Is baptimal regeneration biblical?

[BreadOfLife]

No cooperation required outside of faith. Like I said, such a superficial couldn't possibly have any meritorious efficacy, even ask a 12 year old, for even they can tell the difference. Water does not purify a heart, God does not want clean clothes or skin in heaven, but sanctified hearts and minds.

And once again - you don't READ the posts.

I have repeatedly stated - as doe Scripture that water is the MEANS by which we are Baptized - not the ENDS.
Peter makes the analogy that we are saved THROUGH water - not BY water (1 Pet. 3:21).

This last post of your is just a desperate and bogus argument . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

...understood, I don't think that i actually expounded on it anyhow, just an attempt to refute the compulsory aspect of it.
There are several baptisms referred to in the Bible. Baptism into the faith, baptism of the spirit, baptism with water. Thus, not every mention of baptism implies water related (sprinkling, submersion, dunking). The only two New Testament that are explicit, is Philip and the Ethiopian (the proselyte), and Cornelius and his household (1st Gentile conversion). Thus, even the day of Pentecost where 3,000 were saved, mentions that they were baptized, but do we actually believe that after being convicted in their hearts, there was a necessity to get 3,000 men into a river in order to solidify their salvation - no, they were baptized into the name of Christ Jesus.
Paul travelled throughout Asia Minor and Europe, and saved many on the spur of the moment, does one believe that there was any strategy to stay close to a body or source of water? Or, after the fact, to consider the logistics of getting so many people, in so many different environments and conditions, to an area where all can go through such a ritual - for what?

I believe that the significance of John's baptism, in such an distinct an overt manner, was because the tangible and source of faith had not arrived. There had to be a physical sign to emphasize such a novel era that was just around the corner - it added to the weight and symbolism to his message.

Yes, Christ was baptized, and water baptism continued even after Jesus started his ministry (his own disciples baptized people). But, due to the lack of emphasis on it once the Spirit arrived (as I explained above), plus the strictly superficial nature of the act, I'm extremely hesitant to see it as an obligatory requirement towards salvation.

As usual I thank you for you direct and full answer to my question, even as I completely disagree with you on this matter

 

[DNB]

And once again - you don't READ the posts.

I have repeatedly stated - as doe Scripture that water is the MEANS by which we are Baptized - not the ENDS.
Peter makes the analogy that we are saved THROUGH water - not BY water (1 Pet. 3:21).

This last post of your is just a desperate and bogus argument . . .

No, it's not. You are underscoring my position by relegating baptism to a non-essential regulation or sacrament. That is all I'm saying, it is not compulsory for the reasons that you stated - does not gain or procure salvation, and for my reasons - it fundamentally and intrinsically cannot.

 

[DNB]

As usual I thank you for you direct and full answer to my question, even as I completely disagree with you on this matter

Likewise, thank you for your interest and engagement - you know I'm not surprised, eh? lol!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Likewise, thank you for your interest and engagement - you know I'm not surprised, eh? lol!

Yeah, I'm of the camp of: baptism itself doesn't save you, but all believers should be baptized as part of their walk with Christ.

 

[DNB]

Yeah, I'm of the camp of: baptism itself doesn't save you, but all believers should be baptized as part of their walk with Christ.

Interesting, ...yeah, I fail to see the efficacy?
So, in your opinion, it's not mandatory but just a good idea, or you feel that there is some substantive value in the act?

At best, I can see that maybe the open profession has value to others - causes the outsider to take note of the conviction? Outside of that, and as far as the recipient is concerned, it appears as just a superfluous act that has as much edifying potency as taking part in the eucharist - zero?
Thanks!

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, it's not. You are underscoring my position by relegating baptism to a non-essential regulation or sacrament. That is all I'm saying, it is not compulsory for the reasons that you stated - does not gain or procure salvation, and for my reasons - it fundamentally and intrinsically cannot.

And the BIBLE says you're DEAD wrong . . .

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Gal. 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col. 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

Tit. 3:4-8
"... but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

1 Pet. 3:21
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,

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Interesting, ...yeah, I fail to see the efficacy?
So, in your opinion, it's not mandatory but just a good idea, or you feel that there is some substantive value in the act?

