A New re-Interpreation of the Bible?

RE : /// John 3:5 "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of the Spirit. He should also be baptized at some point, but it’s only a formality.”///

You believe that "born of water" means being baptized in water ?

That is called Baptismal regeneration and is rejected by most of the Speakers on SI.

When you are born of something you become that thing.

I asked you before and so I will ask you again, so what about George Fox whom rejected water Baptism do you not believe he was saved ?

It is doubtful that those whom read church history through the lens of the Scriptures will come to many of the same conclusions as those whom read the Scriptures through the Lens of church history.

RE : /// George Fox was an anomaly, was used of God but is not an example for these things. I believe God had grace on these things but it is not the good example for believers. Though his prophetic messages against church abuse, hirelings, greed etc were from the Lord.///

I agree with that
The proper role of Baptism has been replaced by "alter call" "sinners prayer" etc.

But when you interput "born of water" as water baptism
Than those whom are not Baptized into water such as George Fox : "cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Bro Greg, Jesus never taught us to read the Scriptures through the lens of Tradition he taught strongly against it !

edit changed "role call" to "alter call"

There are some passages in scripture for which interpretation is not nearly so easy as other. This is one of those cases, but I think context has to rule here. Jesus amplifies this passage with a parallel passage. He says, "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit." Water and Spirit are amplified or explained with flesh and Spirit. So, I must conclude that the water referred to here has nothing to do with baptism, but rather with the "watery" human birth from flesh. In other words, Jesus is helping Nicodemus understand that the rebirth is that of the spirit, not of the human body.

So, in my opinion, this verse has nothing to do with water baptism at all.

It is an interesting study but we have to conclude that the high majority of the Church since the apostles water baptized and treated it very reverently and important as "part" of salvation process.

Baptism is important or Jesus would never have commanded that we do it. I know there have been countless threads here dealing with the subject of water baptism. I think to consider it necessary to regeneration is to go a beyond what scripture says. It would require some stretching of scripture.

However, I like to look at it this way. If you have truly partaken in the baptism of Jesus death and been born again, why would your heart not long to follow Him in the picture or symbol of that marvelous exchange of life? It would make absolutely no sense at all. If I have been born again, my heart should long to do all that Jesus commanded that I do. And how much more should I long to physically symbolize before the world the most significant event of my entire life, the one in which I was transferred from death to life?

Hi Twayneb,

On the significance of water baptism - are you aware of Scripture verses which suggest that water baptism is a public declaration of faith for the individual?

I was raised Lutheran til age 10ish. Recently I have begun to revisit those Lutheran roots and infant baptism is a part of that theology. They point to baptism for salvation, for the forgiveness of sins and that is what the early church practiced.

I don't agree with baptismal regeneration myself but one has go to ask why was it so important to be water baptized? Let look at the Egyptian Enuch who was baptized out in the middle of nowhere. He didn't do it for a public statement but out of obedience. What do you suppose happened there in terms of baptism?

The Philipian jailer was baptized and his whole household. He was told to repent and be baptized and we often see 'repent and be baptized for the remission of sins'.

The Red Sea seems to be a kind of example of baptism as well.

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” John 19:30, KJV.

What is "It" that Jesus said He "finished"?

Can something be added to that which is "finished"?

Brother dspks wrote ; "What is "It" that Jesus said He "finished"?

The work His Father gave Him to do....

Tho after that He commanded ; "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
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:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

Bro Greg, Lent, St. Benedict and now this ??

RE : /// Matt: 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, but on the Bible, not you, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it almost immediately, and the truth will be lost until the Reformation.///

Catholics teach that Peter was the rock that was speaking of in that verse.
Those whom promote hierarchy teach that.

I am not aware of anyone whom teaches that the Bible is what is being referred to Matt: 16:18 ?

I believe most Bible Believers come to a similar conclusion of those verse as what Harry Ironside did :

Is Peter the Rock Upon Which the Church is Built?
By Dr. Harry A. Ironside | 1935

https://www.moodymedia.org/articles/peter-rock-upon-which-church-built/

I was baptized before I even truly believed in Christ. My parents required that I go to church. Instead of fighting it (like I previously did), I discovered that it was easier for me to "play the part." So, I went to church and participated in things like youth group a few times. All the while, I never truly believed in God.

During that time, my mom encouraged me to get baptized. After I agreed, I signed me up for the class at the local church that explained what baptism was. Like everything else that was part of the church, I was completely bored by it. A few weeks later, I did get baptized. However, it really meant nothing to me other than an attempt to make my mom happy and to go through the motions of fulfilling a requirement in case God was real.

After I came to believe in Christ and gave my life to the Lord, I immediately began reading the Word of God. I never really paid attention in church or Sunday School prior to having met the Lord. So, when I began reading the Word of God, I was motivated to "get it right." I willingly discarded everything that I had ever been taught up to that point (especially since most of it was more or less a "blur" and confusing).

After having read the New Testament a few times, I understood the importance of baptism. I was quickly convinced that my baptism prior to having believed amounted to little more than getting dunked in a tub in a church building in front of a congregation.

So, I actually went into one of our bathrooms one night to baptize myself. No one was home (except me) and I even wore clothes when I sat into the bathtub.

Still, I had questions about the validity of baptizing myself (and, particularly, alone). Over the course of a year, I studied baptism in the Scriptures and in as many books that I could find. I decided that it was important enough to get right. I know that my motives were pure in baptizing myself, but I felt that a public observance of this command was important. So, I quietly asked my youth pastor to baptize me (again) while we were at summer camp.

