christ Jesus - though it has been often refused and denied by those who oppose Jesus.

Nonsense! To suggest that if someone does not buy into heathen immersion that they are not in harmony with God's Word and "oppose Jesus" is an appeal to "logical consistency" and philosophy. It is an "assumption" that "harmony" cannot be found in any other way. Because it "works for you" and "makes sense to you" does not validate that others have a defective faith.

 

[Joseph77]

Heathen/ungodly/ untrue posters post heathen ideas against Scripture.

The enemy loves it and the world churches can get along with 'Christians' as long as they are not obedient to God's Word , as long as they are not immersed in Jesus' Name. Once someone is saved and immersed in Jesus' Name, they are rejected by those who are sons of disobedience. Until then, no worries- this continues daily... since the first century everywhere.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

We do not know the extant of the eunuch's reading in Isaiah, nor are we privy to everything that may have been said between Phillip and the eunuch. The Bible was not divided into chapters and verses as we have today. In Isaiah 52:15, we find these words, “So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him;” Purification with water was common in Judaism, and while we do not know the full "explanation" that Phillip gave the eunuch, or the understanding that the eunuch had of Christianity or Judaism that he already may have been exposed to, is not known. Copies of Scripture were expensive and rare. How the eunuch acquired the book of Isaiah is not known. One could ask, how did he become aware of and interested in this Jewish book? Why would he go through the expense and time to read it if God was not already speaking to and revealing the spiritual truth to him that he was obviously hungry for?

All day dreamer’s dreaming.

We do know where in Isaiah the eunuch ostensibly was reading, 8:32,33.

We do read what had been said between Phillip and the eunuch, and more. Verse 37 isn’t authentic, where for obvious absence of genuine worship some scribe must have inserted Paul’s saying in Romans 10:9,10.

In Isaiah 52:15, we find these words, “So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him”. The eunuch didn't care if <<purification with water was common in Judaism>> or not. In any case, so what if it was or if the eunuch cared? He didn’t care to be “baptised IN THE NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” the only Name by which man must be saved to be really saved. The eunuch instead asked Philip if Isaiah wrote of himself or of another person, 8:34. No one knows for what; maybe he saw himself as the rightful owner of the chariot.

We do know that Phillip gave the eunuch no explanation-- he drove off giving Phillip no opportunity to explain. And again, there is no verse 37!

It is obvious the eunuch had no understanding of Christianity from whichever angle while it is evident he had no low view of his own religious ideas.

<<Judaism that he already may have been exposed to, is not known>>, so it would have been useless information if we had any.

<<Copies of Scripture were expensive and rare. How the eunuch acquired the book of Isaiah is not known.>> So it helps us nothing with nothing.

<<One could ask, how did he become aware of and interested in this Jewish book? Why would he go through the expense and time to read it if God was not already speaking to and revealing the spiritual truth to him that he was obviously hungry for?>> <<Obviously hungry>> for the <spiritual truth> in the Book of Isaiah? But he did not let Phillip tell him, but without provocation had much to tell Phillip about anything but whom "the prophet wrote about"!

Please...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I clearly recall when the first cell-phones became available, how everybody went about with it against an ear and loudly spoke so everybody could see and hear. Meantime no air-time and no one on the other end... not even satellite coverage or reception...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The enemy of faith, the destroyer, has worked ever since the first century to prevent anyone from being immersed in Jesus' Name.

Absolutely! And succeeded the enemy succeeded he-- instead of "IN THE NAME" have them baptised in water!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The enemy loves it and the world churches can get along with 'Christians' as long as they are not obedient to God's Word , as long as they are not immersed in Jesus' Name. Once someone is saved and immersed in Jesus' Name, they are rejected by those who are sons of disobedience. Until then, no worries- this continues daily... since the first century everywhere.

Again, absolutely!