At best, I can see that maybe the open profession has value to others - causes the outsider to take note of the conviction? Outside of that, and as far as the recipient is concerned, it appears as just a superfluous act that has as much edifying potency as taking part in the eucharist - zero?
Thanks!

Hey - no skimping out on your discipleship!
If you are a believer, then you should indeed be baptized. It is you formally making a convent with your Lord, formally taking on His name. The official-ness is important. Just like officially getting married is important, or officially adopting a child.

The water itself isn't magical. Doing it without belief is hollow. But a believer should indeed do it-- no skimping on discipleship.

 

[DNB]

And the BIBLE says you're DEAD wrong . . .

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Gal. 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col. 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

Tit. 3:4-8
"... but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

1 Pet. 3:21
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,

try and learn about the various meanings and contexts of baptism. You can be baptized into Christ, Baptized with the Spirit, '...they only knew John's baptism...', etc,, Appreciate what the Scriptures are conveying here, water baptism is not sufficient, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus. You are giving it an exclusive meaning when the context does not warrant it, nor does wisdom.

 

[DNB]

Hey - no skimping out on your discipleship!
If you are a believer, then you should indeed be baptized. It is you formally making a convent with your Lord, formally taking on His name. The official-ness is important. Just like officially getting married is important, or officially adopting a child.

The water itself isn't magical. Doing it without belief is hollow. But a believer should indeed do it-- no skimping on discipleship.

Do you truly believe that it will make a difference? For example, can you even tell if I have been baptized or not (prior to our conversation)?
Am I able to baptize myself, or must I go to an ordained priest, if so, of which denomination? Do I sprinkle, dunk or submerge? What if I have skin issues and need treated water (bit of a stretch)? Either way, you see how mechanical the process becomes.
But, you have a good point with the marriage equation, except for the fact that one is secular and the other eternal - so maybe the analogy is not commensurate?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Do you truly believe that it will make a difference? For example, can you even tell if I have been baptized or not (prior to our conversation)?
Am I able to baptize myself, or must I go to an ordained priest, if so, of which denomination? Do I sprinkle, dunk or submerge? What if I have skin issues and need treated water (bit of a stretch)? Either way, you see how mechanical the process becomes.
But, you have a good point with the marriage equation, except for the fact that one is secular and the other eternal - so maybe the analogy is not commensurate?

I'm focusing first on the purpose of baptism.

There is much value in officially & formally declaring a relationship. There's value is officially getting married rather than just shacking up. There's value in formally adopting child versus just having them live at your house. And there is value in formally taking on the Lord's name as a believer through baptism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

[QUOTE="DNB, post: 874026, member: 8457"]try and learn about the various meanings and contexts of baptism. You can be baptized into Christ, Baptized with the Spirit, '...they only knew John's baptism...', etc,, Appreciate what the Scriptures are conveying here, water baptism is not sufficient, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus. You are giving it an exclusive meaning when the context does not warrant it, nor does wisdom.[/QUOTE]
The Baptism of Christ IS to be Baptized in the Spirit (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).
Eph. 4:5-6
ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE BAPTISM, ONE God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

YOU are the one who is confused . . .

 

[DNB]

I'm focusing first on the purpose of baptism.

There is much value in officially & formally declaring a relationship. There's value is officially getting married rather than just shacking up. There's value in formally adopting child versus just having them live at your house. And there is value in formally taking on the Lord's name as a believer through baptism.

But you see, while on this earth, making that dedication, one creature to another, has value as it confers upon one who has no authority, with authority - legal ramifications. But, making an eternal confession by the ratification of water, does what, to whom? It cannot change the conviction either for the better, or for the worse. To the point that again, logistically, can one be acceptably baptized without only two people in the room i.e. the officiate and the recipient? If so, who benefited?

