Believer's Baptism

[Sparko]

I'm not afraid of water, I just don't see why my infant baptism wouldn't be valid. My conscious and voluntary confession that I want to live as a Christian should be enough to validate my baptism, regardless of how long the duration between the physical act and my act of confessing with the mouth.

Luckily I think you are still saved even if you don't get re-baptized. :-)

But I don't see any infants being baptized in the bible. So if you actually DO believe that baptism saves you, and everyone in the bible did it as a conscious choice and not as an infant, maybe you need to rethink doing it.

[Cow Poke]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

I'm suddenly having Deja Vu remembering Mickiel - how we tried our best to show him that, and he kept going on and on about universal salvation. And I want to get into that. But I walk alone.

[Sparko]

That interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. The discussion that Jesus has with Nicodemus is about what is required for a man to be born again. In that case why would he even mention that being born of water is a requirement to be born again, since by your interpretation everyone already is born of water? Saying that you have to be born of water to be born again implies that there are people who aren't born of water.

No he is just saying you have to be born AGAIN. How can you be born AGAIN if you weren't born in the first place. He then goes on to explain how being born of the spirit is being born again. First you are born of woman, then you are born of spirit. Thus: "again"

[JonathanL]

Jesus was contrasting a natural birth with a spiritual rebirth. "Water" is a natural birth (you are born in water: amniotic fluid) - If you want to call baptism the water, then you would be saying that the spiritual rebirth can't be baptism since they are being contrasted. He explains it in the next verse: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." - there is no mention of baptism, only belief.

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Check my answer to Cow Poke. The interpretation that it refers to physical birth doesn't make any sense to me, since adding "being born of water" as a requirement to be born again implies that not everyone is born of water. If physical birth is what Jesus meant when he said "born of water", then Him adding that as a requirement doesn't make any sense, since everyone is already born physically, and so adding it as a requirement is unnecessary.

[Cow Poke]

That interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. The discussion that Jesus has with Nicodemus is about what is required for a man to be born again. In that case why would he even mention that being born of water is a requirement to be born again, since by your interpretation everyone already is born of water? Saying that you have to be born of water to be born again implies that there are people who aren't born of water.

He was adding the component of the spiritual - it wasn't enough just to be "born" -- I've had people say "Well, I'm a Christian - I was practically BORN in Church". I always ask them, "well, if a cat crawled into an oven and gave birth to kittens, would you call them muffins?"

[JonathanL]

Luckily I think you are still saved even if you don't get re-baptized. :-)

But I don't see any infants being baptized in the bible. So if you actually DO believe that baptism saves you, and everyone in the bible did it as a conscious choice and not as an infant, maybe you need to rethink doing it.

Nah, I'm good. In my view God is the one who works in baptism, not us, so it doesn't matter if you got baptized as an infant or an adult.

[Cow Poke]

Nah, I'm good. In my view God is the one who works in baptism, not us, so it doesn't matter if you got baptized as an infant or an adult.

Jesus chose to be baptized as an adult.

[Just Passing Through]

I’ll toss in another perspective. I regard the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) as the gospel, the words and promises of Christ, the very same gospel that we read and hear, attached to an earthly element for the sake of making a concrete illustration that those promises aren’t just general but given to this specific individual who is baptized or tastes of the Lord’s Supper.
Just like the gospel itself, it is all about what God is giving us, not what we are doing.
It also demonstrates the holistic perspective I mentioned recently, that when Scriptures speak of baptism, it does not dissect it from the faith it creates or strengthens or the salvation that is the final result (even though in certain contexts that may be necessary, such as when one is baptized without faith, there is no forgiveness or salvation—although if the person later comes to faith, the baptism does not need to be repeated, because baptism is about God’s faithfulness, not ours). Anything that creates or strengthens faith, anything that assures us of forgiveness can be described as the whole and not just one part of it. And although one can have faith and be saved without baptism, it’s not something that one who has faith would go without, as also he wouldn’t go without some good works and sanctification.
I also believe babies can be brought to faith by baptism. As I also suggested recently, the essence of faith is not how much you know or who or what you decide to trust, but whether God has made his home in the heart and made one alive, and he can do so in babies’ hearts (as he did in John the Baptist before he was even born), maybe even more easily and fully than adults, since they don’t bring all the skepticism and objections ‘smarter’ people have to overcome.

