John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[GracePeace]

What does that mean? Sounds like "Christianese". It's one of those things that when we hear it, we believe we know what it means. But when we stop to think about, what does it actually mean? Really.

There's a difference between the Word and the Spirit and yet they are tightly bound to one another. That was my point.

 

[GracePeace]

I asked for a reformer that baptized with metaphorical water and Enoch111 replied with John Calvin. He baptized with real, wet physical water regardless of his denial of regeneration, so Enoch's reply is meaningless. I am still waiting for a name of a mainline Protestant denomination that teaches waterless baptism.

No, you posted a link. The discussion is not to be about Catholicism versus Protestantism. If you want to bring a REASON we should see it your way that does not drag us into "Catholicism versus Protestantism", fine.

 

[Curtis]

I agree. The precedent for understanding 'water' comes from the time period itself. The gospels tell us John's baptism for repentance is what is being proclaimed during this time. Perhaps Nicodemus himself has already been baptized by John. Jesus is explaining to him that is not enough to see and enter into the kingdom of God. John and his message of repentance was only the precursor to Jesus and his message of faith and baptism in the Spirit.

And let it be clear that I do not think 'water' represents 'baptismal regeneration'. Water is simply a word that represents 'John's baptism for repentance'. Repentance in regard to the old covenant law, though required, is the futile effort of the flesh. It is fleshly effort giving birth to a fleshly man, not a spiritual man. Like Paul says in Galatians 4:30, that man, the man of fleshly, lawful effort has no share in the inheritance. Only the man who is also born of the Spirit does.

Except there wasn’t a drop of repentance in the law of Moses - their righteousness came from doing all that the law required:

Deu 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

Deu 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

As an aside, there’s no love of neighbor in the Decalogue, nor any faith required in the Mosaic covenant - they kept it or were stoned to death as required by the law, as lawbreakers.

 

[Illuminator]

No, you posted a link. The discussion is not to be about Catholicism versus Protestantism. If you want to bring a REASON we should see it your way that does not drag us into "Catholicism versus Protestantism", fine.

I am not doing that. "Waterless baptizers" are a fringe group, that is my point that you keep dodging. For the 3rd time, name a mainline Protestant denomination that teaches waterless baptism.

 

[GracePeace]

Except there wasn’t a drop of repentance in the law of Moses - their righteousness came from doing all that the law required:

Correct me if I'm wrong but Deuteronomy 4:30 "return" = "repent" ("repent" was the Hebrew "shuv" or "teshuva" which meant to "return" or "turn away from and back to") .

 

[GracePeace]

I am not doing that. "Waterless baptizers" are a fringe group, that is my point that you keep dodging. For the 3rd time, name a mainline Protestant denomination that teaches waterless baptism.

I didn't realize you were discussing with that user, all I saw was a link to "Catholicism versus Protestantism" material.

 

[Curtis]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Deuteronomy 4:30 "return" = "repent" ("repent" was the Hebrew "shuv" or "teshuva" which meant to "return" or "turn away from and back to") .

Except that repentance is for rebelling and NOT keeping the law of Moses, and not something required by the law of Moses, IMO.

 

[GracePeace]

Except that repentance is for rebelling and NOT keeping the law of Moses, and not something required by the law of Moses, IMO.

It's a stipulation in the Law though.

 

[Enoch111]

Calvin disagreed with Luther over baptismal regeneration, yet they both baptized infants.

You were asking for evidence that the Reformers did not hold to baptismal regeneration. Calvin's commentary is sufficient proof that at least Calvin discarded the idea of the water of baptism as being included in "water and Spirit".

But Luther went along with the Catholics, calling baptism "a sure sign" and teaching baptismal regeneration. Here is what he said:

"In order to arouse and strengthen faith, He also gives Baptism as a sure sign along with the Word, that He washes away and blots out our sins, constantly grants us the grace He promised in order to keep us steadfast, and gives us the Holy Spirit, etc. More will be said about this at another time. Therefore, take note of this text in which with clear words He ascribes to Baptism (which He calls “water”) the glory and efficacy that the Spirit is present and that a person is born anew through it."
Luther on the New Birth from Water and the Spirit in Baptism

The Lutherans are therefore almost Catholic in their beliefs. But I agree. They all should have been consistent in their beliefs, rather than going along with infant baptism. As a matter of fact they hounded, persecuted, and killed the Anabaptists, who rejected infant baptism. So much for inconsistency.

 

[GracePeace]

Also @Enoch111

No, He was speaking about real, wet, physical WATER AND SPIRIT. It's not a dichotomy (either/or), it's BOTH/AND. Please name any mainline Protestant denomination that teaches baptismal water is metaphorical, I haven't found any yet. While your at it, please name any major reformer that taught this recent innovation.

Ezekiel doesn't refer to baptism. The sprinkling there sounds like the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer which cleansed the defilement of death which was required for a priest to reenter the Temple complex.