I think that the Word of God is clear enough on the importance of baptism -- even after the death and resurrection of Christ -- that it convinced someone who really didn't know much about church teachings on the matter. Do I think that baptism is necessary to go to Heaven? No, not really. The thief who died alongside Christ wasn't baptized. He simply believed in Jesus. Still, it is clearly important in the Gospels as well as the epistles.

Like twayneb said, I felt inclined -- overjoyed -- to fulfill a command of the Lord.

Wow, Chris - this is the first time I've heard of someone baptizing himself! It's funny, in a good way :) The things that one does when in love with the Lord.

I have a question, similar to the one I had posed earlier: Can you point out where in Scripture is baptism described as a public declaration of faith?

Hi yuehan,

Haha...thanks. It is humorous to look back on it. At the time, I was really wrestling with it.

I don't think that there are any passages in Scripture that explicitly refer to baptism as a "public declaration of faith." I think that it can be implied when you consider all of the passages dealing with baptism. Regardless, it is certainly an outward act that symbolizes something that has already taken place.

Without the symbolism, observance aspects, a person to actually "baptize" you and, of course, spiritual obedience, a "baptism" would be no different than bathing or swimming.

In most cases of baptisms in the Bible, they took place with people around. We know that the Lord commissioned us to "baptize" (Matthew 28:19). This obviously implies that someone is baptized by someone else. In virtually all cases of baptism described in the New Testament, there are people gathered together. The only case that I can find where there was possibly no one else around was when Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 10:26-40).

When the Ethiopian eunuch had the passage from Isaiah (and the good news) explained to him, he questioned what would prevent him from being baptized. They both went into the water and Phillip subsequently baptized the man (and was was taken away by the Lord to another area). We don't know if anyone else was around. They were simply in some water along the road between Jerusalem and Gaza (Acts 10:26, 36).

I know that some New Testament scholars will argue that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant (in this case, a NEW covenant) between the Lord and his people. This is usually reinforced by Colossians 2:9-15.

This passage implies that baptism is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ -- being "buried" into the waters of death and then rising from it. This apparently rules out the "sprinkling." I find it interesting that the baptism described here is a symbol of our Lord's death and resurrection even though John had been baptizing with water years before the cross.

This is an interesting point about baptism. When the Pharisees confronted Jesus and questioned him about his authority to teach, Jesus turned the tables on them. In Matthew 21:25, Jesus asked them, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" The Pharisees were caught in a dilemma. They reasoned that if they responded that it was from God, Jesus would ask, "Why did ye not believe him?" In other words, they implied that Jesus held that baptism was from God.

There are several extra-biblical historical descriptions about baptism too. From the Didache to Tertullian to Cyprian, there are several historical references to baptism from the first few centuries of Christianity. While such accounts certainly cannot be esteemed as canon or truth (and may very well be early perversions of the faith or the amalgamation of Christianity with first century Judaism [or, as with the Didache, possibly the works of Judaizers]), it does seem that it was viewed historically as something of a public declaration or symbol.

In a sense, the act of baptism might be like the act of marriage. A bride and groom can get married alone by a preacher or even public official (or, in the first century, by agreeing in contract via a ketubah or mohar); however, a marriage ceremony and/or breakfast/dinner is usually done as a public symbol of the joining of the bride and groom in matrimony.

I suppose that no one can say for certain that it is a "public declaration" -- but it certainly can be (and often is). Of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, only the one in which Phillip baptized the eunuch was possibly done with no one else around (and we don't know for certain if they were alone).

I think that the idea of baptism from Acts 10:44-48 is what really convinced me of the need for baptism -- even though I had already come to know the Lord (and was baptized with the Spirit).

RE : /// John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. Not corporately, of course, but individually. Each Christian will be personally guided into all truth. Let each one be sure in his own mind that he is personally guided by the Holy Spirit, even if every other Christian interprets the Bible differently than he does.”///

Why not just use the actual Scripture ?

1 John 2:26 :

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

How can any one say that Christians are not capable of reading the Word of God and getting the mind of the Lord when the Holy Spirit has been sent from heaven for the express purpose of opening the truth to those who honestly seek that truth and are prepared to walk according to it?

Our blessed Lord said of the Holy Spirit, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). Imagine a man cast out on a desert island with nothing but a copy of the Bible, no teacher, no clergy man, no priest, no church, no other books of any kind to instruct him. Do you mean to say that that man is left without the possibility of acquiring sufficient truth for the saving of his soul because he is beyond the reach of the visible church? Surely not. Wherever a man honestly seeks to know the mind of God, the Holy Spirit is there to reveal the truth to him.

They tell us that we must not use private judgment but must accept the judgment of the council and the church. But how are we going to decide to accept that? Must I not use my private judgment and decide that I will forego the reasonings of my own intellect and let the councils tell me what to believe? Is that not private judgment, after all? I remember reading Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua years ago. He tells how up to the day that he decided to submit himself to the church of Rome and accept the dictum of that church as his guide, he had very grave doubts as to many of the so called Catholic doctrines such as the position given to the pope, the place given to the blessed virgin Mary, the doctrine of purgatory, the intercession of saints and so on, but he said, "When I decided to submit my judgment to the church, all these things were settled for me.” But do you not see, he had to make the decision himself. Was not that private judgment? I have investigated these things. I have read much Roman Catholic theology, I have examined a great many volumes put out by Catholic publishers and after having compared them with the Word of God, my private judgment tells me that I dare not trust the salvation of my soul to the decision of popes or councils if they go contrary to the Book. I am resting upon what this Book reveals as to God’s way of salvation and if it tells me that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built and that there is no salvation except for those who are in the church founded by Peter, I want to know it, but I must find out from the Book.

add : excerpt from : Is Peter the Rock Upon Which the Church is Built?
By Dr. Harry A. Ironside | 1935