[Cow Poke]

I’ll toss in another perspective. I regard the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) as the gospel, the words and promises of Christ, the very same gospel that we read and hear, attached to an earthly element for the sake of making a concrete illustration that those promises aren’t just general but given to this specific individual who is baptized or tastes of the Lord’s Supper.
Just like the gospel itself, it is all about what God is giving us, not what we are doing.
It also demonstrates the holistic perspective I mentioned recently, that when Scriptures speak of baptism, it does not dissect it from the faith it creates or strengthens or the salvation that is the final result (even though in certain contexts that may be necessary, such as when one is baptized without faith, there is no forgiveness or salvation—although if the person later comes to faith, the baptism does not need to be repeated, because baptism is about God’s faithfulness, not ours). Anything that creates or strengthens faith, anything that assures us of forgiveness can be described as the whole and not just one part of it. And although one can have faith and be saved without baptism, it’s not something that one who has faith would go without, as also he wouldn’t go without some good works and sanctification.
I also believe babies can be brought to faith by baptism. As I also suggested recently, the essence of faith is not how much you know or who or what you decide to trust, but whether God has made his home in the heart and made one alive, and he can do so in babies’ hearts (as he did in John the Baptist before he was even born), maybe even more easily and fully than adults, since they don’t bring all the skepticism and objections ‘smarter’ people have to overcome.

You don't put blank lines between your paragraphs, so you're wrong.

Can you point to any infant baptisms in the Book of Acts, or in any of the New Testament? (I'm gonna guess you might go for maybe the jailer's family?)

[tabibito]

That interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. The discussion that Jesus has with Nicodemus is about what is required for a man to be born again. In that case why would he even mention that being born of water is a requirement to be born again, since by your interpretation everyone already is born of water? Saying that you have to be born of water to be born again implies that there are people who aren't born of water.

そうだよ　Not to mention - Paul does refer to rising from the waters of baptism as being raised to new life. ...

[JonathanL]

No he is just saying you have to be born AGAIN. How can you be born AGAIN if you weren't born in the first place. He then goes on to explain how being born of the spirit is being born again. First you are born of woman, then you are born of spirit. Thus: "again"

He was adding the component of the spiritual - it wasn't enough just to be "born" -- I've had people say "Well, I'm a Christian - I was practically BORN in Church". I always ask them, "well, if a cat crawled into an oven and gave birth to kittens, would you call them muffins?"

I'm afraid that I still don't see it. Being born again implies that you've already been born once, which would have been obvious to Nicodemus. If by "born of water" Jesus meant "physical birth" then he wasn't adding anything new to the discussion that Nicodemus didn't already know. UnlessInstead of saying (ESV) "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ", Jesus could have said "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ", and no loss of meaning would have occurred.

I simply cannot see how adding "of water" adds anything semantically meaningful to the text if it simply means "being born physically".

EDIT: Changed "unless" to "instead" because I'm a stupid furiner who doesn't know how to English.

[Sparko]

Nah, I'm good. In my view God is the one who works in baptism, not us, so it doesn't matter if you got baptized as an infant or an adult.

Well I guess you are the one taking your chances.

Myself, I got baptized three times (OBP is mad about that seems to think it is frivolous) - I was baptized as an infant (mom was catholic) - then I lived a live without God until I was around 40. Then I finally got saved at my mom's baptist church in the boonies in another state from where I lived. Once I found a church home up here, I wanted to join. In order to become a member I either had to have a letter from my mom's church saying I was baptized, or I would have to get baptized again. It would not have been easy or quick to get the letter from my mom's church (not to mention my new church was nondenominational and my mom's church was old timey baptist and I was worried he wouldn't send the letter) so I got baptized again.

I think I am covered. Unless the anabaptists were correct, and then I am doomed.

[Cow Poke]

そうだよ　Not to mention - Paul does refer to rising from the waters of baptism as being raised to new life. ...

"buried in your sins [down into the water]... raised to new life through Jesus Christ our Lord...."

(We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life)

[mossrose]

He was adding the component of the spiritual - it wasn't enough just to be "born" -- I've had people say "Well, I'm a Christian - I was practically BORN in Church". I always ask them, "well, if a cat crawled into an oven and gave birth to kittens, would you call them muffins?"

You might.

"Here, Muffin!"

[Cow Poke]

I'm afraid that I still don't see it.....

I loves ya anyway! I'm guessing this is a fruitless exercise, so I'm backing out.