 

[Enoch111]

The sprinkling there sounds like the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer which cleansed the defilement of death which was required for a priest to reenter the Temple complex.

Since the context of that passage from Ezekiel is the New Birth, I would suggest that the sprinkling there is the washing with the Word of God, as indicated in Ephesians. It is God who sprinkles "clean water" upon the sinner. The context makes it clear that this is not ordinary H2O.

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my [Holy] Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)

 

[GracePeace]

@Enoch111 @Illuminator

Also @Enoch111

Ezekiel doesn't refer to baptism. The sprinkling there sounds like the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer which cleansed the defilement of death which was required for a priest to reenter the Temple complex.

Baptism was a separate and distinct rite in the Law.

 

[GracePeace]

@Illuminator

Since the context of that passage from Ezekiel is the New Birth, I would suggest that the sprinkling there is the washing with the Word of God, as indicated in Ephesians. It is God who sprinkles "clean water" upon the sinner. The context makes it clear that this is not ordinary H2O.

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my [Holy] Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)

Yes, my only point is that sprinkling of the waters of the ashes of the red heifer is distinct from water baptism.

 

[Illuminator]

You were asking for evidence that the Reformers did not hold to baptismal regeneration.

No, I asked for a reformer that didn't use water for baptism.

Calvin's commentary is sufficient proof that at least Calvin discarded the idea of the water of baptism as being included in "water and Spirit".

So what. Calvin baptized with water, there is no way around it.

But Luther went along with the Catholics, calling baptism "a sure sign" and teaching baptismal regeneration. Here is what he said:

"In order to arouse and strengthen faith, He also gives Baptism as a sure sign along with the Word, that He washes away and blots out our sins, constantly grants us the grace He promised in order to keep us steadfast, and gives us the Holy Spirit, etc. More will be said about this at another time. Therefore, take note of this text in which with clear words He ascribes to Baptism (which He calls “water”) the glory and efficacy that the Spirit is present and that a person is born anew through it."
Luther on the New Birth from Water and the Spirit in Baptism

The Lutherans are therefore almost Catholic in their beliefs. But I agree. They all should have been consistent in their beliefs, rather than going along with infant baptism. As a matter of fact they hounded, persecuted, and killed the Anabaptists, who rejected infant baptism. So much for inconsistency.

Of course you leave out the Lutherans and Calvinists who were just as guilty. A typical anti-Catholic lie by omission. We don't hold Lutherans and Calvinists accountable TODAY for centuries old extremisms, but you can't stop holding Catholics TODAY for centuries old extremisms. That is bigotry, plain and simple. It's a stupid nowhere discussion, like children in a sandbox arguing over whose daddy is ugliest. It's a derailer because waterless baptizers haven't a leg to stand on. Persecution of the Anabaptists is an off topic derailer.
Water AND spirit baptism was CONSISTENTLY accepted by every Christian who knew how to write for 2 millennia, and was never challenged accept by recent fringe groups.

 

[GracePeace]

Of course you leave out the Lutherans and Calvinists who were just as guilty. A typical anti-Catholic lie by omission. We don't hold Lutherans and Calvinists accountable TODAY for centuries old extremisms, but you can't stop holding Catholics TODAY for centuries old extremisms. It's a stupid nowhere discussion, like children in a sandbox arguing over whose daddy is ugliest. It's a derailer because waterless baptizers haven't a leg to stand on. Persecution of the Anabaptists is an off topic derailer.
Water AND spirit baptism was CONSISTENTLY accepted by every Christian who knew how to write for 2 millennia, and was never challenged accept by recent fringe groups.

@Enoch111
Let's try and not get into "Protestantism vs Catholicism" please.

 

[Enoch111]

No, I asked for a reformer that didn't use water for baptism.

All Christians use water for baptism, so what's your point? The real issue is that the water of baptism does NOT regenerate anyone, and that is precisely what Calvin showed in his commentary.

Luther and all the others should have been in harmony, and should also have been able to see that "water and Spirit" means "the Gospel and the Holy Spirit". Without the Gospel there is no saving faith (Rom 1:17), and without saving faith there is no New Birth (John 1:12,13).

 

[Enoch111]

Let's try and not get into "Protestantism vs Catholicism" please.

Agreed. Let's focus on the spiritual truths of "water and Spirit".

 

[GracePeace]

Agreed. Let's focus on the spiritual truths of "water and Spirit".

It's hard when we have these people literally on Rome's payroll (eg, BOL, possibly also Illuminator) here leading the conversation in that direction.

 

[Illuminator]

All Christians use water for baptism, so what's your point? The real issue is that the water of baptism does NOT regenerate anyone, and that is precisely what Calvin showed in his commentary.

No, the real issue is the recent man made tradition that one does not need water to baptize.

 

[Curtis]

It's a stipulation in the Law though.

You’ll have to show me with chapter and verse. Thanks.