 

[DNB]

[QUOTE="DNB, post: 874026, member: 8457"]try and learn about the various meanings and contexts of baptism. You can be baptized into Christ, Baptized with the Spirit, '...they only knew John's baptism...', etc,, Appreciate what the Scriptures are conveying here, water baptism is not sufficient, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus. You are giving it an exclusive meaning when the context does not warrant it, nor does wisdom.

The Baptism of Christ IS to be Baptized in the Spirit (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).
Eph. 4:5-6
ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE BAPTISM, ONE God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

YOU are the one who is confused . . .[/QUOTE]
Point is, to be baptized into Christ, which is, as you said, being baptized in the Spirit, entirely overrides and relegates to the realm of obsolete, being baptized in water.
I'm glad that you now have learnt to distinguish the varied usage of Baptism in the Bible. Water baptism foreshadowed the Spirit's baptism, that was its sole significance - the necessity to become cleansed, and only Christ can do that, no water or detergent in the world.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

But you see, while on this earth, making that dedication, one creature to another, has value as it confers upon one who has no authority, with authority - legal ramifications. But, making an eternal confession by the ratification of water, does what, to whom? It cannot change the conviction either for the better, or for the worse. To the point that again, logistically, can one be acceptably baptized without only two people in the room i.e. the officiate and the recipient? If so, who benefited?

Baptism is a covenant with God. By His power. Wherein a person formally declares their devotion to Him and takes on His name, and embraced by Him.

 

[theefaith]

No, we need all these things on order to rightly divide God's Word. It's called hermeneutics - recognizing the multiplicity of literary devices that have been used throughout Scriptures, ....irrespective of one's denomination.

There are no denominations in the Bible only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18 you have no authority to read the Bible and make doctrine for yourself, there is only one faith eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and you have to be taught!


We must be taught by Peter, the apostles, and their successors! Lk 10:16 Matt 28:19 Jn 21:17

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

 

[Jane_Doe22]

There are no denominations in the Bible only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18

Everyone agrees that God only has one Truth.

However, only Catholics believe that Truth = what the Catholic Church teaches in exactness. It is one denomination of thousands. Quoting Matt 16:18 doesn't convince anyone to join that particular view point, any more than me quoting is convinces you to join the "Mormon" church or to join DNB's particular views.

 

[theefaith]

Everyone agrees that God only has one Truth.

However, only Catholics believe that Truth = what the Catholic Church teaches in exactness. It is one denomination of thousands. Quoting Matt 16:18 doesn't convince anyone to join that particular view point, any more than me quoting is convinces you to join the "Mormon" church or to join DNB's particular views.

hi Jane how are you?

the Bible only has one faith eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and the New Testament constantly say be of one mind and one heart acts 4:32 1 pet 3:8 also we must be taught, and Only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Baptism of Christ IS to be Baptized in the Spirit (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).
Eph. 4:5-6
ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE BAPTISM, ONE God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

YOU are the one who is confused . . .

Point is, to be baptized into Christ, which is, as you said, being baptized in the Spirit, entirely overrides and relegates to the realm of obsolete, being baptized in water.
I'm glad that you now have learnt to distinguish the varied usage of Baptism in the Bible. Water baptism foreshadowed the Spirit's baptism, that was its sole significance - the necessity to become cleansed, and only Christ can do that, no water or detergent in the world.[/QUOTE]
This is absolute anti-Biblical nonsense.

I have shown you verse after verse that speaks of the necessity of WATER Baptism.
- Jesus said that you cannot enter into Heaven unless you have been born again of WATER and Spirit (John 3:5).
- Peter said that WATER Baptism SAVES you (1 Pet. 3:21).
- Peter told the crown that they must be WATER Baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

On the other hand - YOU say that they were lying.
YOU go YOUR way - and I'll go with Christ . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

hi Jane how are you?

the Bible only has one faith eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and the New Testament constantly say be of one mind and one heart acts 4:32 1 pet 3:8 also we must be taught, and Only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

Hi theefaith,

the Bible only has one faith eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and the New Testament constantly say be of one mind and one heart acts 4:32 1 pet 3:8 also we must be taught, and Only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

Now, @theefaith please join the "Mormon" church and be taught by Peter's successors, and believe the one faith taught in the Bible.