Believer's Baptism

[tabibito]

...in the darkness.





And I want to get in to* this.

*into

without thanks for reviving the nightmare.

[JonathanL]

He didn't add it as a requirement, he added it as an explanation. You can't have a new birth without having a first birth Nicodemus was confused and thought Jesus was talking about being physically born again so Jesus explained that sure you needed a natural birth but then you needed a second birth to get eternal life.

When I read "born of water and the Spirit", I read it as "born of (water and the Spirit)", not as "born of (water) and (the Spirit)". If Jesus was talking about first being born physically, and then spiritually I would have expected something like "unless one is born of water and then born of the Spirit", or "unless one is born of the Spirit after being born of water". But if He is talking about two different events here, then saying "born of water and the Spirit" doesn't make that very clear at all.

It makes perfect and plain sense to me. Maybe because you are not a native english speaker? How does it read in Finnish?

All the Swedish

Or maybe you just don't want to "get it" so you are kinda squeezing your eyes closed here?

I'll do you the favor of not accusing you of "wanting to not get it" simply because you disagree with me, and instead assume that you might actually have a valid reason for understanding the text differently than me.

[Cow Poke]

*into

without thanks for reviving the nightmare.

I can't believe Rogue brought that up!

[JonathanL]

I can't believe Rogue brought that up!

And I want to get into that.

[tabibito]

When I read "born of water and the Spirit", I read it as "born of (water and the Spirit)",

Correct. One action - two nouns, neither having the article. (but that's Koine grammar).

All the Swedish

precise match for the Koine Greek.

I'll do you the favor of not accusing you of "not getting it" simply because you disagree with me, and instead assume that you might actually have a valid reason for understanding the text differently from me.

It is scholarly Theology. The scholar that invented the story didn't like the idea that baptism was requirement (it's a work don't you know?).

[rogue06]

I'm glad you did - I was just pickin on you.

One or the other oughta workificate

[JonathanL]

Paul claimed that Baptism was the action by which a person crucified the flesh. Rom 6:5-6, that in baptism we are buried with him and raised to new life Rom 6:4, Col 2:12

Colossians 2:8-13 seems to teach that it is God who is doing the act of crucifying the flesh in baptism, not the one who undergoes baptism:

Scripture Verse: Col 2:8-13 ESV

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Why name cats? They never come when you call!

[tabibito]

Colossians 2:8-13 seems to teach that it is God who is doing the act of crucifying the flesh in baptism, not the one who undergoes baptism:

It is passive, true enough

[mossrose]

Only at Tweb can you have a discussion on infant baptism derail into a thread about cats.

[tabibito]

Only at Tweb can you have a discussion on infant baptism derail into a thread about cats.

It IS the TWeb way to do things ... and the cats are herded through water, so it's all good.

[NorrinRadd]

Ok, this thread has literally gone from zero to 80-something while I was sleeping, so I've only read a little of it. Sorry if this has been answered already.

I was reading your post again.

So what do you mean by sacrament? I believe baptism is a holy ceremony. I don't think it saves you but it is holy and sacred.

Some (many?) churches call it an "ordinance" rather than a "sacrament." I think the distinction is "instruction to be obeyed" rather than "means of grace."

As an adult, I have only belonged to churches that practice "believer's" baptism (C&MA and Independent Assemblies of God). Neither those, nor (AFAIK) most other credo-baptism churches consider it necessary for salvation. Neither consider it necessary for "membership." (Those churches rarely even mentioned "membership." I'm not sure it even existed.)

[Thoughtful Monk]

My view is that

1. You are obeying Christ who said to do it.
2. You are proclaiming your allegiance to Christ, to your fellow Christians and to the world. If is a form of confessing Christ as your Lord and Savior
3. It symbolizes dying and being reborn.

My position as well. I would add one would have to be an adult to be able to understand and attest to these. Children are certainly members of the church community. They just can't be full members until they reach the age of accountability and have learned and believe the Gospel.

[NorrinRadd]

I see that some of the discussion has turned to John 3. Here are Keener's notes from the Bible Background Commentary

[Cow Poke]

Neither consider it necessary for "membership." (Those churches rarely even mentioned "membership." I'm not sure it even existed.)

I think that "membership" becomes important depending on the type of church government. If the congregation can vote on matters like salaries, purchasing buildings, spending money - there needs to be some mechanism to assure only those who are 'members' vote. In churches where the membership doesn't really get to vote on policy and fiances and stuff, there's no real need to have a formal "membership".

There was a Baptist church about 90 miles from me where the "membership" was about 40 people, and they had a nice church building. Another nearby congregation of another denomination began systematically sending people to "join" that Church, and there were no safeguards in place to prevent sufficient new 'members' from joining such that the "new people" reached a majority, and voted to change the Church's name and denomination and install their own pastor.